So… you make shit up?

Labour governed NZ when s59 was repealed.

The New Zealand Labour Party of is a member of Socialist International.

Karl Marx – the founder of modern socialism said “The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother’s care, shall be in state institutions.”

So, no…not making shit up.

Also, while I’m quoting Marx, he also said: “”Catch a man a fish and you can sell it to him. Teach a man to fish, and you ruin a wonderful business opportunity.”. Sums up the dependency-creating welfare of the left.

She’s 18 so she’s an adult, her kit and schedule is her responsibility, not theirs.
Kick her out if she can’t take no for an answer and abuses the owners.
they have clearly spoiled her.

She wouldn’t be in my house and I’ve told mine that already for when they are 18.
While you live here we are king of the hill and you abide by our rules.
want your own go live somewhere else with your money.

Pete George (2579) Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
FFS, this is supposed to be about the S59 review, not smacking regurgitated yet again.

getstaffed, do you have a conspiracy theory for everything you disagree with?

Vote: 0 1

getstaffed (4436) Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Pete – Perhaps I’m wise enough not to be satisfied with ’surface features’ of a discussion..

So… you make shit up?

“We hold these truths to be self evident …” where have I read these words before?

The continual restating of the lie sounds far more like the indoctrination of religion. Children are taught to parrot the lie before their critical thinking skills have developed, thus ensuring that religion perpetuates itself and steals the freedom of thought from far too many of our fellow Humans.

Examples would be Hitler’s policies regarding the Jews, and more currently the AGW lie as fact and therefore scientific ‘truth’.

The association of Iraq with 9/11. The necessity of government. “National security”. Capitalist property rights. “Free will”. Necessity of a five-day working week.

I might add; all the above involve someone losing their freedoms. This is ALWAYS the case when lies become the commonly accepted version of fact/truth.

Well, who can argue with common sense?

And not infrequently the third.

Indeed.
To get lies “accepted as being self-evident” usually involves brainwashing and the continual restating of the lie. The bigger the lie, and the more it is parroted as ‘truth’, the quicker the public acceptance.
Examples would be Hitler’s policies regarding the Jews, and more currently the AGW lie as fact and therefore scientific ‘truth’.

I might add; all the above involve someone losing their freedoms. This is ALWAYS the case when lies become the commonly accepted version of fact/truth.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident

I really hate that Schopenhauer quote, it misses out that fact that all lies also pass through those first two stages.

And not infrequently the third.

Schopenhauer was a miserable old fuck who hated the world for not realising how right he was. This is only forgivable because he was, in fact, right.

He does not care personally much one way or the other about this legislation. His position is based purely on political expediency. He has flip-flopped on this issue like other issues.

He has worked out that only a small number of voters will vote mainly on this issue. If he keeps the law as it is the only thing those strongly opposed to the law can do is vote ACT or not vote. An ACT will not harm National. If he changes the law the fanatical anti-smackers may vote Labour or the Greens.

The only thing that would change Key’s mind is if ACT was polling very high close to the election. The Nats want ACT to be dependant on Epson and bring 4 or 5 extra MPs to Parliament. At the moment National and Labour are in basic agreement on the anti-smacking legislation and the ETS although Labour would like a higher amount going overseas.

The only way we will see a change is with a strong ACT presence in the next Parliament.

How many children has it saved?

You may well ask the same question about our laws on murder, they don’t seem to work, but I don’t see you screaming for them to be repealled.

You say “The limitations of force is in the Act though” and quote parts, but they don’t, as far as I see, actually define force in any way, and I can’t see any applicable definition relating to childcare anywhere else in the bill.

Murray,
Like I’ve said to Yvette, the point of the legislation is not to reduce child abuse – that’s hopefully a long-term side-effect, and it may take a decade or so before we start seeing the results. The immediate purpose of the legislation is to remove a legal loophole for abusers who fight the charges on grounds of “teaching them a lesson”. This has been a successful defence on multiple occasions. As John Hancock writes:

“The section 59 defence has been successfully raised in cases where parents has been prosecuted for hitting their child with a bamboo stick, hitting their child with a belt, hitting their child with a hosepipe, hitting their child with a piece of wood and chaining their child in metal chains to prevent them leaving the house …. These successful acquittals have all occurred in jury trials, where the jury has found that such actions have been reasonable, and therefore lawful, means of domestic discipline towards children.”

The full text of his case summaries can be read here, should you be interested: http://www.acya.org.nz/site_resources/library/Documents/Reports_to_UN/S59_report_UNCROC_28Aug2003.rtf

I realise this example is not a smacking matter but to see this family go through such heartache is truely heartbreaking.

Apparently no written statement has been made by the daughter so for all you legal minds out there what happens at the next court appearance, if no written evidence is produced?

You might have been on the civilised side in the “It’s not alright” campaign Russell, but the intrusion of the state between parents and children is more complicated and can be sinister as well as protective.

what kind of a bitch calls the police on her parents? 18 isnt a child. she would be gone from my house.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident

I really hate that Schopenhauer quote, it misses out that fact that all lies also pass through those first two stages.

Reading the case summaries in Appendix 3, it’s amazing how many of the parents claim either “nothing at all” or else “perfectly reasonable smacking” on the Family First website.

But then the Police/CYFS information reveals that the “smacks” were in fact assaults with sticks, metal spoons, hoses, phone books, belt buckles, wooden spoon to the face, or punches to the head etc. Nice.

“CYFS picked on me for nothing more than a light smack”…. yeah right. Family First website = BS.

The limitations of force is in the Act though

“Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

“(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
“(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
“(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
“(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.”

If you think this is banning smacking then you must think that smacking is unreasonable force.

From the description you’ve given it sounds like a very standard family violence response from the police — the same as if his wife or partner had made the complaint. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with smacking.

Not much, except a minor clean up of the crimes act to remove a provision for an archaic defense. Which is what it was always going to be all along, until the religious right used it as a stalking horse to ignite a culture war.

Once that happened, it was never about a minor law change in a private members bill. Instead, the likes of McCroskie and his dupes like Colin Craig attempted to turn it into an attempt by Biblical literalists to start relitigating the enlightenment.
McCroskie and the rest of his disingenuous social concervative cronies:

a) lost

and

b) are now exposed as liars.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

- Arthur Schopenhauer.

its not about how the law is working, etc.

its the fact the public majority don’t want the law, its a democracy.
the government is out of control, justifying its size with shit like this,
while the economy is shit and no one wants to make those hard decisions.