Mt Roskill public meeting on anti-smacking law
September 6th, 2009 at 11:48 pm by David FarrarACT MP John Boscawen is holding a public meeting in Mt Roskill on Monday to put pressure on MPs to back his bill (based on the Borrows amendments) amending the anti-smacking law. This is the first in what will be a series of public meetings.
John has pointed out than in 56 of the 70 seats (including Mt Roskill), more people voted No in the referenendum than voted for the electorate MP.
The Mt Roskill meeting will be addressed by Emeritus Professor of Law Jim Evans. It starts at 7.30 pm, Mon 7 September at Hay Park School, 670 Richardson Road, Mt Roskill.
Related posts:
- Anti-Smacking Law meeting in Waimakariri tonight
- Herald on anti-smacking law
- Anti-smacking amendment proposed
- $450,000 for anti anti-smacking law march
September 7th, 2009 at 12:12 am
All kiwibloggers should wear a name tag and bring a plate lol.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Should be a good address. I think this amendment is an improvement on the current S59.
“John has pointed out than in 56 of the 70 seats (including Mt Roskill), more people voted No in the referendum than voted for the electorate MP.”
What is the relevance of this? A loaded question yes/no does not compare to a multiple choice of candidates. Were there any electorates that had a choice of two candidates where one of them was a Maori lesbian from the Socialist Unity Party and the other was pro family anti government interference?
Could John point out how many electorate votes Act got in comparison to the yes vote? That would be as relevant – ie not at all. His amendment will have strong public support, he doesn’t need to be devious with numbers.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Cerium – why should he handicap himself by playing completely fair with statistics when he would be the only politician on the planet actually doing it? It is definitely at the bottom end of the scale of deception with statistics and I believe it just reinforces the message to politicians, the amendment is more popular than they are, do something about it.
Vote:I certainly hope that if this amendment isn’t adopted that they start a new petition on whether or not referendums should be binding. The result of that will be over 90% and a turnout closer to 80% I reckon.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Yabr yabr yabr – yet another bloody referendum?
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Yes Cerium, yet another referendum if that’s what it takes. Other than marching on parliament (which would probably be ignored too) or civil unrest, how do a majority of people get their message to MPs?
I see John Key on breakfast is having a Government initiated referendum, that referendum is binding and will require only a 51% majority. Democracy in action – Tui billboard beckons.
Of course in your world a 90% vote would only reinforce the tyranny of the majority huh?
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 9:12 am
I am not against referenda for some things.
I am not against some action being taken as a result of the recent referendum.
I am against referenda being used by politicians and political parties for their own benefit.
Vote:I am against another referendum being launched to try and leverage votes in the next general election.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Well assuming boscowen and his pa turn up there should be 2 people there….
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 10:12 am
You guys are getting a little off topic. The meeting about the anti-parental authority legislation.
http://section59.blogspot.com/
John Key has moved considerably on this issue. He has acknowledged that the current Section 59 is a complete and utter dog’s breakfast. He did so in an interview with Michael Laws on RadioLive at about 11:40 am on Friday, 4 September.
You can also see that on the above link. Anyone who wants to learn how the law should work in a democracy should come and head Professor Jim Evans, Emeritus Professor of Auckland Law School. I think he knows more on this important issue the the Prime Minister who is supposed to be a law maker.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Can someone take a plate of nibbles for me as I can’t come to this one.
Vote:Thank you David for making this a separate post.
potentially it has great implications for parliament as we can move towards making it more accountable to us.
I do hope Phil Goff attends and would love at least 10% of those who voted NO at the sec 59 election to go down too.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:58 am
The reason I think it is relevant that more people voted NO in Mt. Roskill than voted for Phil Goff in the general election, is that it underscores just how overwhelming the NO vote was. In total there are only 14 electorate MPs who have a bigger personal mandate than the NO vote in the electorate.
I think both Phil Goff and John Key need to listen to the 87% who voted NO.
An overwhelming No vote does not happen by accident. Politicians make a big mistake to trat these people as fools as if they do not know what they were voting for.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 11:08 am
i thought (briefly) about attending..
then i thought..
the best it can get wd be pro-smackers and anti-smackers yelling at each other….
..so i thought a second or so longer..and went ‘nah!’..
(will the pro-smackers want to smack the anti-smackers..’cos they ‘deserve it’..?..
d’yareckon..?..)
have a good ‘shout/yell’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 11:12 am
87% stands on it’s own, you don’t need to compare apples with bananas to try and emphasise it.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Go on Phool, attend the meeting, speak up, let the rest of them (the 87% who support democracy) know why they are all wrong and why you and your commie mates are right.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
At least John is hosting public meetings on the issue – I didn’t see NZ Labour or National hosting public meetings before declaring their position of support for the amendment back in 2007…
This is a great step forward to show the government that we don’t like being ignored and we didn’t vote for those “that know whats best” – NZ voted for change and so far we have seen very little.
As much as I would love to attend I will be working, but you have my support in solidarity.
Making more noise is the key to a law change – at least we have one political party that is hosting “public meetings” again, I was beginning to think they weren’t coming back.
Well done & all the best!
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Fale Andrew Lesa, the Greens hold meetings too (for the public). IMHO I think the incentive to hold these is stronger for those who aren’t as complacent about their popularity like the big two are.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
no..it’s the 87% of the 56% who voted..
(and most of them wd possibly want teachers to be able to hit again..that dosen’t make them ‘right’..)
the ignorant reactionaries..
‘cos you can’t get past some basic facts..
1)..hitting anyone is assault..
2)..hitting is a basic failure of communication by any other form/way/means..
and as such..is more a sign of failure on the part of the hitter than anything else..
3)..you don’t need to do it..
myself..and many many others..have raised civilised children..
..without raising our hands to them..
i mean..how can you not want to know..how not to have to smack..?
(and to couch/cloak your defense of indefensible behavior..by some incoherent rallying call to ‘democracy’..?
what absolute horseshit..!..)
my 14 yr old son and i have discussed this..
and we both have total incomprehension of the idea of me ever hitting him..
..and of how/why so many people want to (‘lovingly’) smack/hit children in their ‘care’..
in fact..we both agree .. it is kinda ‘sick’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I see Jim Evans will be addressing the public meeting. I’ve sat through one of his presentations on statutory interpretation – he has a really informative style. I can’t remember what position he’s taken on this debate, but thought he did an op-ed in the NZ Herald a while back – can anyone point me to a link?
Oh – this one goes out to Philu:
I imagine Kiwiblog readers have plenty of ideas for future useful discussion topics!
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Leave it out PhilU, if 44% are to lazy to vote then that’s their problem and why is it the yes voters seem to thing the other 44% would have voted yes. Clutching at straws I would say. And you say you have discussed this with your son, boy I bet the poor kid toes the party line. Just wait till he sees through all your shit and turns to the right. I bet smacking will be the in thing then.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
oh look..!..it’s that weird/stalking lawyer-person….nosty..!..again..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
So you want to play it that way? Fine by me.
Free legal advice for Philu:
A 14-year-old can legally stay at home alone. That means your little boy can go home after school, and you can go to work! Oops, looks like your excuses for claiming the DPB have run out.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
and school holidays..?
and you are off-topic..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
This one?
Vote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10588870&pnum=0
September 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Philu:
The anti-smacking law is, broadly, about parenting practices. My original comment was on-topic – I’m still interested in Jim Evans’ position on the anti-smacking law. My follow-up comment responded to yours.
Andrew W:
That’s the op-ed I had in mind – many thanks.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
ssb..you are a strange little man..are you not..?
mind you..hitting kids is chump change for you..eh..?
seeing as you spend your days/make your money..
from being cruel to..and abusing/killing..animals..
eh bloody-hands -bob..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
1)..hitting anyone is assault..
Especially if they are about to walk in front of a bus and you tackle them out of the way.
I suppose changing children’s nappies and wiping their arse is sexual abuse also Phil? Because you wouldn’t do that to an adult he says..
Good argument.
Great to know your son can look after himself. Job time!!
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
No, I think it’s technically just assault.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
ah..sector..!
the ‘about to walk in front of a bus’ smacking-defense..!
haven’t heard that one for ..oh..!..ages..!
(what’s next..?
the ‘about to throw themselves off a cliff’-defense..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
It’s interesting how when Corporal Punishment in the 1980′s was abolished in New Zealand there was immediately a steep rise in Youth & Child crime, violence, assault and disorder.
Teachers are often threatened verbally and physically, school property is now consistently being attacked and defaced and student on student violence and bullying has risen rapidly. The issue has become so badly handled now that in some schools across South Auckland community police officers are being assigned to directly monitor these occurrences.
I wonder what the children are going to be like in five years after the passing of this amendment?
We have now waited two years and statistics clearly indicate that child abuse is still on the rise and children are still being reported to CYFS by school teachers.
These examples alone are clear proof that the State has no business in meddling with Social structures and is only making matters worse!
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
and don’t come the biblical-bullshit with me either..
that particular book of instruction/life-manual..
also advise that if someone offends you..
that you should ‘dash their infant upon the rocks’..and then ‘give thanks’..
so tell me..if knuckledraggers were to learn those (basic) parenting skills..(maybe as part of the pre-natal schema..?..)
..wouldn’t it be better if they didn’t ‘have to’ hit their children..?
i mean..f.f.s..!
how can you defend this aberrant behavior..?
i mean..why not still be able bash the missus..?..(if you can get 87% of 56% to agree..eh..?)
your ‘democratic-rights’ are being attacked..eh..?
(fucken fools..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Ah…Phil
The old, “you wouldn’t do that to an adult” defense.
Haven’t heard that one for………….ages!
Whats next?…..The…….”you wouldn’t do that to an adult” defense?
Probably.
Should think about coming up with a different argument if you are sick of the same reply.
So is changing a child’s nappy sexual assault Phil?
Vote:You wouldn’t do it to an adult remember.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
“It’s interesting how when Corporal Punishment in the 1980’s was abolished in New Zealand there was immediately a steep rise in Youth & Child crime, violence, assault and disorder.”
Has any sort of correlation like that been proven? It was at the same time there was a big increase in marriage breakups, unemployment, reliance on benefits, solo parents, widening gap between affluent and poor, violence on TV and in movies, increasing population and population densities.
I would be surprised if it was all to do with stopping giving the strap.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“..You wouldn’t do it to an adult remember…”
it’d be all a matter of ‘consenting-adults’..really..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Could you define “adult” for me please Phil?
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
why..?..are you keen..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Didn’t think you would.
Have a lovely day with your “adult” son who needs you to look after him 24/7.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Cerium – sorry about the late response to you 9:12am post, I have to do a real job. You say:
“I am not against referenda for some things.” – Which ones? The ones that suit you?
“I am against another referendum being launched to try and leverage votes in the next general election.” – Do you actually understand what is involved in gathering 310,000 votes to generate a referendum? Do you seriously think this can be done to “leverage votes?” Seriously? Do you have any idea wtf you are talking about?
Go the meeting! I hope 10,000 are there!
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
“I am not against referenda for some things.” – Which ones? The ones that suit you?
Voting on constitutional things like the upcoming referendum on MMP are important.
Vague referendums on complex social type laws like child protection and discipline don’t seem like a wise use of time and money – whatever the result it will end up affecting very little.
“I am against another referendum being launched to try and leverage votes in the next general election.”
You think MMP allows small parties to wield influence? What is Larry Baldock, never been voted into parliament (personally or his party) trying to achieve?
I would have been interested in the meeting but not possible to be there.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Cerium – re Larry Baldock, 1.47 million votes, hard to argue with really. ANYONE who has the time, energy and the support to gather 310,000 votes deserved to be listened to. If after all this they get 1.4 million supporting votes it should be law, no argument. That is democracy.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Cerium, a shame you could not make the meeting. Professor Jim Evans gave a very good talk.
The issue is bigger than smacking or even parental rights. It is about who rules New Zealand – John Key or Parliament.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Chuck Bird – would love to have been there. That is my view, Key is now deciding which laws should be applied and to what degree???? Doesn’t he realise what he is saying? To come out a week after the 88% result and tell us we will have a referendum on MMP which WILL be binding even with only 51% support says:
1: He doesn’t give a shit what the electorate say and so is no better than Clark, we need rid of him.
2: He and his people are so stupid they think we see MMP as the main problem and if we get rid of it everything will be fine. If that is what he thinks we need rid of him.
3: He and his people are extremely clever and are on a path towards the extreme right with FPP, a strong ACT party and sell whatever is left in NZ that wasn’t sold last time around. We need rid of him.
Advance Australia fair.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 8:46 am
“He and his people are so stupid they think we see MMP as the main problem and if we get rid of it everything will be fine. If that is what he thinks we need rid of him. ”
And who takes his place?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
It was a worthwhile meeting last night, I reviewed it on my blog and I wish John Boscawen much public support as he travels the country promoting his Bill over the next few weeks.
Kaya, Key in this instance is acting far more like Muldoon than Clark.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
How many turned up Madeleine?
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 8:04 am
BB, 112 showed up which was not bad considering the very short notice. One thing that is for sure is that this issue will not go away.
Vote: