$450,000 for anti anti-smacking law march

October 28th, 2009 at 8:29 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

An Auckland property manager who is spending $450,000 to promote a march against the law says he hopes it will be the biggest protest march in New Zealand history.

, 41, and his wife Helen own companies which manage high-rise apartment buildings including Nautilus at Orewa and the Sentinel at Takapuna.

He says he has never belonged to or donated money to a political party, and had never given money to the Family First lobby group until Prime Minister John Key refused to change the smacking law when 87.4 per cent of voters said in a referendum that smacking should not be a criminal offence.

But yesterday he teamed up with Family First leaders Bob McCoskrie and Bev Adair to announce plans for a “march for democracy” in Queen St at 1.30pm on Saturday, November 21.

Mr Craig will be the major funder with a budget “in the hundreds of thousands – I hope not more than $450,000″.

Good on him for spending his own money on a cause he believes in. If Labour were still in Govt, no doubt there would be calls for some sort of law to stop Mr Craig from being able to spend his own money in this way.

Tags: , ,

85 Responses to “$450,000 for anti anti-smacking law march”

  1. bananapants (107 comments) says:

    how does it cost $450,000 for a bunch of old people to go for a walk? When people escape from the rest home down the road it doesn’t cost them anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. coge (181 comments) says:

    No doubt if Labour were still Govt, there would be an hysterical baritone tirade in the house. Something about Dr Brash, the exclusive brethren, the business round table & Colin Craig. I must say 2010 has been most refreshing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” $450,000 for anti anti-smacking law march ”

    Misleading headline.

    Should read-

    “$450 for march to protest National Party/ Key inaction on anti-smacking referendum.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    could someone tell me how the fuck you could spend $450,000 on a protest-march..?

    are we to be deluged with tv ads..?

    promoting/advertising it..?..

    (and what will it achieve..?

    absolutely nothing..

    ..that much is guaranteed..

    this guy was on breakfast telly..

    and a political ‘babe-in-the-woods’ would pretty much cover it..

    is mccoskie a hypnotist..?

    does anyone know..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    The guy has more money than sense.

    He is outraged that the Government has refused to change the law to reflect the result of the referendum. The only trouble is that the referendum advocated that the law should be changed to what it actually provides for now.

    He should spend his money on the assistance of the poor and needy rather stirring up rednecks who wrongly think they will be imprisoned for bashing their kids in a “loving and caring way”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (23,309 comments) says:

    450k seems to be a number chosen to draw publicity, it seems ludicrous for a march. He’s not planning on paying people to walk for him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    He said the 450 figure was the upper limit – he’s hoping to spend less. Advertising is obviously the main cost (there was a full pager in the Herald yesterday), but he also said he’ll be putting entertainment and(?) food on, sounds like that’d be before the march while they’re gathering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    Indeed, micky!

    The funny thing is that in 15 years time this will be like homosexual law reform – everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    I say good on him! This piece of legislation foisted on the 88% by the 12% was undemocratic, unwanted and another example of the Liberal elite telling everyone else what to do and how to behave. It is good to see someone with some passion and some commonsense.

    This issue is not going away. I am tired of godless secular people telling everyone else what to do and foisting their agenda on us. I’m sick of the Socialists. I’m sick of the nanny state. It stops here. Great!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Philonz (91 comments) says:

    I’m still yet to see the pro-smacking lobby highlight a case where a “good” parent has been convicted under this law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    No it won’t toad. We don’t like homosexual law reform and we don’t like this legislation either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    Philonz — there is none so blind as he who will not see. Family first have given ample examples of police harassment and threatened prosecution’s, including the man who had six policemen come to his door after a complaint he smacked his child.

    The problem is the whole principle is wrong. Smacking children as part of discipline is correct and right. Hoping they will respond to reason is ludicrous. As stated I am sick of godless socialists and people who have never had children dictating to the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. TripeWryter (715 comments) says:

    “He should spend his money on the assistance of the poor and needy rather stirring up rednecks who wrongly think they will be imprisoned for bashing their kids in a “loving and caring way”.”

    Mickeysavage:
    It’s his money. How he spends it is his right. And, you know, he might give to the poor and needy. You can’t lay down other people’s lives for them.

    And you use the inflammatory language of those who support Bradford’s bill — people who love and care for their children don’t bash or beat or hit or assault, or all those other loaded expressions.

    It would really be be good, you know, if those who oppose who parents’ right and responsibility to discipline their children as they think fit didn’t tell lies to try to advance their case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Tom Semmens (79 comments) says:

    “…He says he has never belonged to or donated money to a political party, and had never given money to the Family First lobby group…”

    Mr. Craig clearly believes the ninth commandment doesn’t apply to him, given that this statement is clearly designed as an attempt to deceive people into thinking he is a disinterested player in this debate, a man who merely concerned with democracy.

    Funny then his friend and “full time mother of two” unpaid media liaison officer Shelley Vitali is the same Shelley Vitali who was Larry Baldock’s front on the Section 59 referendum and mates with Mr. Craig through the City Impact Church, who are your usual flavoured bunch of fundamentalist God-botherers.

    Of course Mr. Craig is free to spend his money as he wishes, but his rather gormless and artless attempts at astroturfing is rather un-christian in it’s cynical and deliberate sophistry don’t you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. eszett (2,367 comments) says:

    I say good on him! This piece of legislation foisted on the 88% by the 12% was undemocratic, unwanted and another example of the Liberal elite telling everyone else what to do and how to behave. It is good to see someone with some passion and some commonsense.

    hehe, the National party is now the Liberal elite! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Toad

    What do you have against Democracy?

    It is a serious question, why are you and the Greens so terrified about the people getting what they want?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..It stops here..”

    what exactly ‘stops’..?..and where..?

    scott..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    Man spends his own money and ever fucker thinks they should have an opinion on it.

    Clarks work is done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. eszett (2,367 comments) says:

    And you use the inflammatory language of those who support Bradford’s bill — people who love and care for their children don’t bash or beat or hit or assault, or all those other loaded expressions.

    Well, then, there’s no real reason to change the law, is there?

    I agree, in 10 years time nobody will know what all the fuss is about, but for some nutters, who will also think the homosexual law reform was a mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Captain Neurotic (206 comments) says:

    Whilst I couldn’t care less about the debate regarding the smacking of children and when I am fortunate to have children I will try to use other remedies rather than relying on force – I completely back this man.

    This issue is gone way past the point of the smacking issue which Sue Bradford cannot understand – She said it was “incredible” that some people wanted to protest to allow violence against children. IT’S NOT ABOUT THE FUCKING BILL NOW!

    It is about the Government listening to the majority! Whilst I voted YES in the referendum I was a minority and I accept that. How dare John Key announce prior to the results that he wasn’t going to listen regardless of the result – that is ultimate politician “I know better than you ARROGANCE”.

    This is the type of bullshit that the socialist farce of the past 9 years have subjected us too, oh well I didn’t vote National anyway…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (23,309 comments) says:

    bb, democracy is not that simple, is it? If a referendum was held on this:

    No law should restrict any “parents’ right and responsibility to discipline their children as they think fit” (Trypewriter 9:21)

    What do you think the result would be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    FFS when will DPF FINALLY ban that wanka philu?

    WHEN?????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Brian Smaller (4,026 comments) says:

    As stated I am sick of godless socialists and people who have never had children dictating to the rest of us.

    I am a godless right winger and I also am sick of godless socialists and people who have never had children dictating to the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. wreck1080 (3,800 comments) says:

    Mickey savage is wrong, again.

    The referendum was the only forum for which people could protest against the antismacking law. The people of NZ would support a more detailed rewrite of the law, to allow a reasonable level of physical discipline. Many parents I know, still give their kids the odd smack . Regardless of the law.

    The problem is, that when you rely on juries, there will always be the odd case (read: riding crop case) where they get it wrong. So, the antismackers changed the law using the exception rather than the norm.

    And, who cares how this guy spends his money. I don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. eszett (2,367 comments) says:

    big bruv (4783) Says:
    October 28th, 2009 at 9:29 am

    Toad

    What do you have against Democracy?

    It is a serious question, why are you and the Greens so terrified about the people getting what they want?

    And why can’t you accept our democratic process, big bruv?
    The law was passed by a huge majority in parliament.
    That’s the way a representative democracy works.

    A non binding referendum with a emotionally loaded question is exactly that: non-binding.

    Why are you so terrified of the our democracy, big bruv? Just because it doesn’t suit you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. travisb (18 comments) says:

    What’s that old saying about a fool and his money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,309 comments) says:

    I’m not so hot on godfull anywingers trying to dictate either, kidded or not. Make that organisations too. Would all Family Firsters be prepared to put the bible second?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    @Scott 9:17 am

    We don’t like homosexual law reform…

    Says it all, really!

    I think you’l find that most of the “We” among even the spanking lobby would desert you on that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    Are you sure of that toad? I’m not so sure. Anyway I believe, probably unlike yourself, that the “progressive” social agenda of the last 30 — 40 years is not in fact progress — but a great leap backward.

    We had a society with strong families, where kids were bought up with a high degree of freedom and an appropriate level of discipline. Children were cared for by their mother and father who were married. We had a much smaller government because individuals and families took care of themselves. Our society was until relatively recently based on Christian principles.

    Now we have a much bigger government because people have no moral guidance.The laws the government have passed have added to the breakdown of family life.Homosexual law reform was an anti-family initiative championed by feminist radical Helen Clark and a small but vociferous homosexual lobby. The anti-smacking legislation was another anti family measure championed by former Communist radical Sue Bradford.

    Both measures weakened family life in my view. But the anti-smacking legislation was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The people have had enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Meanwhile……

    While Toad and eszett are so scared of democracy the twentieth child has died in the last few days.

    This is the twentieth little baby that Comrade Bradford told us would be safe when she passed her anti smacking law, this is the twentieth little baby that has lost it’s life because the Greens, Labour and Neville Key are not brave enough to go after the real perpetrators of child violence.

    Will we hear from the Apartheid party today?…..of course not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Scott, I’m not sure that recent-past Christian/family-values utopia actually existed. I know from my own family that three generations ago there was plenty of un-wed mothers (kids usually adopted out), and husbands running off leaving wife and kids with nothing. But it was not spoken about. It is out in the open now. Just like sexual abuse within families.

    Homosexual law reform was an anti-family initiative championed by feminist radical Helen Clark and a small but vociferous homosexual lobby.

    We hear this assertion often from theists. Can you explain how decriminalising homosexuality is anti-family?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. BlackMoss (62 comments) says:

    Yeah, I think it’s great that rich people and corporations get to have a greater influence on democracy than others by virtue of having money — I can’t foresee any such problems with a system like that at all…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. NOt1tocommentoften (436 comments) says:

    “This is the twentieth little baby that Comrade Bradford told us would be safe when she passed her anti smacking law…”

    That’s right BB – and it’s a little chilly outside today so climate change must be a myth. Good logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. cha (3,853 comments) says:

    And that twentieth child, big bruv, is the victim of the classic ‘what goes round comes round’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. eszett (2,367 comments) says:

    This is the twentieth little baby that Comrade Bradford told us would be safe when she passed her anti smacking law, this is the twentieth little baby that has lost it’s life because the Greens, Labour and Neville Key are not brave enough to go after the real perpetrators of child violence.

    Don’t forget National, bb.

    BTW, can you please elaborate how repealing the law or the old law would have saved those children?
    What did all the protesting and the referendum do save these children?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. OllieGI (36 comments) says:

    Clearly the plan is to pay 10,000 students $15.00 per hour for a 3 hour march? It’s the only way he will get numbers to the march, s59 is an old boring issue in the face of economic recession

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. eszett (2,367 comments) says:

    Scott (410)
    October 28th, 2009 at 10:12 am

    Now we have a much bigger government because people have no moral guidance.The laws the government have passed have added to the breakdown of family life.Homosexual law reform was an anti-family initiative championed by feminist radical Helen Clark and a small but vociferous homosexual lobby.

    Now, how did that happen? How does the homosexual law reform weaken families? Can you please elaborate?

    The anti-smacking legislation was another anti family measure championed by former Communist radical Sue Bradford.

    And now championed by newly radical communist John Key.
    Yeah, right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Pete George (23,309 comments) says:

    bb: because the Greens, Labour and Neville Key are not brave enough to go after the real perpetrators of child violence.

    How do you propose all child violence can be prevented without impinging on any parent’s rights?
    Are you brave enough to do anything about it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Ryan Sproull (7,059 comments) says:

    Now, how did that happen? How does the homosexual law reform weaken families? Can you please elaborate?

    Eszett,

    There is a limited amount of committed love in the world, and if you let The Gays use up some of it, there’s less left over for The Normals, and so The Normals start being unfaithful and also don’t help their kids with their homework.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Manolo (13,516 comments) says:

    The freedom to use his money the way he wishes. Good on him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    eszett

    “BTW, can you please elaborate how repealing the law or the old law would have saved those children?
    What did all the protesting and the referendum do save these children?”

    Nice try eszett, those of us who are against the anti smacking law never made the claim that “our children will be safe”, that claim was made (and supported by) Comrade Bradford and the Greens.

    It is not up to me to explain how the old law would have saved these kids, I never claimed that it would.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————————–

    Pete George

    “How do you propose all child violence can be prevented without impinging on any parent’s rights?
    Are you brave enough to do anything about it?”

    Do you really support people like Lisa Kuka and Chris Kahui having “rights”?

    We hear time and time again that the Police and CYFS can identify who the “at risk” kids are, almost all of them are Maori and as you well know that means that these parents are “off limits” lest the Police or CYFS be accused of racism.

    Am I brave enough to do anything about it?, that is a fair question in some ways, frankly I do not have the time or the energy to fight people like you who think that child killers have rights.

    Mind you, if I knew that I would have the resources and the backing of the house to go after the bad parents IRRESPECTIVE of their race then I would be more than interested.

    However, we both know that is never going to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Pete George (23,309 comments) says:

    You miss my point bb. Yes, it is easy to identify most at risk groups, but many of them won’t offend. How can you successfully differentiate only parents who are going to offend before they offend? Or do you just cut the balls off anyone who you think could be a future problem? Primary school, before they can procreate, pick the members of the eunech club. Better op the suspect little girls too.

    Alternately, after every birth determine the potential risk and enforce in-home spy cameras. If the police are quick enough they should intervene with most in time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Captain Neurotic (206 comments) says:

    In terms of the homosexuality debate here I personally feel the only relevance in terms of whether a gay couple have children is whether or not they love, care and provide for their family.

    Gay, black, hairy, alien, religious, socialist they are all awful, but hey if they are are being loving parents and their children grow up with the principles of working hard and providing for themselves then good on them!

    When was the last time you saw a homosexual couple in court for killing their adopted or artificially inseminated child?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Inventory2 (10,173 comments) says:

    Tom Semmens said “Mr. Craig clearly believes the ninth commandment doesn’t apply to him, given that this statement is clearly designed as an attempt to deceive people into thinking he is a disinterested player in this debate, a man who merely concerned with democracy.

    Funny then his friend and “full time mother of two” unpaid media liaison officer Shelley Vitali is the same Shelley Vitali who was Larry Baldock’s front on the Section 59 referendum and mates with Mr. Craig through the City Impact Church, who are your usual flavoured bunch of fundamentalist God-botherers.”

    So Tom, are you suggesting that Mr Craig has the same cavalier attitude to the truth as – let’s see now – Rick Barker – or – Darren Hughes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    BB, when you say that child-killers have no rights, you’re kind of skipping that whole quaint “presumption of innocence” thing.

    But I know what you mean. The way the police had to tip-toe around the Kahui family with Pita Sharples as chaperone was a disgrace. The police should have arrested the whole useless family. Including Sharples, for wasting police time and shameless political grandstanding.

    I don’t want to live in a country where parents can’t kill their small children. If we had laws and systems which prevented scum like Chris Kahui killing his own kids, it would be a massive intrusion on the 99% of families who don’t kill their kids.

    ACT’s three-strikes law would catch a lot of this scum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Pete George (23,309 comments) says:

    suggesting that Mr Craig has the same cavalier attitude to the truth as – let’s see now – Rick Barker – or – Darren Hughes?

    Not that blatant, but not as scrutinised either. Yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    Ezett — thanks for your comments. You ask — “How does the homosexual law reform weaken families? Can you please elaborate?
    The anti-smacking legislation was another anti family measure championed by former Communist radical Sue Bradford. And now championed by newly radical communist John Key.
    Yeah, right.”

    Your second comment is easy to deal with. It is irrefutably true that Sue Bradford was a Communist radical. She was a member of Communist organisations. I think Trevor Louden has blogged extensively on this.

    Homosexuality weakens the family because it says that a man and a man can form a family, in the same way that a man and a woman can. Now marriage is an age-old institution between a man and a woman that provides a stable foundation for the care and protection of the children that ensue.

    Homosexual civil unions introduce a counterfeit marriage. Something that is like marriage, but is not marriage.

    It is like companies producing counterfeit Nike T-shirts are vigourously prosecuted by Nike because they weaken the brand. In the same way homosexuality weakens the “brand” if you like of marriage.

    For many years we believed that sexual activity should only be in the context of marriage. Now something abominable in the eyes of many, homosexual relationships, are promoted as equivalent to marriage. That weakens marriage.

    Finally homosexuality I don’t think it is particularly liked by most people. I don’t actually think you care about homosexuality at all. What most people of the liberal persuasion care about is the freedom to do whatever they want sexually. They just Wanna be free to have sex with whoever they want. That to me is the crux of the issue. It is about licence.

    So marriage is undermined by homosexuality, by sex before marriage, by sex outside of marriage and by sex with no thought of marriage at all. This undermines family life. Family life is undeniably weaker than it was 50 years ago. For the reasons I have outlined.

    And I feel sorry for the kids. Pulled from pillar to post by unthinking and immoral adults lacking any moral frame of reference.

    However I have been impressed recently by a resurgence in some quarters for marriage. There are some committed young couples who are taking marriage and their vows seriously. Good on them. I think they offer a way forward for the future of family life in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    IT’S NOT ABOUT THE FUCKING BILL NOW!

    You think this guy would’ve put the money up for any old ignored referendum-with-a-decisive-result?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Pete George (23,309 comments) says:

    Now marriage is an age-old institution between a man and a woman that provides a stable foundation for the care and protection of the children that ensue.

    Sounds good in theory. The reality is (and has been probably since marriage began) that not all marriages result in stable foundations nor safe environments for children.

    At first glance, there’s nothing unusual about the laughing, grubby kids playing hopscotch or reading from a tattered Dick and Jane book by the graffiti-scrawled cinderblock house. But this is where children like Abigail end up after being labeled witches by churches and abandoned or tortured by their families.

    There’s a scar above Jane’s shy smile: her mother tried to saw off the top of her skull after a pastor denounced her and repeated exorcisms costing a total of $60 didn’t cure her of witchcraft. Mary, 15, is just beginning to think about boys and how they will look at the scar tissue on her face caused when her mother doused her in caustic soda.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091017/ap_on_re_af/af_nigeria_child_witches

    Marriage doesn’t seem to help them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Homosexuality weakens the family because it says that a man and a man can form a family, in the same way that a man and a woman can.

    That’s like saying timber weakens brick because a house can be built of timber, in the same way that a house can be built of brick. It’s a meaningless statement.

    – Do single people weaken families because they say it’s OK to be unmarried?
    – Does divorce weaken families because it says it’s ok to get out of a marriage that neither party wants to be in?
    – Do families weaken families by forcing people to spend time with people they don’t like?
    – Do friends weaken families?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Ryan Sproull (7,059 comments) says:

    So marriage is undermined by homosexuality, by sex before marriage, by sex outside of marriage and by sex with no thought of marriage at all. This undermines family life. Family life is undeniably weaker than it was 50 years ago. For the reasons I have outlined.

    Scott, is marriage undermined by people not being Christian?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. RRM (9,638 comments) says:

    Scott:

    Consider the following (real) scenario:

    (1) “Normal” straight married couple, produce 3 children. Then
    (2) Dad decides to f*$k off, leaving mum to care for children by herself.
    (3) Some years pass. Then
    (4) Mum’s new girlfriend moves in. Household income is more than doubled, and two parents are now on hand to provide parenting.

    Is this family weakened by homosexuality, in your consideration, or strengthened? Discuss please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. RRM (9,638 comments) says:

    Back on topic: Good on Mr Craig, if he really feels he needs to piss the better part of half a million dollars into the wind trying to catalyse political change then good on him. A lifetime’s enjoyment of old English plays and old Italian opera leaves me in little doubt that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW about a morally-conservative moneyed elite who thinks society is going to hell in a handcart… :-)

    In other news, I got little miss 5yo to withdraw and apologize for some very bad language/behaviour at dinner last night – no hitting required. And did I mention my little miss 5yo is top of her class much of the time?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    RRM, surely the marriage in (1) was destroyed by that very homosexuality?

    And you’re not counting the excellent new family created by the father after he left his gay wife, found Jesus and got himself a proper God-fearing wife.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Pete George (23,309 comments) says:

    Why should anyone fear God? I thought this God was supposed to be a decent sort of a bloke. Yi’know, perfectly good sort of stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ryan Sproull (7,059 comments) says:

    Why should anyone fear God? I thought this God was supposed to be a decent sort of a bloke. Yi’know, perfectly good sort of stuff.

    It’s a good kind of fear, like fear of the government and police. If you didn’t fear the government and police, you’d be out committing crimes all the time. And if you fear it long enough, you come to love it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. CharlieBrown (922 comments) says:

    Toad, I’d argue that the new law is more analygous to reversing the homosexual law reform. Both are illogical, driven by the minority of people and all about removing rights and responsibilities.

    Although a minority of the people against the new law may be conservative religious bigots (I don’t think we have over 1 million of these in NZ), the silent moderate majority of NZ are against this law and want parliament to listen and act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..homosexuality weakens the “brand” of marriage..”

    that’d go great on a t-shirt..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. RRM (9,638 comments) says:

    In all of this, I have not noticed anyone actually stand up in public and pronounce “I believe smacking is good for children, and here are my reasons….” The furore has consistently been “how dare nanny state tell me how to raise my children”, “how dare the gummint ignore the will of the people” etc.

    Makes me wonder if people are very clear on what battle they are fighting here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    I believe smacking is good for children.

    From time to time I smack our daughter. She isn’t particularly naughty. Cause or effect?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Ryan Sproull (7,059 comments) says:

    From time to time I smack our daughter. She isn’t particularly naughty. Cause or effect?

    Ah yes, the age-old question: is she well behaved because you smack her? or do you smack her because she’s well behaved?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull (2859) Vote: 2 0 Says:

    October 28th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
    Why should anyone fear God? I thought this God was supposed to be a decent sort of a bloke. Yi’know, perfectly good sort of stuff.

    It’s a good kind of fear, like fear of the government and police. If you didn’t fear the government and police, you’d be out committing crimes all the time. And if you fear it long enough, you come to love it.

    Speak for yourself. i do not fear the government or the police, and yet I do not find myself ” out committing crimes all the time.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    RRM (1496) Vote: 0 1 Says:

    October 28th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
    In all of this, I have not noticed anyone actually stand up in public and pronounce “I believe smacking is good for children, and here are my reasons….” The furore has consistently been “how dare nanny state tell me how to raise my children”, “how dare the gummint ignore the will of the people” etc.

    Makes me wonder if people are very clear on what battle they are fighting here.

    they’re fighting for their right to be stupid in public, and don’t ever take that away from them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Ah yes, the age-old question: is she well behaved because you smack her? or do you smack her because she’s well behaved?

    Impossible to say. It’s not always possible to reason with a 4-year-old and occasionally when they’re very over-excited and repeatedly doing something stupid and not listening, I find a little smack to be most effective. Focuses the mind.

    Alas, on Kiwiblog our only recourse is an appeal to reason :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    malcolm, ifyou are unable to reason with your 4 year old, i suspect it is you, not her, with the problem. How does a smack teach anything if you are unable to point out the reason for the smack?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Fair enough. I don’t know any 4 year-olds who can be reasoned with at all times. But all kids are different.

    How does a smack teach anything if you are unable to point out the reason for the smack?

    I don’t think the smack teaches her anything. But it gets her attention and stops her doing whatever it was that she was doing long enough for me to explain again why she has to stop that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. fishe (143 comments) says:

    I’d just like to say well done to malcolm and Ryan Sproull for showing the light of reason to the crap spewed forth by the likes of Scott.

    Bravo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Ryan Sproull (7,059 comments) says:

    My pleasure, Fishe. I also do birthdays and bar mitvahs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    I only try to respond as I feel bad that it’s left to Ryan to counter these people. Anyway, he doesn’t really need help as he’s rather good at it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Fletch (6,142 comments) says:

    I’d just like to say well done to malcolm and Ryan Sproull for showing the light of reason to the crap spewed forth by the likes of Scott.

    LOL, I had to laugh at that, sorry.
    Reason? You’re kidding right?
    I’m sorry, but one only has to use reason to see that a traditional family is the safest place to raise children.
    The UN affirmed the place that the family has. On December 6th 2004, the United Nations General Assembly commemorated the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Family, by adopting the Doha Declaration’s resolution on strengthening the family.

    The Doha Declaration stated, among other things, that:

    * All governments, international organisations and members of civil society at all levels should take action to protect the family.
    * The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the widest possible protection and assistance by society and the State.
    * That governments uphold, preserve and defend the institution of marriage.

    Before you say that “marriage” above means homosexual as well, it doesn’t which is why NZ was one of the countries out of 149 that didn’t support the declarastion.
    Now, homosexual “marriage” (and I use the term loosely) is characterized by short relationships, infidelity, more violence between ‘spouses’, and abuse of children (who then carry that behaviour on).

    These are, to name only the most commonly
    recognized, cohabiting heterosexual couples without children and those with children from previous
    relationships, same-sex couples without children and those with children by adoption or from
    previous relationships, and single persons (usually women) who have borne or adopted children
    without intending to or being able to raise them with any co-parent. Statistics show that these
    groupings have one thing in common: brevity. In comparison to marriage-based families, even in a
    society with a high divorce rate, such groupings are short-term (1, 2, see footnotes below).
    Homosexual couples, in addition to having the shortest relationship duration (a number of
    studies in different “gay-affirming” societies show about two years for men, several months less for
    women) also are not usually monogamous. Members of these “alternative families” learn the lessons
    of non-commitment: broken promises, failed relationships and low expectations. Though there is
    often a high degree of commitment between parent and child in single-parent families, the psychological
    “hole” left by the missing parent, and the child’s identification with the abandoned or
    abandoning parent, still speak volumes about the elements of trust and commitment in relationships,
    particularly those with the opposite sex. Widowed families are generally the exception to this rule,
    since the commitment of the missing parent is not called into question, and the positive feelings of
    the remaining members serve to give that parent a continuing presence in the family.
    Self-control is another element often missing from “alternative family” groupings. Research
    shows that cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples have a much higher rate of domestic
    violence than married couples (3, 4) and that homosexuals have a higher rate of inter-partner
    violence than heterosexuals (4,5,6,7). Statistics also show that children of violent relationships tend
    to repeat the violent behavior as adults (8).

    Whether you’re ‘for’ homosexuality or against it, there is no denying which is the more stable unit, even with fathers leaving etc etc…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Fletch (6,142 comments) says:

    Just to clarify what I was saying about DOHA above, out of 149 countries present to ratify the Doha Declaration December 6, there were 14 (absent) dissenters (one of which was good ‘ol little NZ, probably because we had some Labour feminist representing us).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    Captain Neurotic

    “When was the last time you saw a homosexual couple in court for killing their adopted or artificially inseminated child?”

    Yes indeed. Even now the evil tentacles of Herr Klerk extend from the Big Apple and strangle the heart of the thin blue line. Or is that the thin red line? Did anyone hear me say that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. humptydumptye (7 comments) says:

    I see I have cast myself among idiots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. humptydumptye (7 comments) says:

    Never mind.

    Here is a wee contribution that actually makes sense:

    I see Key wants to change the electoral system to ensure his party stays in power forever by avoiding the awkwardness of minor parties who disagree with him.

    His answer is a Supplementary Member voting system. This system looks very much like MMP but greatly reduces the representation of minor parties.

    It pays to understand how it works if you want to protect the representational system we currently have. It will probably be one of the choices you will be offered in the upcoming referendum – as a so-called “improvement” on MMP.

    Essentially, it looks much like MMP with electorate constituency and list seats (probably in the same number we have now). But you get 2 votes – one for the electorate seat in your constituency and one for a party. The party vote determines how many list seats each party gets. The electorate vote decides how the electorate seats are allocated.

    The big difference is this.

    At present, all votes cast determine the number of seats each party gets in the full 120-seat parliament. If a party gets 5% of the votes, it gets 5% of the 120 seats (ie 6). Under SM, if a party gets 5% of the party votes (electorate votes are excluded) it gets 5% of only the list seats (currently 60 – the 60 electorate seats are excluded) and would thus get only 3 instead of 6 seats.

    Of course, this is a much weaker form of democratic representation than we have now. But Key, of course, prefers it. It would allow National to govern as a dictatorship – as they used to do for decade after decade.

    Other countries that use the SM system are:

    Armenia
    Georgia
    Guatemala
    Guinea
    Bolivia
    Japan
    Mexico
    Nepal
    South Korea
    Lithuania
    Lesotho
    Timor Leste
    Palestinian Authority
    Senegal
    Seychelles
    Philippines
    Taiwan (ROC)
    Thailand

    Welcome to the Third World.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. humptydumptye (7 comments) says:

    Await, with bated breath, the self-serving response:

    QUOTE
    [To Nick Smith]

    “Just when the Obama administration in the USA is instituting controls over rapacious private health insurers, you are delivering the health of New Zealand citizens into the hands of private health insurers.

    Rumours have it that you are being bribed to do that.

    Can this be true?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. humptydumptye (7 comments) says:

    I detect a self-inflicted non-sequitur.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. humptydumptye (7 comments) says:

    But I doubt you noticed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. humptydumptye (7 comments) says:

    To continue the non-sequiturishness for which I am rapidly becoming known, know this:

    There is a new theory going around that if American troops went into battle equipped with 72 virgins, Taliban fighters would shoot themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. humptydumptye (7 comments) says:

    I see there is great caution about immoderation here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I just object to the Palestinian Authority being grouped with the third world.

    Just for starters, PA is not a country. It is a political construct to legitimise occupation. It is a blight on the occupier, the supposedly moral, first world, Israel. Personally, I think there should be a law against elections in occupied lands. They are always a victory for the occupier in that they give a mirage of freedom to the occupied. Until the next white phosphorous shell rains its poison on them. Mind you, there’s a law against that too!

    And although you demonise National, Labour was pretty happy with that system too, which is why they campaigned against it. At least on the odd occasion when they got power, it was absolute. There’s a lot been said about absolute power ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. CharlieBrown (922 comments) says:

    humptydumptye – Perhaps us MMP supporters should give our second referendum vote for FPP. No one wants FPP back so if FPP became the most popular other choice then people would vote to keep mmp in a two horse run-off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    LUC
    What rot you speak, Who set up the political construct and why?
    I have a friend who thinks we should nuke the Middle East and make it like glass.
    Then we wouldn’t have any problems.
    Like you he talks rot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    Gosh lots of questions. Sorry for not replying until now — like most of you I imagine, things are a bit busy around here.
    Malcolm — try and follow the reasoning.

    You say — “That’s like saying timber weakens brick because a house can be built of timber, in the same way that a house can be built of brick. It’s a meaningless statement.
    – Do single people weaken families because they say it’s OK to be unmarried?
    – Does divorce weaken families because it says it’s ok to get out of a marriage that neither party wants to be in?
    – Do families weaken families by forcing people to spend time with people they don’t like?
    – Do friends weaken families?”

    Houses can be made of timber or brick. There are options. There are durable materials that houses can be made of and still be fit for the purpose of human habitation. So you may choose to build your house of brick or stone or timber for example. But marriage is an age-old institution that can only be between a man and a woman. Anything else is a counterfeit and is like making a house out of straw.

    Marriage between a man and a man is not right. Marriage was designed to be between a man and woman. To use your analogy — marriage between a man and a man is like building a house out of straw. It cannot fulfil the purpose to which it was intended. A man and a man can never naturally produce children. It just is not what marriage is designed to be. I hope that’s clearer.

    Do single people weaken families because they say it’s okay to be unmarried? By no means. It is quite okay to be single and celibate. However being single and fornicating for decades does weaken families. Sadly many people today miss out on family life because they are afraid to commit and would prefer an endless round of parties and nightclubs and one night stands.

    Does divorce weaken families? Absolutely! The adoption of no fault divorce has led to carnage amongst families as people divorce for any reason whatsoever. Unfortunately the children are the victims, one night with mum, one night with dad — never having the security of a stable family life.

    Do families weaken families by forcing people to spend time with people they don’t like? Well that’s an inner problem really. Love your neighbour, including those nearest to you. Honour your mother and father.

    Do friends weaken families? Generally not — it is good to have friends who support you and your marriage partner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Macfoot (1 comment) says:

    The fact that a government would feel that it can ignore 87% of the people on any subject is a very troubling sign.
    Normally when the government ignores the population there are civil ways in which the public can correct a mistake made by politicians, such as referendums…
    But when the government can ignore the results of a referendum, it leaves very few options available to the public which will not degrade into violence.
    The anti-smacking bill is a small side show to the deficiencies of our wilting democracy.
    If we do not enforce the results of this referendum, our children will be the ones being hit by riot police, and then what excuse will we have?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Ju (1 comment) says:

    Colin Craig is a douche bag. Spending that amount of money on a march because you like to hit defenseless kids is appalling. He needs to visit a children’s cancer ward for a day and talk to the parents there and explain why he isn’t giving them a donation and why he feels its so important physically discipline them. I feel so sorry for his daughter who will grow up knowing her Dad advocated child abuse. And he has a crew cut and goatie – he needs to be disciplined for that epic fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.