I don’t agree with David’s argument that Parliament should defer to the public on matters of criminal law. It’s an area where Parliament needs to analyse the problem and choose what it believes is right, even if that may be unpopular. The number of seats in Parliament, on the other hand, is something that politicians should have no say in whatsoever as they have a hopeless conflict of interest. The public have already voted on that and David is pleased they were ignored.

[DPF: I disagree. The number of MPs in Parliament doesn't really affect the average person. It is a minor trivial issue. The criminal code does greatly affect the average person and you should not have things as crimes which the vast majority of the population say should not be a crime]

Watch violence drop as order is restored-particularly in schools where teachers apparently feel unsafe in the playground.

Time for a law change. Smacking is the right thing to do as part of good parental discipline and if you don’t agree with me fine. Just stop imposing your views of parenting on everyone else.

I think we need to have someone of honesty and principle like Rodney Hide having a major say around Mr Keys table to get fairness and Justice done for kiwis.

My boy thinks John Key looks smarmy and maybe thats the truth out of thew mouth of babes.
I just think that if John Key and National have broken the social compact with us. We should never trust them in power alone again.
Party Vote ACT to keep Key honest.
How hard is that?

1. If the law stays unchanged but police are ”invited’ or ‘encouraged’to not prosecute then parents who smack have committed a criminal act but will not be prosecuted.
2. If the Burrows amendment is added to the law then parents who smack have not commited a criminal act. They are not reported to CYFS and not reported to the Police

Nearly 90% of New Zealand actually voted for Option 2

Mr Key No deals no compromise no fudging no reviews. Give the people what they have asked for.
It. costs you nothing.

Could this be a political masterstroke.
Spend 48 hours making it sound like you will go for option 1 then announce that the will of the people is clear and go for option 2

That would bring thousands of Labour voters who cast their ballot for NO towards National.

Is that another way of saying he is a prostitute – a political prostitute. Three guesses why he brought bask knighthoods.

1) He genuinely believes the amendment is the right thing to do for the future of our children and our country. Or…

2) He is confident that his electoral support will enable him to ride out a brief storm, because he is concerned that the repealing the amendment will damage the international reputation of his government. That is, he doesn’t want to be known as the reactionary conservative at the APEC table. Or…

3) The internal polling suggests that most of the swinging middle ground do not want the amendment changed, or do not care enough for Key to be concerned.

Meanwhile If National have forgotten who they work for perhaps the warehouse needs to stock up on torches and pitchforks. Bring on the revolution.

The woman has her own issues.

He has reached the level of arrogance shown by Klark within twelve months, unless he does something about this law his poll ratings will drop dramatically.

I hope the bastard is rolled by the few real Nat’s inside the party, he is more suited to being on Labour’s front bench anyway.

Saying that because we don’t smack adults we shouldn’t smack kids presupposes two things:
1. The way we discipline adults actually works. (I’ll list this as reason one. No one with any common sense will argue our current discipline system for adults is actually working.)
2. Children and adults both think about things in the same manner, approach things in the same manner and therefore respond to the same stimuli. This can be number 2. You can reason with an adult, try reasoning with a two year old. there are many things we do to adults we would never do to children and vice versa.

For number 3, we can look at the disastrous consequences of removing corporal punishment from schools. the year after corporal punishment was removed expulsions increased by 34%. Within four years by nearly 112%. The MOE has twice released policy guidelines that urge teachers to lower the standard of behaviour they expect from children. It’s the only way they can think of combating the massive increase in expulsions. We were told children would become more gentle and peaceful. I think you would have to have rocks in your head to think it has worked.

For number 4, try the fact that there is virtually zero evidence that appropriate smacking causes any harm. For example, out of 133 alleged research papers on smacking (many of which are touted by the nit wits that support anti smacking over here) found that 87% had to be discounted. Why? Because they were just opinion driven editorials with no new empirical evidence.

for number 5, I’ll say this. I’m going to spend 250,000 on each of my kids on average before they leave home. Essentially, unless someone is prepared to give me at least $100K for each of them, if they want to tell me how I have to raise them, they can just f**k off.

Unfortunately, policywise Key is nothing but a poor rendition of Clark.

If a child won’t eat cabbage, should you “use a small degree of force”?

If a child won’t go to bed, should you “use a small degree of force”?

I would really be interested in seeing some examples where you think its OK to “use a small degree of force”.

Borker:
I don’t know if you are a parent. I am.

I would not smack a child if he or she can’t tie a shoelace. But I would, if that is what it took, for a child who COULD tie a shoelace and who refused to.

If a child refused to eat cabbage, or go to bed when told. You bet. That is wilful defiance. (never mind that wilful and defiance is tautological, but you get my meaning)

If you are a parent, how you bring up your child is entirely up to you. I would not display the effrontery that the backers of the repeal of section 59 have done.

As I said to a person who upbraided me after my first (and last, really) supermarket experience: these are my children, I am responsible for them, and if you want to usurp my place and tell me how to bring them up, please give me your name and address, and I’ll have them and all their gear around to your place by teatime’.

I would really be interested in seeing some examples where you think its OK to “use a small degree of force”.

borker – willful defiance, causing (or being about to cause) harm to self, others or property. And remember, ‘a small degree of force’ could be a range of measures including timeout, rapid removal from place of danger, instant cessation of privileges or a light smack.

I want to be able to choose which mechanism best suits my parenting style, my child’s personality and the actual situation. I want you to have the same freedom.

But that won’t do for you hang wringing, PC liberals who want to control how I raise my kids.

Perhaps you could give an example or 2 of WHY “…it is necessary to use a small degree of force to get them to do something they don’t want to.”.

If a child can’t tie a shoelace, should you “use a small degree of force”?

If a child won’t eat cabbage, should you “use a small degree of force”?

If a child won’t go to bed, should you “use a small degree of force”?

I would really be interested in seeing some examples where you think its OK to “use a small degree of force”.