Hughes report into anti-smacking released
The report into section 7(2) of the Crimes Amendment Act, what many like to call the anti-smacking legislation, has just been released.
Hughes has found that he has:
“not been able to find evidence to show parents are subject to unnecessary state intervention for occasionally lightly smacking their children or of any other unintentional consequences of the Act; and
“Data collated by the Police does not provide evidence of unwarranted investigation or prosecution for the light smacking of children.”
OK then, back to it normal life. It’s all sorted. Is anyone still concerned that the state is creeping into their private lives? There is no need to be as Peter Hughes has investigated it for you and all is well.
The bigger report by Howard Broad, Nigel Latta and Peter Hughes won’t be released until the end of the year. I am guessing the results will be much the same.
I guarantee that DPF will have his own post from the other side of the world on this one. I’ll let him do the stats analysis.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
That’s bollocks of course and just what I expect would happen, the reality is all over the Family First website.
This was poor lazy law by lazy politicians who thought it ok to make criminals of ordinary parents because they were too scared to go after the real children in needs parents.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
It still doesn’t change the fact that it is illegal to lightly smack your child for purposes of discipline and correction. Remember, sedition was removed as a criminal offense, even though it was very very rarely enforced in modern times, the “make smacking children illegal” law should be treated no differently.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
That is the good news.
The bad news is that parents who smack their children for corrective purposes, are still performing a ‘criminal offence’.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Vote ACT your party vote next election to give a corrective smack to John Key and the National Party caucus.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Ahh… but does your child know it’s illegal?
November 11th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
…who have an agenda to push. The reality is that they are more Adults First (and kids can toe the line).
“OK then, back to it normal life” – yeah, where no one takes any notice of what is actually in the report and carries on with the same entrenched lines.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
All this report has said is that this law is entirely unneeded and doesn’t function as intended.
RIP.IT.UP
November 11th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Did Mr Hughes also provide stats on how many infants had been killed since the new law compared to a corresponding period before it.?
November 11th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
mr Hughes and Co still don’t get it and what it means to criminalise parents. If you smack your child as a form of correction you are a criminal, if someone complains or the police get involved is irrelevant.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Murray – I think part of the problem is that the original intention of the legislation was lost some time ago, and there have been multiple intentions in play for many years now.
If it was as simple as specifically stopping parents who caused injuries to their children and used the section 59 defence to get away with it then I doubt we’d have this piece of legislation in front of us.
The reality now is that no one in Government will overturn the legislation (or replace or get rid of it) because whomever is PM does not want to be labelled as the PM who allowed for children to get beaten. Like it or not, if the legislation was overturned, then the next case of a child being hurt or killed at the hands of a parent (even though we all know the old section 59 couldn’t be used) would be BECAUSE of that PM’s decision. It would be blood on the hands of that PM.
I don’t believe that is right or just BUT it is one of those annoying political realities – and political opponents will use dead kids to get headlines and approval ratings.
THAT is what Family First and others are up against. Arguing the ins and outs of what is right, state creep, religious doctrine or whatever will not deal with the decisions that we elected the politicians to make (who a lot of the time make decisions based on risk mitigation).
November 11th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
And George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells found everything was hunky dory in Stalin’s Soviet Union, and people then ignored what was going on there.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“OK then, back to it normal life. It’s all sorted. Is anyone still concerned that the state is creeping into their private lives? ”
Fine, if that is the case then lets have the gov’t take DNA from every single person in NZ and form a database to help prevent crime.
Let’s also have a national identity card.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
“..Brian Smaller (2053) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 11th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
mr Hughes and Co still don’t get it and what it means to criminalise parents..”
sorta like..’the pain of the hitter’..eh..?
more existential than physical tho’..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 11th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
The original intention of the legislation was to protect kiwi kids. It does not do that, end of story.
There is nothign worse than useless legislation with the exception of useless legislators. the later has gone its time for former to join her.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Couldn’t you just OD and give us all a break phool.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
By the sound of things the Auckland Islands gulag must be being swamped with occasional light smackers.
I frequently do things that could be technically illegal, but my kids are too old for me to be included – I have no legal protection at all now for smacking them.
Anyway, did anyone actually read the report? Some interesting stuff in it.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
muzza..nobody has ever o’ded on pot..
but lordy.. i have tried..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 11th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
You mean the Poor Me Parents Brigade will be complaining again, as they drive their kids through town at 51 kph.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
This is the biggest non issue for New Zealand of the 21st century.
Time to move on boys.
The really important issues like global warming and poverty and the incompetence of the current government need to be addressed.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Didn’t say anything about dying, just a drug induced time out.
God knows you’re trying.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Pete – it is an interesting report and for once it is in plain English and concise.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I note that Paula Bennett is now a supporter of Bradford’s anti smacking bill.
Good, at least that will ensure she is a one term MP, perhaps Paula should fuck off to the Greens or Labour, while she is at it she can take Nikki Kaye and Nick Smith with her.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
112 People abdicated their responsibility to us all through the social contract and proved their being not fit for purpose to be our MP’s.
Some of those have left parliament or are about to but the new parliament (apart from the ACT MP’s) none have stood up for us and the social contract between parliament and the electorate.
Especially the National Party Caucus who were voted in to get rid of the socialists and just this sort of behaviour.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Family Fist can f*ck right off.
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Media_Centre/Media_Releases/Releases/30_09_09_Concern_at_Rising_Births_Outside_of_Marriage.html/30_09_09_Concern_at_Rising_Births_Outside_of_Marriage.pdf
Why don’t they come out and admit they are just another morally uptight, no-sex-before-marriage proponent of god-fearing christianity the way it used to be, when wifey had dinner on the table and children were seen, not heard if they knew what was good for them.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
RRM
There are many risks to children (and society per se) from births outside of marriage regardless of your personal view on Marriage or even beliefs.
marriage actually does matter.
It’s a little bit like character, society and children need it.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
@Phool
Really?- I just assumed you had some serious brain disease…
November 11th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
You have to accept that marriage isn’t what it used to be. It isn’t essential for a good functioning family. Isn’t it better to accept that and to promote stable committed relationships and good parenting skills?
I expect the statistics will show that much of the abuse and violence and neglect is outside wedlock – but all that may mean is the prats that used to do it when married now just don’t bother with a wedding.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Billy for something that is the biggest non issue in NZ you sure get your tits in a tangle every time it is brought up. But of course your ilk believe in state control and get off by imposing your fucked up values on the vast majority of Kiwi’s. If the law has had as little affect as you control freaks like to make out then I’m sure you won’t mind if it is rescinded. I really don’t care if you smack or not, it’s none of my business but I do care when morons in power believe they have a God given right to over ride the wishes of the people. I thought we lived in a democracy, more fool I.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
You have to accept that marriage isn’t what it used to be.
Well, I think we got over it no longer being a business agreement a while ago
November 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Pete,
Single parent families are the single biggest factor in criminal offending, ahead of race and socio economic status.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Please don’t stop there Sonny give it all to him in all the areas reported, child health, education, child assault, STD etc etc
Quickly before Ryan gets here, otherwise we’ll have to post all the web links and I’m too busy right now
November 11th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Are there statistics to support this? Most single parent families have a mother. Most criminal offenders are male. So this doesn’t make sense.
Mike, I think stable two parent families are the ideal option (I have chosen that and lived that twice) but I don’t think being married is as important as other aspects of family life. I don’t think getting married will make a lot of difference to those who are the biggest problem.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Why doesn’t it make sense Pete. Are you thick?
Please tell me which bit made your brain hurt?
November 11th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Sonny, Pete – the rate of offending against children climbs steadily (and alarmingly!) as there are fewer biological parents proving care, and more non-biological parents providing care. Ego a stable, long term commitment between a man and woman as parents of their own offspring is the safest place for kids to grow up. Whether or not that relationship is a marriage is probably not important.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
It is not the single parent family that is being criminal. It is the criminals who don’t want to be part of a good family. If the criminal arseholes got married what would that change?
November 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
The classic lefties, we give up line.
Your brains tend to fizz out when faced with the thought that your silly ideologies might just have a negative effect on society.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Do you think if all families comprised of married heterosexual couples all of society’s problems would be solved?
That’s a point I was trying to make.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Jadis 2:11 pm,
An easy solution to remove a particular PM from the guilt of having “blood on the[ir] hands” in regards to overturning this piece of ‘crap’ legislation, is to have a binding referendum.
But, at the end of the day, who are PMs and MPs answerable to anyway? The (86%) people who put them in power and pay their wages, or the hand wringing, knuckle-draggers at the UN?
I mean we should be marching on parliament about this – democracy, what democracy?
This crap makes me beyond furious!
November 11th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
http://www.amazon.com/Guilty-Liberal-Victims-Assault-America/dp/0307353478/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257910171&sr=8-4
Here you go Pete, I haven’t read it myself but you may enjoy this interpretation of the data around single parent families.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Are we still gold medalists at infanticide and child abuse Mr Peter Poos?
November 11th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
What is making everyone get married going to change?
November 11th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Visualise the scene….
Peter Hughes walks into the Minister’s office and sits down; the Minister adjusts his glasses, coughs, and says “Peter, I want you to conduct a review of the anti-smacking law and write a report saying how well it is working”….
(You get the general idea about this report credibility-wise)
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
November 11th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Pete George 4:20 pm,
Pete, you’re being disingenuous!
We have more than thrashed this out months ago.
I suggest you revisit the earlier threads. All the supporting data, links, etc are there – go wild!
We’re not going to waste our time regurgitating them all again – well I’m not, anyway!
If you no longer want to live in a democracy, then make your last freewill decision and move to Saudi Arabia or some such country. Most of us here actually still value our democratic freedoms!
This law is an abomination!
November 11th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Why did the institute of marriage come about? Perhaps because of your first sentence?
Those committed families who do stay together and don’t marry, most probably have their own way of affirming their commitment. The most popular way (marriage) has simply become a tradition. I don’t have a great desire to do away with traditions simply to in some way say something about myself.
It is statistically relevant to say that those couples (who individually may very well raise healthy children) who do not marry are more likely to have negative outcomes for their children.
What is the negative impact of a willing marriage?
November 11th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
WTF??
Peter Poos!
Are you seven years old dad?
November 11th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Who is making who get married Pete?
November 11th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Fuck off big blouse. Talk about a smack head you cross wired coward. Front up gutless! Name time and place. This I MUST sort out for once and all.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Pete, check out this: http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/attachment.php?id=895.
In particular Table 2 makes disturbing reading. Violence-related fatalities of children rockets (x20 thru x100) as the biological dad+mum family structure decays.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Now now D4J, your nasty temper is showing again.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Which came first, the criminals or their families eh Pete?
November 11th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Play nice BigBruv and Dad4J, you’re on the same side of the argument.
I’m sure “Peter Poos” was more a reflection on the apparent age of our friend Mr George.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
“Now now D4J, your nasty temper is showing again.”
Fucking bullshit. Peter Burns 178 Quinns Rd Christchurch. Come around for a coffee big blouse. And bring Clint and co. We don’t need to smack here. What is your beef?
November 11th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
You have to laugh, RRM and the rest of the pinko’s are so rabidly anti marriage unless it happens to be two gay men or two lesbian wimin wanting to get hitched.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Rainbow Labour and the rise of kiwi feminism have destroyed marriage and helped break the family unit down.
Thanks Helen Klark and co.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I have said I’m not anti marriage. It’s my choice to be married.
I agree that two biological parent families are the the best option, preferably with a decent dose of love and stability, and a reasonable amount of money (preferably via employment).
I just don’t see why marriage should be the priority (this started because someone suggested marriage does matter). Marriage is just more common with good families, it doesn’t guarantee a good family.
Why not focus on encouraging better relationships and better parenting skills? I’d also recommend marriage but I don’t think that is going solve violence and abuse problems. The must be married horse has well and truly bolted. Address the actual problems.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Grizzling about a trend that started well before Clark was PM is pointless. Better to look at what might be effective at dealing with the problems as they are now.
Anyone got statistics that show that all the problem families and non-families and divorcees are lefties/pinkos/commies?
November 11th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Peter Not Poos George – How can we address violence and abuse problems when the system has adopted culturally sensitive horseshit procedures? For example the Kahui fuck up by the keystones!
November 11th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
If it was easy to come up with solutions there wouldn’t be the problem.
Sitting around whinging and abusing and blaming everyone else is not going to help. Wishing marriage was as common as it used to be is not going to help.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
“..This crap makes me beyond furious!..”
that is the christian-voice of kkk..
and the wail of anger/frustration..
at no longer being able to slap/smack/hit children..
(kkk..doing its’ bit to publically denigrate christianity..)
kkk pumps out this vile hate-filled reactionary crap..of all hues..
and then does a volte-face..
and starts pontificating..from on high..on the ‘love of god’..
and how kkk is/will be.. one of ‘the chosen ones’..
kinda gag-inducing to the secular observer..
(and any ‘true’ christian..
..preaching love/non-violence/tolerance..)
such breath-taking rank hypocrisy..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 11th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Phool – the individual that sees no harm in drug taking; has committed armed robbery; and sponges off hard working Kiwis has the gall to accept the criminalising of good parents (unlike himself) who lovingly discipline their children with a smack if required.
You really are the ULTIMATE hypocrite!
November 11th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
“Sitting around whinging and abusing and blaming everyone else is not going to help.”
Silly me, I should have known the pc wimpish do nothing approach is the Key. Poor kiwi kids!
How many kiwi kids you helping Mr George?
November 11th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
The last thing authoritarian leftoids want is good families since people within strong families are resistant to control from government busybodies and do not go along with lefty pathologies.
Which of course is why marriage has been degraded to the point of almost meaninglessness by big government types and gay marriage being just the latest way of making it irrelevant to the purpose for which it was first instituted – that being the procreation and nurture of of children.
If leftism is not a mental disorder, it is most definitely a spiritual one as evidenced by the continual attacks on the Christian faith when debating public policy on how much the GOVERNMENT can interfere in private individuals lives.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Indeed, socialism detests family bonds because they’re the hardest to control.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Pete George 5:20 pm,
Bollocks, Pete.
The simple solution to divest our society of most of our social woes is to simply turn the clock back to a time when we had a sound, moral, and pure society.
You’re being disingenuous again.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Andrei 5:42 pm,
Well said!
I’m feeling too angry and intolerant to be nice today.
The hand wringing by some here really gets my ire up. Good on you for keeping a cool head.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
[big bruv (4862) Says:]
You have to laugh, RRM and the rest of the pinko’s are so rabidly anti marriage unless it happens to be two gay men or two lesbian wimin wanting to get hitched.
[/Quote]
As an as-yet unmarried stepdad who does not hit his Missus OR his 5yo step-daughter, and has provided a hell of a lot more care and attention to both than the natural father who chose to exit their lives permanently at 18 months, I would have to respond that:
(1) Miss 5yo is doing very well at school and making lots of friends despite mum & stepdad’s lack of marital validation.
(2) Big Blouse is a troll who talks a lot of sh!t.
(3) I have no problem with anyone choosing to get married – only with assholes who want to tell us who SHOULD get married and who should not be allowed to (usually uber-christian zealots.)
(4) Big Blouse is a troll who talks a lot of sh!t.
(5) I found a little note with “I love you [rrm's name]” from miss 5yo on the table when I got home from work on Monday, so I assume I am providing her a reasonable level of nurture and support in spite of being an appalling unmarried cop-out.
(6) Big Blouse is a troll who talks a lot of sh!t.
I don’t agree with a lot that Dad4justice says, but I do admire his commitment to his cause and his willingness to stand up for himself and his views. Something that trolls like Big Blouse who come here solely to talk smack might learn a thing or two from.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Indeed RRM, wonder if big blouse is so lippy face to face?
November 11th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Fuck me its a bloody epiphany. Phoolyou will be here soon to to indulge in a circle jerk regarding his ability to bring up a sprog while stoned!
November 11th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Yes, andrei has it. Socialists hate the family and the church because these institutions represent infertile ground for planting their liberal, state-centric values.
It should come as no surprise then that these structures have come under sustained attack from the left, and that their demise is mirrored by the rise of modern socialism.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
“..Kris K (983) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 11th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Phool – the individual that sees no harm in drug taking; has committed armed robbery; ..”
yes i smoke pot..
yes..years/decades ago i was a junkie..robbed a chemist shop while withdrawing from smack..and did time for the crime..
i have been ‘clean’ for a very very long time..
pot is all i ‘do’..
“..and sponges off hard working Kiwis ..”
i am raising my son on a dpb..
“..has the gall to accept the criminalising of good parents (unlike himself) ..”
what evidence do you have i am not a ‘good parent’..(school reports etc..wd prove you a liar..)
and no..he has never been hit/slapped/smacked..
“..who lovingly discipline their children with a smack if required..”
gotta love that ‘lovingly discipline’ argument..eh..?
and from a christian-bigot at that..
meh..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 11th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
I’ve done my share, 3 kids, 2 stepkids, 2 grandkids, I have been involved in kindies, schools, kids sports etc etc
<blockquoteThe last thing authoritarian leftoids want is good families….
Which of course is why marriage has been degraded to the point of almost meaninglessness by big government types….
If leftism is not a mental disorder, it is most definitely a spiritual one….
These are pathetic generalisations based on nothing (can you back any of it up?). Do you condemn all leftie Christians?
Yeah, right, another meaningful helpful sort of statement, that really addresses the issues.
Back to when exactly, where, and how? It’s mpossible to go back the the impossible, if you don’t realise that then I misjudged your intellect.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Yet, strangle enough, when we do look back in time to when sex was confined within marriage and at the way things “used to be” there was less violence in the home, and in society as a whole, and less children getting beaten up.
Look now in our newspapers and there is someone getting murdered every second day; I’m sure the local newspapers have a pre-saved file that contains “police find body” just to save time; whereas in my mother’s time (as she is wont to remind us occasionally) a murder was a rare occurrence and was talked about for months if not years.
You can bitch all you want about Christian morals or moral do-gooders, but the fact is that as these values have disintegrated so our society has become more violent and just plain heartless; and it’s only going to get worse.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Jeez, and religion is now supposed to be a part of the right/left divide? How far removed from reality is that?
November 11th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
2 Timothy 3 from the Bible on the ‘last days’.
Sounds a lot like society now.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Gee, I forgot what it was like to bite my lip so hard to draw blood.
I have to agree with PhilU – there’s no evidence to suggest he is a bad parent. People with different opinions can be good parents too.
I too question when we had a “sound, moral and pure society”. From what I have heard from my parents and grand parents ‘we’ used to just pretend a lot didn’t happen, ignore the obvious, belittle, deride and abuse. The difference now is that some of that is a little more open, and sometimes accepted. Acceptance and honesty isn’t always a bad thing.
I know that I personally have produced a good old-fashioned nuclear family BUT my children have four Grandads, two grandmas, and all the rest of my interesting family situation. I truly have come to see that love, care and honesty in our relationships as a wider family actually contribute to us being a successful family, more than if we were just Mum, Dad and two kids. Experience of difference can be useful in giving one some perspective.
I too agree that it would be preferable for us to all be two parent families. I also know a number of single parent families that do work, but it is hard work. Saying that, the research does say that coming from a single parent family is a significant factor in likelihood of crime, etc. I suspect ensuring our boys and girls are responsible for their actions, allowing for more adoptions, reducing drug and alcohol abuse, etc etc will have a greater effect on the outcomes of those from single parent families than just marrying the woman off.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Pete George 7:12 pm,
In my opinion, Pete, “leftie Christians” is a contradiction in terms.
If you don’t/can’t/won’t see the contrast between society today and that of 40+ years ago then it is I that has “misjudged your intellect”. Only someone with their head where the sun don’t shine refuses to acknowledge the obvious decline of western society, and the systematic removal of the morals that were foundational to it in the past.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
I am well aware of changes in society in the last 40 years. There have been some improvements and some things have become worse.
We can’t go back to 1969. For a start, what was the population then? 2.5 million?
We have to find a way to try and improve things moving forward, that’s the only direction time goes in.
Christ would have been classified and vilified a leftie by many on this blog. But I guess as time has moved forward you can be whatever sort of Christian you choose to be.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
40 years?
I remember being a kid 20 odd years ago, and we could walk home from the bus stop or cycle home from town in the evening. The countryside used to be safe.
My little sisters can’t do that safely these days. Even our friendly countryside has become dangerous with murder, abuse, rape etc becoming a frequent occurrence.
And let’s not even mention town on a Fri night.
I felt safer walking the streets of London at night than I did back in Auckland or Welligton.
But I digress…
Why marriage over some other sort of arrangement?
Because marriage is legally binding, and a
PUBLIC vow. It (should) carry more clout than other relationships.
Yes you can vow your undying love to your partner without getting married, but tomorrow you (or your partner) could change your mind. Marriage is a more stable and more secure state for both partners, as well as their kids.
Now that doesn’t mean the relationship RRM is in isn’t meaningful or won’t work (man, have you got a chip on your shoulder, buddy) – I wish him all the best, seriously. It’s great to hear that he’s filling a gap left by some loser. Good on you!
No-one is talking RRM down – we’re just saying that marriage is a more stable and secure state of being.
Rufus
November 11th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
“..I remember being a kid 20 odd years ago, and we could walk home from the bus stop or cycle home from town in the evening. The countryside used to be safe.
My little sisters can’t do that safely these days. Even our friendly countryside has become dangerous with murder, abuse, rape etc becoming a frequent occurrence.
And let’s not even mention town on a Fri night.
I felt safer walking the streets of London at night than I did back in Auckland or Welligton..”
absolute horseshit..!
auckland in the 80’s was a very violent city..
i came here after a time in new york..
and was amazed at the overt violence on the streets of auckland on a fri nite..
and how about that bullshit about women/children not being beaten 40 yrs ago..?
it was almost considered a mans’ right 40 yrs ago..to belt the missus..
selective-memories..eh..?
fantasy-material..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 11th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Phil, you good-for-nothing tool:
I was relating MY experience.
You’re relating YOUR experience.
Since we’re talking about EXPERIENCES there’s bound to be some variance.
My claim was that the countryside I grew up in is no longer safe.
My other claim was that I felt safer as a pedestrian at night in London than I do here in the large NZ cities.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Phil, I feel sorry for your kid.
Where’s his mum?
November 11th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Phil, I feel sorry for your kid.
Where’s his mum?
K road….
November 11th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
If it were just “a bit of paper” why won’t they sign it?
It is because it is much more than just a bit of paper.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Not nice Starboard – that was a serious question from me
Rufus
November 11th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Seriously, I don’t think anyone can argue that crime and violence were the same 40 years ago as they are today.
Society has made HUGE leaps in technology and some other things but morality has taken a giant leap backward. Even going back a few years if two guys got into a fight in a bar or someone’s house, well, they might beat the snot out of each other and end up putting a pack of frozen peas on the bruises: nowadays if two people get into a fight it’s more likely that one will knife the other to death, or one will end up getting in his car and running down the other.
Killing someone doesn’t seem to be such a big deal these days. People have no self control.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
apologies rufus..didnt realise we were running a love in for the idiot Ure…
November 12th, 2009 at 1:01 am
For me this issue is much bigger than that muppet Bradford’s legislation. It is about a tiny minority running over the top of a majority. It is about having rules introduced by a woman with less than 2000 votes and absolutely no mandate from anyone to even suggest a law change let alone push one through.
It is about John Key not having the balls to do the right thing, I still like much of what he does bit he has moved from a 9 to 6.5 in the last month with his inability to do the hard stuff. His response to the outburst by Harawhira was spineless, I can’t believe I saw Phil Goff show more balls.
His attitude to the referendum was a disgrace.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:17 am
It is about parliament walking all over the social contract.
If none of the National caucus will stand up for this then they all disqualify them selves to be MP’s and represent us.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Fletch
We have become desensitized to violence with all the games and media we watch being carried over into social mores combined with a juvenile lack of responsibility.
But of course the psychobabelists tell us there is no definative evidence to show this.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:02 am
It’s good to see that one desired outcome is being achieved – no stupid prosecutions. Curious about the other outcome, the entire point of the legislation – to reduce abuse of children. If that is not achieved, then the law really was a completely pointless sideshow. If the reverse happens, abuse increases, it kind of lends support to the idea that the law is counterproductive.
Much tougher one to quantify though. Tracking abuse statistics is really hard work, totally fraught with statistical difficulties. Given that there is ongoing change in what is even considered abuse, apples of the past are not apples of the future.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Right, here goes!
The major fault of this legislation is that it gives ALL the rights to the children, yet dumps ALL the responsibilities on the parents. Fair legislation balances the rights and the responsabilities of all parties concerned.
As a Parent, I have the responsibility to ensure my children are raised correctly. I have not had to physically discipline my children for many years now, but there was a time when that is precisely what I had to do, as an option of last resort obviously. It worked though.
The other day my oldest daughter came home and told me I wasn’t aloud to smack her. I sat down with her and told her I had no need to smack her, but I also took her to the Family First website and took her through the cases listed there,which we discussed at length. This state directed intervention in loving family relationships frightened her much more than I ever could.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Ben
This isn’t about whether the desired outcome is being achieved.
This law change should never have been allowed to proceed, it is fundemantally wrong to set state authorities (who are not impartial in some areas) onto ordinary parents.
That the initiators and supporters knew this right through whole issue that this law change would do nothing for the abused children is a truly wicked thing and says everything about them.
More importantly polling before it was enacted and a referendum after the election clearly showed that more than 80% of the electorate thought so too.
That the politicians ignored this shows their ciontempt for the social contract and makes them not fit for purpose.
This is the crux of the matter now, not child abuse or smacking.
One of the reasons people voted for National was they expected them to undo this legislation and the nanny state per se, that is not happening.
If you don’t understand this then you need to go and live in a dictatorship and experience what it is to understand how precious a democracy is.
It is so precious, wherever it is in the world, lives have to be given to get it and very often to maintain it.
All other arguments are fluff.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
edit isn’t working again.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Right of way is Way of Right 11:50 am,
And that’s the scary thing; while kids may know their ‘rights’, very few of them are aware of the possible outcome if they complained to authorities that their parents abused (smacked) them. As you did with your daughter, parents should likewise explain to their kids these possible consequences.
Good on you for doing so.