Smart move by Craig

January 13th, 2014 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Conservative Party leader says he still smacks his children “just like two thirds of New Zealand parents”.

The party is a possible coalition partner with the National Party after this year’s general election.

Mr Craig told RadioLive today he wanted the issue of repealing the anti- law to be “on the table” for future negotiations with National.

Asked if he would start smacking his own children if the law was reversed, Mr Craig said: “I occasionally do it right now”.

“Like two thirds of New Zealand parents I don’t go putting the good raising of a child behind a silly law.

This is a smart move by Craig. By admitting he smacks his own kids, he turns the issue into a more high profile one. If he is really lucky some one will call for him to be arrested and charged, and then that will give him even more publicity.

It isn’t a huge issue for most voters, but the Conservative only need 5%.

He said mostly his discipline consisted of “a flick of a finger on the back of a knuckle”.

“It’s hurts for a moment,” he said.

But the vast majority of discipline he used was not physical, he said.

As it should be.

Tags: ,

272 Responses to “Smart move by Craig”

  1. thePeoplesFlag (256 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 56 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (14,044 comments) says:

    3…2…1 P.G. turning up ready to launch some missile.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. BeaB (2,144 comments) says:

    Beating children? A tap on the hand? Why is the Left always so hysterical?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Jaffa (97 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 48 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. deadrightkev (511 comments) says:

    There goes one of Acts issues stolen out from under their noses.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Monique Angel (295 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 44 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    Peter Marshall, Judith Collins and Sian Elias didn’t have commonsense beaten out of them!

    Instead they had commonsense smacked into them as they were all rightfully smacked as children. :cool:

    Spoiled brats don’t get far in life.

    Those with commonsense, respect and understanding do though.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Alan Wilkinson (1,887 comments) says:

    @thePeoplesFlag, blatant misrepresentation. Whereas socialists believing irresponsible indulgence and indolence have no moral dimension and consequences is all too accurate.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Graham McCready will take Colin to Court. No wait, he’s taking Len Brown to Court after the Pike River families told him not to jump in. I’m sure he can fit Colin in.

    He can’t go to Court unless he’s abusing his kids. Smacking a child in not outlawed. A person just cannot use ‘reasonable force’ as a defense if they go to Court, which is usually only when the child’s welfare is in danger.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “There goes one of Acts issues stolen out from under their noses.”

    Is ACT still opposed to Bradford’s anti-smacking law?

    Rodney does not appear to be if he ever was. That is how he came across on RadioLive with Wallace Chapman. He was criticizing Colin Craig and saying he should move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. dime (10,100 comments) says:

    Wrong DPF. Its nothing but bad for Craig. He is the “happy clapper smacker”

    United Future is the answer

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 37 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    It’s kind of weird to be smacking a child over three.

    Depends how naughty the kid is.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    “………………He wants to be a lawmaker, and he breaks the law?
    It must be OK for us to break some, then!
    What is the next stupid thing he is going to do?
    I guess we’ll soon find out!……………………………”

    LOL……….us Conservatives want Mr Craig to be the Education Minister – and keep all the ‘perfect citizen idealogy’ from being mixed in with the running of schools.

    Schools are getting too far away from what they are designed for. They were never meant to ‘produce model citizens’ but to produce ‘educated children’.

    The Union will be done with soon enough! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “Smacking a child in not outlawed”

    Sorry Joanne. You are wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. TimG_Oz (865 comments) says:

    Thanks for reminding me why MMP sucks so badly

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    He can’t go to Court unless he’s abusing his kids. Smacking a child in not outlawed.

    Umm, smacking as a form of correction (as opposed to preventing danger to the kid) is outlawed.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Alan Wilkinson (1,887 comments) says:

    @Monique: “It’s kind of weird to be smacking a child over three.”

    Rubbish. I clipped a neighbouring kid on the bottom who was throwing stones at our windows. And she was always grateful I didn’t tell her parents because she would have got thrashed.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. iMP (2,420 comments) says:

    According to the Left Dribblers here, we’ll have to sue all those adults supervising sports kids who get hit with tennis balls, cricket balls, fall over while they’re supervising in the playground, kindie kids bashing themselves with hammers, and grazed knees from karate try-outs.

    OH THE HUMANITY all this “child thrashing” and “beating children up” as they call it. Liberal semantics, give us a break from the twisting and distorting already.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. dirty harry (514 comments) says:

    The Conservatives get my vote on this alone…well done Colin , keep up the cracking work. It will be a joy to see you in Parliament.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. iMP (2,420 comments) says:

    If Colin was charged and had to go to trial for a knuckle flick, well goodbye 5% and hullo 10-15% as middle-New Zealand cheers him all the way.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    “….Key must be getting a bit worried, it’s only January….”

    Stop talking shit PG…………if Craig is so useless……who’s to worry then?

    You stood in Dunedin at the last council elections PG………….so who here worried about that hey? :cool:

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    If Colin was charged and had to go to trial for a knuckle flick, well goodbye 5% and hullo 10-15% as middle-New Zealand cheers him all the way.

    They might just do that. Jail is how the Australians got rid of Pauline Hansen when she was getting too popular, and it worked.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. dime (10,100 comments) says:

    “Rubbish. I clipped a neighbouring kid on the bottom who was throwing stones at our windows. And she was always grateful I didn’t tell her parents because she would have got thrashed.”

    Dude, thats creepy.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Not sure how “smart” it was. Seems Colin is willing to answer all questions put to him, whether doing so is smart or not.

    @thePeoplesFlag: in your haste to claim the moral highground, you have failed to note that the post is about the wisdom of admitting he smacks kids, not the “morality” of smacking. Wise up.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Alan, for a number of reasons you’re taking a big risk hitting someone else’s kid in any way. Many parents can get very upset if other people get physical with their kids.

    If you think kids are getting thrashed by their parents have you done anything about it?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    “……They might just do that. Jail is how the Australians got rid of Pauline Hansen when she was getting too popular, and it worked….”

    Fucken Bullshit!

    Hanson got elected to Federal Parliment because she was popular…………and was jailed several years after leaving Parliment. And it was nothing to do with what she had done while in Parliment.

    She was wrongfully jailed and the courts said so.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Pete, in my travels I have come across a wesbite called “The Good Men Project.”

    I think you would really like it. It seems to be in strong agreement with your philosophy and I am sure would give you hours of enjoyable reading:

    http://goodmenproject.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    Hariett – It still destroyed her political career. They cynics amongst us would say that was intentional, as did she.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Changeiscoming (196 comments) says:

    I agree with what IMP said, if the police call on Colin for a “Ello ello ello what’s all this then” chat after they did nothing when a group of boys admitted on tape they raped underage girls, then the Conservatives would be looking at 10 to 15% plus easy.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Some of you mustn’t have read through the Herald article.

    A police spokesman said they were satisfied that Mr Craig’s comments on radio this morning did not “amount to disclosure of an offence”.

    “Police do not intend being drawn into a political debate on this issue in an election year.”

    Section 59 allows the police to not act if deemed not in the public interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Alan Wilkinson (1,887 comments) says:

    @dime, nope, you are creepy. I am straightforward.

    @PG, many parents are idiots. So what? I act based on my judgment. It used to be called common sense. As for judging what goes on behind closed doors you may have a sense but not enough to make a judgment that justifies an intervention likely to cause more harm than good.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    “you may have a sense but not enough to make a judgment that justifies an intervention”

    Alan, you have just said you made a judgement and intervened yourself based on that judgement.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. RRM (10,009 comments) says:

    Well IMHO it’s a smart move by Kolun, and one of the most genuine things he’s said.

    If he thinks raising his kids to “do as I say, because I said so, or else suffer the consequences” is in their best interests, well, I hope for their sake that it works out…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    @PG – actually, section 59(4) does nothing of the sort. It is a meaningless phrase of comfort inserted “for the avoidance of doubt” to use a hackneyed term. It basically says that Police have a discretion not to prosecute when the offence is “inconsequential” – which is a discretion they have for every other offence and would have even if that subsection was never enacted.

    The question is: what would legal defence would be open to Colin Craig’s ifsome policewoman did decide to prosecute him for smacking his child? Note: your answer cannot be “no judge would ever convict” or “no policeman would ever pursue such a matter.” In a liberal democracy, we do not base the criminal law on the arbitrary whims of our state officials.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Cato – I’ve been living that since last century. I think there’s some others here who could benefit more from reading it. But they won’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Alan Wilkinson (1,887 comments) says:

    @PG, I see I have to spell out the logic for you in single syllables. I judged the parents would not be offended by my action and that the girl would stop misbehaving at once and would prefer my action to being punished by her parents. I also judged that her parents were good people but strict with their children who would be mortified and very angry with her for misbehaving that way with their neighbours.

    I could have been an arrogant sanctimonious socialist prick, but I am not.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Cato at 4.56 – I’ve never claimed it was perfect, it’s far from it, but in practice it seems to at least be causing no more problems than the previous version. My preference is for it to be tidied up but whatever the end result might be it would still be imperfect, there will always be grey areas and doubtful cases. Complex issue.

    What parents want is to be left alone to do as they see fit but for other kids to be protected from violent parents. It’s hard to write that into law.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    It’s very easy actually. You set the standard as being “reasonable” – and if there are problems with how that is being interpreted in the courts you look to fix that implementation, rather than make all physical discipline a crime ipso facto and leave it up to the unchecked whims of the police to determine whether they want to pursue it or not.

    “The law of common sense” wasn’t good enough for the EFA and it certainly isn’t good enough for the Crimes Act.

    A confusing issue is that the repealers did and do talk out both sides of their mouth on the issue. In one breath, they protest that the repeal of s 59 did not criminalise smacking. In the next, they would say that all physical discipline was wrong.

    Which is it? Should what Colin Craig have copped to constitute a crime, in your opinion. If not, how can you support the anti-smacking law? Which is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. dime (10,100 comments) says:

    Alan, I don’t have kids… But if a neighbour hit my niece, I’d knock him the fuck out.

    Hitting other peoples kids is just plain wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Alan…
    “I didn’t tell her parents because she would have got thrashed.”
    “I also judged that her parents were good people but strict with their children”

    You don’t want the law or the police to judge what’s best for kids but you judge that you are better to physically punish a child than letting it’s parent punish or even know about it.

    If one of my kids was caught throwing stones at windows I would have very displeased. If someone else chose to physically punish them and not tell me about it I’d be livid. And I think many parents would be similar.

    I wouldn’t react like dime but I know a number of people would feel like doing that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    According to an Andrea Vance article in 2012 his child…note there is only one…was 6 years old…in May. It is a girl.

    Therefore what he has admitted to doing…and he stated he is still doing currently in the present tense is hitting a girl aged at least 7 but possibly 8 years old.

    How bad is this girl that she needs smacking at 8 years old? How poor is his parenting that he needs to smack an 8 year old girl?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 32 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Should what Colin Craig have copped to constitute a crime, in your opinion.

    Based on what I know, one aspiring attention seeker politician’s story, I wouldn’t make a legal judgement on it. Witnesses or the child’s testimony would be required. Without anything of substance to go on I think the police were wise dismissing it as politicking.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. dime (10,100 comments) says:

    I should rephrase.. Don’t wanna paint myself as some internet tough guy…

    There would be a scrap!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. bringbackdemocracy (428 comments) says:

    Just change the undemocratic law.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. dime (10,100 comments) says:

    Whale – I find myself having to discipline my gf.. She’s in her 20s.. I should probably save that for a different forum..

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    No, Pete. I’m not asking you if it constituted a crime under the law as it is. I am asking you whether you are of the view that, all other things being equal, should Colin Craig be a criminal if he really has rapped his daughter on the back of her knuckles?

    There’s no right or wrong answer to this – it’s a question of policy. You just can’t have it both ways with weasely evasions, that’s all.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    Changeiscoming (87 comments) says:

    January 13th, 2014 at 4:42 pm
    I agree with what IMP said, if the police call on Colin for a “Ello ello ello what’s all this then” chat after they did nothing when a group of boys admitted on tape they raped underage girls, then the Conservatives would be looking at 10 to 15% plus easy.”

    Perhaps if these drop kick teenagers had had a good thrashing from their parents when they were younger and tasted the cane a few times at high school, then they might have a bit more respect for their fellow citizens.

    Mr. Craig is on the right track. He’s got my vote on this issue alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    Single issue nutters rip my undies.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Cato – bull. It depends on a lot of things. The law and real life can be complex.

    Context, history, degree of rap, degree of harm done, one off or not, the whole story. It could range from a one off totally inconsequential light tap on the knuckles that no one in their right mind would care about to something much worse.

    What if (I won’t put Craig in this scenario) a stepfather arrives home pissed again and whacks an eight year old on the knuckles with his knuckles as she protected her head with her hands, saying if she gave him any lip and didn’t put his tea on the table immediately he’d thrash the living daylights out of her?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    I agree with the Whaleoil take on this (a first for me), you can’t run for office on the basis that it’s ok to ignore laws that you don’t like. He’ll be constantly asked what other laws is it ok to ignore. The drugs one is obvious.

    It’s an epic fail and will dog him for the rest of the year.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    I’m not necessarily pro-smacking myself. But I am pro-rule of law.

    Pete, you are an intelligent person, but you seem to be really ignorant of how law works. Extenuating circumstances like the one you have outlined are irrelevant to the question of what the law provides. The law is concerned with how your actions measure up to the legal standard. The law, as written, says that any unwanted force applied to a child for corrective purposes – no matter how light – is assualt.

    I don’t care if the Police decide not to prosecute on this occasion. It is still now a common assault under the criminal law.

    Do you actually understand that?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. itstricky (1,880 comments) says:

    The law and real life can be complex.
    Context, history, degree of rap, degree of harm done, one off or not, the whole story. It could range from a one off totally inconsequential light tap on the knuckles that no one in their right mind would care about to something much worse.

    Which is why the went the whole hog in the first place to remove the defence of reasonable force for discipline. To make it easier to prosecute actual, and obvious, child abuse cases. To Mr Craig, however, that is a inconvience to his outdated (and obviously very effective, ’cause he’s still smacking an 8 year old) – habits.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Alan Wilkinson (1,887 comments) says:

    @dime, I see you have an entirely inconsistent attitude to physical correction. Or do you just have a proprietary relationship with your female family members?

    @PG, yep, I knew much more about my neighbours than the law or cops did.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Jaffa says:

    wants to be a lawmaker, and he breaks the law?
    It must be OK for us to break some, then!

    I opposed Bradford’s Law at time and believe it should be repealed. But I suspect Jafa has a point. If anyone else got in trouble for taking a moral stance against what they believed was an unjust law, Craig would be at the head of the procession carrying the burning torches. As such, I smell the strong whiff of both hypocrisy and expediency.

    And as for “I smack but I don’t hurt”, that’s up there with “I didn’t inhale”. Either you do it you don’t – you don’t try and leave a back door open to let you wriggle out when faced with a voter who disagrees with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. itstricky (1,880 comments) says:

    Smart move by Craig

    Too right -: Moon walking, chemical cloud chasing, 8 year old smacker -: all the hallmarks of a successful electoral campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. dime (10,100 comments) says:

    Alan. Was a joke.

    I would flip if some neighbour hit a kid related to me. That is all.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Alan Wilkinson (1,887 comments) says:

    @Alan: “you can’t run for office on the basis that it’s ok to ignore laws that you don’t like.”

    Of course you can. Bad laws should be ignored.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    PG, do you think that the legal definition of ‘assault’ goes something like this:

    “The act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another in the context of:

    (a) the offender’s history;
    (b) the degree of the force used;
    (c) the degree of harm caused by the force.”

    Now either you can agree that what Colin Craig described should be a criminal offence (all other things being equal) or you can agree that the repeal of s 59 was wrongheaded. You can’t say both.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    “….Hariett – It still destroyed her[Hanson’s] political career. They cynics amongst us would say that was intentional, as did she….”

    Gazz, Hanson lost her seat….in 1998…..lost again in 2001….went to court and jailed in 2003!

    Yes she has tried ‘comebacks’ but jail has nothing to do with their failure as everyone knows she was wrongfully convicted.

    Anyway,

    “…….Hanson lost her seat in Parliament after an electoral redistribution essentially split Oxley in half before the 1998 election.

    At the next Federal election on 10 November 2001, Hanson ran for a Queensland Senate seat but narrowly failed. She has accounted for her declining popularity by blaming Prime Minister John Howard for stealing her policies.[38]

    “It has been widely recognised by all, including the media, that John Howard sailed home on One Nation policies. In short, if we were not around, John Howard would not have made the decisions he did.”[38]

    Other interrelated factors that have contributed to her downfall include her connection with a series of advisors (John Pasquarelli, David Ettridge and David Oldfield), all of whom she has fallen out with; disputes amongst her supporters and a lawsuit over the organisational structure of One Nation.

    On 20 August 2003, in a separate and this time criminal case, a jury in the District Court of Queensland convicted Hanson and Ettridge of electoral fraud. Both of them were sentenced to three years imprisonment for falsely claiming that 500 members of the ‘Pauline Hanson Support Movement’ were members of the political organisation ‘Pauline Hanson’s One Nation’, in order to register that organisation in Queensland as a political party and apply for electoral funding…..”

    Prime Minister John Howard said it was “a very long, unconditional sentence” and Bronwyn Bishop said Hanson was a political prisoner, comparing her conviction with Robert Mugabe’s treatment of Zimbabwean opponents.[44]

    Court of Appeal President Margaret McMurdo rebuked many politicians, including Prime Minister John Howard and Bronwyn Bishop MHR. Their observations, she said, demonstrated at least “a lack of understanding of the Rule of Law” and “an attempt to influence the judicial appellate process and to interfere with the independence of the judiciary for cynical political motives,” although she praised other leading Coalition politicians for accepting the District Court’s decision.[47]

    In 1998, Tony Abbott had established a trust fund called “Australians for Honest Politics Trust” to help bankroll civil court cases against the One Nation Party and its leader Pauline Hanson.[48] Prime Minister John Howard denied any knowledge of existence of such a fund.[49] Abbott was also accused of offering funds to One Nation dissident Terry Sharples to support his court battle against the party. However, Howard defended the honesty of Abbott in this matter.[50] Abbott conceded that the political threat One Nation posed to the Howard Government was “a very big factor” in his decision to pursue the legal attack, but he also claimed to be acting “in Australia’s national interest”. Howard also defended Abbott’s actions saying “It’s the job of the Liberal Party to politically attack other parties – there’s nothing wrong with that.”[51]…………..”

    Politicians and journalists from both sides of politics have long said publicly that her treatment is the most disgusting of Federal political history. In short this is really why the didn’t want her around:

    “……A poll in The Bulletin magazine at this time suggested that if Hanson formed a political party, it would win eighteen percent of the vote. Subsequently, after months of silence, Howard forwarded a bipartisan motion (along with Opposition Leader Kim Beazley) against racial discrimination and reaffirming support for a nondiscriminatory immigration policy……

    …..Hanson’s views received negative coverage across Asian news media, and National Party Deputy and Trade Minister, Tim Fischer, criticised the race “debate” initiated by Hanson saying it was putting Australian exports and jobs at risk. In October other ministers and state and territory leaders followed Fischer’s lead in attacking Hanson.[12] In November, about 10,000 people marched in protest against racism in Melbourne, and other protests followed, while Anglican and Catholic church leaders warned that the “ill-conceived controversy” threatened the stability of Australia’s multicultural society….”

    All Hanson ever wanted was balanced immigration – Africans – but Africans without AIDS or child/rebel military backgrounds……educated Asians – but not unemployable Asians…..ect. In general – proper immigration quotas!

    Funnily enough………that is now all being currently questioned – from MP’s in all States!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Alan Wilkinson (1,887 comments) says:

    @dime, so you would be happy if your 8-year-old kid got in a tantrum and started throwing stones that would break your neighbour’s windows? That wouldn’t disturb your flip at all but stopping it by physical intervention would?

    Now that is creepy.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    I’m presuming she was about 6yrs old Alan – and not 16.

    I would smack a 6yld girl on the bottom for throwing stones at windows too.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    January 13th, 2014 at 5:31 pm
    Single issue nutters rip my undies.

    Vote: 3 2

    On the face of it, it might be a single issue but it has much wider ramifications for society as these kids grow older and the level of respect they show to others. Just like the abolition of corporal punishment in schools has produced x 2 generations of delinquent kids who have little or, no respect for the law and/or, others. In my opinion, its all part and parcel of bringing up a well rounded child with a respect for others, that will give them an edge and help them realise their full potential in life.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. iMP (2,420 comments) says:

    We’re castigating Colin Craig for flicking his daughter’s knuckle once in a while, meanwhile young Roastbusters raping and intoxicating underage girls as sport, posting and bragging about it online, is not investigated by Police.

    New Zealand, you’re going down the toilet.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Bob R (1,393 comments) says:

    Haven’t ever smacked my daughter, but worth noting that the evidence is that mild spanking doesn’t appear to have negative impacts. Harsh physical punishments do.

    “On a practical level, our findings have two major implications for parents and developmental scientists. We found a clear distinction between mild physical punishment, such as controlled spanking, which was not associated with negative outcomes in children, and harsh physical punishment, which was associated with effects of considerable magnitude. This suggests that the common definitional practice of lumping together of varying degrees of physical punishment under the rubric of “corporal punishment” may be counter-productive. ”

    A Genetically Informed Study of the Association Between Harsh Punishment and Offspring Behavioral Problems, J Fam Psychol. 2006 June; 20(2): 190–198.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964497/

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Which is why the went the whole hog in the first place to remove the defence of reasonable force for discipline. To make it easier to prosecute actual, and obvious, child abuse cases.

    So you are saying that an “actual, and obvious, child abuse case” would be regarded by a jury of 12 randomly-picked citizens as “reasonable given the circumstances”?

    You’re saying that an “actual, and obvious, child abuse case” might somehow be seen by some people as a parent acting reasonably?

    You’re saying that an “actual, and obvious, child abuse case” might somehow be seen by some people as a parent using force proportionate to the offence of the child?

    Or are you saying that there are cases on hand where a child was hit on the head by a brick and the old law (or the possibility of the old law being used) was enough to get them off from an assault charge? Because as absurd as that claim is, there are anti-smackers who *have* made that claim.

    There are 8 known cases where a parent was charged with assault and was found not guilty by reason on the old S59 law. The most famous is the Riding Crop case. Yet for all the claims that that child was abused, I have yet to see an account that delves into any sort of detail which actually does anything other than report the bland fact the child was smacked – but in hyper-emotive language.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    On the face of it, it might be a single issue but it has much wider ramifications for society as these kids grow older and the level of respect they show to others.

    There’s also a wider problem of CYFS power. CYFS can remove children based only upon dislike of the parents – nothing else.

    Once that’s done it can take literally years to reverse the decision, not to mention thousands of dollars and pain and suffering.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    If anyone else got in trouble for taking a moral stance against what they believed was an unjust law, Craig would be at the head of the procession carrying the burning torches. As such, I smell the strong whiff of both hypocrisy and expediency.

    That’s assuming two things:
    1. That Colin is the first politician who has said this law should be broken. He’s not – indeed, the so-called “clarification” implies strongly that people are going to break it that we don’t want to prosecute. If I recall correctly, only a few weeks after it’s passing a Labour cabinet minister was caught smacking his kids in public.

    2. It’s assuming that people can keep this particular law. If you examine the law of assault carefully, you’ll find it very hard indeed to find a way of correcting children that does not break the law in some way.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. duggledog (1,586 comments) says:

    68 comments in three hours from a bunch of :) intelligent free thinkers…

    So clearly yeah this is still a live issue! I heard the interview this morning; I got the feeling Craig knew the question was coming and didn’t hold back. So he’s with the vast majority of Kiwis who felt shat on and overlooked and talked down to by Big Government Blue or Red.

    I think Craig has just gotten his 5% today. Everybody knows that Key, or Cunliffe, or Norman or any of the other politicians would have given a politician’s answer to this massively political question. Craig didn’t.

    Look at everyone bickering about whether or not to smack kids on the f***ing arse when they’ve been naughty. I knew an old boy who fought in WW2, he said to me ‘why did we bother, you’ve all lost your minds’.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Steve Wrathall (284 comments) says:

    “only” and “5%” are foolish words to use together-as numerous small parties have discovered

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    One of the wisest comments of the day Steve. Craig thinks he can get into double figures if things work out favourably. I hope he doesn’t trust his polls, or maybe he has actually done polls that are accurate that he doesn’t reveal.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    There are two ways to exercise law in this area.

    Legislate for reasonable force and then police those deemed to have gone beyond this, or to outlaw use of violence against children for corrective purposes (allowing it in areas of child safety to prevent unsafe behaviour etc).

    This means either police prosecute unreasonable use of force or police ignore inconsequential use of force.

    Since we chose the later, no one has been prosecuted for smacking the bottom. So Colin Craig mentions he flicks the knuckles of his 7 or 8 year old daughter. This as one person has been prosecuted for hitting the hand (7 others for hitting the head).

    The question is

    1. How many people were hitting their children’s head under the old law and not being prosecuted. Do we wish to return to that?
    2. How many people were once using objects to hit their children and no lionger do so because of the change in law (many were charged for this under the old law believing that to be reasonable force in their eyes).

    So given these two things is what he is proposing going to improve child safety or place it in more risk? It is the latter and it is to gain votes for himself in the cause of parental rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    SPC: You’re wrong on several points. If you’re going to make blanket statements, perhaps you could do even a *little* googling first?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wairarapa-times-age/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503414&objectid=11106738

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Here’s another case of bottom smacking:
    http://across.co.nz/AsC1207.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    “…..One of the wisest comments of the day Steve. Craig thinks he can get into double figures if things work out favourably. I hope he doesn’t trust his polls,…”

    Hardly PG.

    The ‘real world’ poll is thus:

    CCCCP got 60% of 5% of the vote at the last election – with about 2 months of preparation.

    Are you really saying PG that Mr Craig is now going backwards in his public addresses?

    Mr Craig will get well over 5% as I’ve always said since the last election.

    Why? Because as today’s address clearly shows – people like MP’s who tell the TRUTH – not hide it away because it is deemed to be ‘politicly incorrect’. ACT -at times- got votes for that too.

    As I said during the gay marriage debate “why doesn’t Key say if he has committed sodomy in his Marriage if he is so in agreement for it?” – He couldn’t even say ‘no’ because he is so politicly correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    Take it up with police scrubone

    “Police say they have prosecuted just eight parents for smacking children in the five years since the law came in. Seven of those parents had smacked their child in the head or face.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/9603815/Smacking-law-stupid-says-Craig

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Take it up with police scrubone

    You are the one who made the statement here, without qualification. It is a clear, unequivocal falsehood that is refuted by even the most cursory research.

    But thanks for highlighting the fact the police cannot be trusted to report honestly on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Which SPC, you will understand does not relate to the criminality of smacking. The mere fact that police do not prosecute particular cases does not render the subject actions legal. Every parent who smacks a son or daughter does, ipad factor, commit a common assault and therefore is a violent criminal. If charged, they would have no legal defence.

    if that’s your actual view of things then that’s fine. If not, then it’s a bad law.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. flash2846 (289 comments) says:

    Harriet (3,397 comments) says:
    January 13th, 2014 at 7:40 pm
    people like MP’s who tell the TRUTH – not hide it away because it is deemed to be ‘politically incorrect’. ACT -at times- got votes for that too.

    Well done Harriet; I for one want exactly that: THE TRUTH. I get very frustrated when politicians refuse to give a straight answer to a question and absolutely furious when interviewers interrupt said politicians because they don’t want the answer out.

    My vote goes to the most factual and the most truthful. Obviously centre right as there is little or no honesty currently on the other side.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    1. How many people were hitting their children’s head under the old law and not being prosecuted. Do we wish to return to that?

    None have been reported that I know of. And it’s not like there wasn’t a lot of people keen to highlight unfavourable cases. It’s just that when they didn’t find them they often made them up.

    But there were cases reported of people being successfully prosecuted under the old law for child abuse having smacked their child on the bottom with an open hand.

    2. How many people were once using objects to hit their children and no lionger[sic] do so because of the change in law (many were charged for this under the old law believing that to be reasonable force in their eyes).

    But again, that’s not really the question is it? The law chose to outlaw all force – not hitting with objects. The law change was driven by an ideology that sees smacking as violent child abuse, there was never any question about improving physical disciple practices, just making it illegal.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    I also note that one Mr Pete George won’t give a straight answer to a straight question – and not for the first time. Does he believe that, all other things being equal, that the rapping of a child’s knuckles by her father for correctional purposes be a crime to which there is no possible legal defence?

    If not, does he understand that our criminal law no longer reflects that expectation?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    scrubone, the case you referred to was in Masterton. It is in the current 2013-2014 year and not in the police date base for historic statistics. And they are the same case.

    The second link dated later in the year was called the first such conviction for smacking the bottom.

    John Key said no one would be prosecuted for light smacking. The first link.

    “The child’s response again upset Smith and he smacked him on the bottom again, leaving vivid red hand marks on his bottom which were still visible several days later, along with minor bruising.”

    It was his step-son who he hit. The kid had asked for it, but no more than many adults do and to hit them to enforce some discipline is called a crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    SPC do you understand the fundamental difference between the commission of a crime and it’s prosecution? Or is it your contention that it is not against the law to smack your child?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    SPC: more squirming. You stated there had been no prosecutions – there have been.

    Secondly, I did not say that either of these cases should not have been prosecuted. Indeed, I read the report and noted that it was not really light smacking at all. But there is a rather similar case that was prosecuted – successfully – before the law change. So If your point is here that the law is working that’s not really so.

    Neither is your (implied) claim (I note you’re deliberately trying to be harder to pin down) that no one has been prosecuted for light smacking. There have been quite a few cases where this has been documented.

    The kid had asked for it, but no more than many adults do and to hit them to enforce some discipline is called a crime.

    Again, not really so at all. The parent is in authority over the child. Part of that authority in the past was the authorisation to use force.

    As you say, many adults require disciple. The authority over them is the police. Again (sigh) even the most cursory glance at the law shows that police do in fact have very clear legal ability to use force (assault) in the upholding of the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Cato: It’s interesting isn’t it, that no one chooses to defend this law with honest fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. duggledog (1,586 comments) says:

    Does anybody think that in some part, the electorate’s opposition to the smacking bill was partly due to its champion, the far-left leaning Green MP Sue Bradford, who we have all grown up seeing protest against anything and everything on television and produce nothing of any real value in her life?

    I’m pretty sure most kiwi parents are reasonably laissez-faire when it comes to parenting and have a half arsed attitude to discipline anyway, as evidenced by the behaviour we see around us all the time. They just hated someone like Bradford telling them what to do

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Does anybody think that in some part, the electorate’s opposition to the smacking bill was partly due to its champion, the far-left leaning Green MP Sue Bradford, who we have all grown up seeing protest against anything and everything on television and produce nothing of any real value in her life?

    Nope, SB only picked it up after the Labour party announced they had changed their mind and were not changing the law. They’d done the research and worked out how unpopular it would be. Even parents who didn’t smack were on record saying they didn’t want the law changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    Cato, if you smack another adult on the bottom is that lawful behaviour? If the participant asks you too? What if you smack them harder than they like, even though they said harder? It’s all a matter of consent.

    The exceptionalism of family discipline once included the right to physically discipline the wife, even rape her. It no longer does.

    So back to the exceptionalism of the children being disciplined – the biblical direction, “to not spare the rod” as if lack of such discipline might result in poor behaviour by the children as adults – we do not use the rod anymore.

    So we have moved to the point of whether smacking on the bottom should be seen as legal, I have simply noted that children are safer from physical violence from their parents under the new regime.

    I suppose that leaves the matter as one whose one designs this law for, the convenience of parents or the well being of children.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    The exceptionalism of family discipline once included the right to physically discipline the wife, even rape her. It no longer does.

    Your insistence on regurgitating unmitigated tripe in the defense of your position is telling.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    On the substance, it’s not a big issue for me. What’s infuriating is that the proponents of the status quo just won’t be honest about their beliefs and/or what the law actually provides. It was a political awakening for me when it happened. The left really believe that the ends justifies the means with this kind of thing. They really do.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    Suppose the law was reversed. Anyone like to show us how a law that defined what force parents could use to discipline their offspring should be written or are the religio-consevatives in favour of a situation where “anything goes” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Anyone like to show us how a law that defined what force parents could use to discipline their offspring should be written or are the religio-consevatives in favour of a situation where “anything goes” ?

    The old law used the “reasonable force” test to separate abuse from disciple. I’ve never, ever seen anyone in this debate advocate weakening it or anything even closely approaching “anything goes”. I have of course seen the claim made by the anti-smackers on a routine basis that their opponents are happy to have children subject to horrific abuse. (again, why can’t they debate honestly – telling, eh.)

    If you read the booklet “By Fear and Fallacy” by Michael L Drake you’ll find a reasoned case that the old law moved with society’s expectations anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    SPC – why can’t you just answer the question instead of spouting irrelevancies? I’m not interested in the substantive issue which I believe is open to debate. The question whether you think all smacking should be criminal assault in all circumstances with no exceptions. Though you lack the courtesy to come out and just give an answer, it appears your answer to that question is “yes” – in which case I can see why you have no qualms with the law.

    However, please don’t imply that the law has somehow, in defiance of its plain meaning, made criminals of the parents who have administered even the lightest of smacks to their children since s 59 was repealed. To suggest otherwise is a nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    scrubone, were the two cases you linked to in Masterton not the same case? If a case in late 2013 was the first prosecution as the second link says, what other cases … . The stats for the first 5 years before the current year show 8 convictions under the law. 7 for hitting the jead and one for hitting the hand.

    I note you see parents as police, jury and judge of their children’s behaviour. But even the police are accountable to complaints, and courts decisions are reviewed and sentences are appealed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    scrubone, were the two cases you linked to in Masterton not the same case?

    No, the ages of the children are quite different – 2 and 8.

    I note you see parents as police, jury and judge of their children’s behaviour.

    That’s (part of) the nature of parenting.

    But even the police are accountable to complaints, and courts decisions are reviewed and sentences are appealed.

    And parents have to live within the law. The problem is now, they can’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    Cato, a criminal is someone who has been convicted of an offence, your decision to describe those parents who have done nothing more than smack their child since 2008 as criminals is your own.

    The right really do belief that they can frame the debate anyway they like, they really do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Jeeze Craig smacks his kid and he’s a wanker. Shane Jones smacks his monkey and he’s front-bench material! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    ….”I’ve never, ever seen anyone in this debate advocate weakening it or anything even closely approaching “anything goes””….

    Me neither & there lies the problem. Not one of you has actually said what is considered to constitute reasonable force or reasonable corporal punishment. The closest we get is waffle about “in the circumstances” & “reasonable” which can mean anything or nothing.

    What is reasonable to one culture or sect can be totally different to another. Subjective doesn’t cut it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    Not sure if this is really such a smart move by Craig.

    Sure, it will get his name in the headlines, and it will secure some of the vote from those, who think this is the most important issue that our nation faces. Yes it might actually get him above the 5% mark.

    But realistically, if this is his bottom line, it will be really hard for Key to work with him.

    Let’s not forget that the amendment is as much Key’s bill as it is Bradford’s. If he were to overturn it, it would make him look like an unprincipled political opportunist, who will abonden his past convictions just to stay in power.

    While it might get Craig into parliament, not sur eif this will be all that helpful to National.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    That’s such an idiotic response that is below contempt. By that logic, nobody committed homicide against Scott Guy because nobody was convicted of murdering him – and whoever did so will not be a criminal until such time as they are convicted.

    That’s a pretty pathetic stance. Compliance with the law is not in the hands of police, it is an objective measure of somebody’s actions against the required legal standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Cato, a criminal is someone who has been convicted of an offence

    So if I break into your house and steal your stuff, I’m only a criminal if I get caught?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    Cato, before the 1999 law change, most New Zealanders drank in bars and nightclubs or purchased alcohol from bottle stores when under age 20 – did that make them all criminals?

    Few who did this were ever prosecuted and usually because of their attitude. We lived with doing something illegal, as do those who smoke pot.

    Why are those representing parents who smack being so precious?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    If he were to overturn it, it would make him look like an unprincipled political opportunist, who will abonden his past convictions just to stay in power.

    Yes, that would be a change from abandoning his past convictions just to get into power!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Me neither & there lies the problem. Not one of you has actually said what is considered to constitute reasonable force or reasonable corporal punishment. The closest we get is waffle about “in the circumstances” & “reasonable” which can mean anything or nothing.

    What it means is that it’s a judgement call. If a 12 yr old kid swings a baseball bat at someone’s head, then it’s reasonable to give him 6 of the best. If they stole a bikkie, then 6 of the best is clearly excessive abuse.

    It’s about the punishment fitting the crime.

    But it comes back to a wider point. There is a lack of good parenting in this country. But the problem has been that the people who *should* have been encouraging reasonable discipline were too busy in an ideological quest to ban smacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Why are those representing parents who smack being so precious?

    Because
    a) you can get through life without drinking illegally. It’s pretty much impossible to get through parenting life without breaking this law at some level. People who drink illegally know they’re running a risk and can avoid it if they desire. Parents do not have that option – unless they’re neglectful (which is ironic – the law that was sold as a solution to child abuse promotes neglect)
    b) CYFS

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    They were certainly guilty of an offence. Does that make them criminals? I don’t know – was it a breach of the Crimes Act (which is a code for criminal offences – like assault) or was it a breach of the Sale of Liquor Act? Do you have a grasp of the difference?

    SPC – it’s a bit of a shame because you’re clearly quite learned but you seem to have a monumental ego that doesn’t permit you to ever backtrack or realise when you’ve overextended yourself. Instead of just dissembling and speculating on the ulterior motives of your interlocutors can you please try really hard to give an honest answer to the following question:

    Can you see why it might be problematic to drastically widen a criminal offence, leaving no defence to the now criminalised activities, while telling the population that it’s your intention that the new law not be enforced except in the cases where a policeman subjectively determines otherwise?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    “….Jeeze Craig smacks his kid and he’s a wanker. Shane Jones smacks his monkey and he’s front-bench material!…:

    It’s still only Monday JB…………but it’s certainly comment of the week!

    btw……..Wellington is so far out of ‘touch’ with reality. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. KevinH (1,236 comments) says:

    Colin Craig’s path to parliament will be paved with populist policy, re-litigating contentious issue’s demonstrates a singular lack of imagination and is plain lazy.
    The public has moved on from the smacking debate and is looking for innovation from new political parties. People want something fresh, something new to excite and stimulate them positively. Can Colin Craig deliver?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Can you see why it might be problematic to drastically widen a criminal offence, leaving no defence to the now criminalised activities, while telling the population that it’s your intention that the new law not be enforced except in the cases where a policeman subjectively determines otherwise?

    While firing up a group of zealots to who honestly believe that even the smallest breach of the law makes you a totally bad person.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    ….” it means is that it’s a judgement call”….”It’s about the punishment fitting the crime.”….

    More subjective claptrap. The reason that the repeal of S59 ever got political traction is because of the abuse that the average person had seen handed out in the name of discipline. A bad tempered, twenty stone PI bitch giving a five year old a clout behind the ear that sends them halfway up a supermarket aisle was a regular occurrence prior to 2007 yet the sadists could & did hide behind S59.

    For what its worth I’m not against some wayward little bugger getting an open hand across the arse. What I am against is the legitimised torture of a kid in the name of discipline & that did happen when the defence of “reasonable” punishment was open to arsehole parents.

    Contrary to your claims parents in the heat of the moment are NOT the best judges of what is reasonable.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    “…..Let’s not forget that the amendment is as much Key’s bill as it is Bradford’s. If he were to overturn it, it would make him look like an unprincipled political opportunist, who will abonden his past convictions just to stay in power……”

    Hardly Ezsett.

    Key may have done it with good intent……but the court records show that it has improved nothing……….and more importantly parents have said it has done nothing………..Key won’t in the slightest be looked upon as an ‘unprincipled political opportunist’ but as someone who ‘re-evaluates’ the findings.

    There is nothing wrong with that. The Carbon Tax will probably go too. And prostitution possably. Both have failed miserably.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    Cato, I’ll take that as a confession that despite your learning, it’s because of your own ego you cannot concede my point that criminals are those convicted and calling the law one that makes parents who smack criminals is over-reach (my insight is called an awareness of projection and transference).

    We can agree that smacking is in the area where most if not all who practice light smacking will never be charged, just as when the de facto drinking age was 18 when the law said 20.

    It’s also in the area of offensive language, most use it but few will ever be charged of it. As those who prosecute (police) are not involved and even when they are they decide on a selective basis.

    The over-reach is also in free speech being at legal risk because of chance of prosecution in many nations now and in the surveillance of the public just in the off chance something on the record might later be searched out for.

    Sure it is increasing the potential pool of people who might be prosecuted if they one day get angry and hit too hard.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Why are any of us concerned with beating kids when we all know that the real crims are those bastards doing 5kph over the limit. Don’t allow the constabules to be distracted from busting serious crime with nonsense about knocking sprogs about! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    The reason that the repeal of S59 ever got political traction is because of the abuse that the average person had seen handed out in the name of discipline. A bad tempered, twenty stone PI bitch giving a five year old a clout behind the ear that sends them halfway up a supermarket aisle was a regular occurrence prior to 2007 yet the sadists could & did hide behind S59.

    Your abandoning of the slightest pretence of honesty is (as always) telling.

    Contrary to your claims parents in the heat of the moment are NOT the best judges of what is reasonable.

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you’re now making up stuff about *me* too.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    If he [Key] were to overturn it, it would make him look like an unprincipled political opportunist, who will abandon his past convictions just to stay in power.

    Yeah our illustrious leader wouldn’t countenance such a thing LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    We’ll naaska, I’m not sure what the offenders race has to do with it. Frankly that sounds appalling be it at the hands of a Pacific Islander, an Asian or a White person.

    Why not instead fix the implementation of “reasonable” using criminal procedure reform? Why take away the defence from those who were properly relying on it? You’ll forgive my cynicism when the pro-repeal advocates changed what they said based on the audience. To one crowd, everyday smacking was going to be allowed. To the next, all smacking was assault on a child that needed to be banned. Those are mutually exclusive goals.

    Even now, you can only get mealy-mouthed evasions from resident dissembles PG and SPC about where their actual policy preferences on the matter lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    Cato, perhaps over-reach in (moral) law is greatest when in not sparing the rod a man is guilty for having sex with a woman who he knows is not capable of conceiving. And or she invites this wrong doing with the rod by being on the pill. Thus is a temptation to those with a rod to use it when they should not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,917 comments) says:

    I think dpf is right. Craig has hit on the sleeper issue which will define this election.

    I can see the bill boards.

    “Now the children will be safe!”

    Yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    SPC. I am sorry, but your jurisprudence on that question is simply false. I repeat: Can you see why it might be problematic to drastically widen a criminal offence, leaving no defence to the now criminalised activities, while telling the population that it’s your intention that the new law not be enforced except in the cases where a policeman subjectively determines otherwise?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    “…..A bad tempered, twenty stone PI bitch giving a five year old a clout behind the ear that sends them halfway up a supermarket aisle was a regular occurrence prior to 2007 yet the sadists could & did hide behind S59…..”

    thanks for reminding me Nasska……….on talkback radio is Aus last week this came up:

    Why are Maori and PI kids ect classified as ‘children’ when they bash other kids – they’re bigger than most adults?

    That got the callers talking:

    “…..cowards is how the courts should look upon them as they never belt people their own size……but use their strength as a weapon as the victims are near always smaller……….that’s not the same as stealing, graffiti and selling drugs like other kids do from poor backgrounds….it’s pure thoughtout violence……” – that’s something how the debate went.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    We can agree that smacking is in the area where most if not all who practice light smacking will never be charged, just as when the de facto drinking age was 18 when the law said 20.

    Let’s be clear here.

    No one disputes that. No one has ever disputed that.

    In other words, it’s a red hearing.

    Heck, even the people who complain most loudly about this aren’t worried too much about prosecution. It’s the people who supported the law, or didn’t pay too much attention, who took SB at her word that they’d be ok, suddenly turning around and finding their lives ruined and SB on TV telling the nation that we really don’t know just how big the iceberg is.

    And this isn’t theoretical. There was a case in October 2007 where a woman had tapped her child on the hand and SB went on TV hinting darkly about her having a history of beating her kids. Thing was, that woman was a SB supporter, who ran the very anti-violence cases SB was loudly telling the nation she should be attending to change her ways.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    SPC @ 9.08

    What the hell are you rambling about?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    Cato, stop accusing people of lying for not simply going along with your framing of the debate. Using the word dissemble does not make it clever. Or is that what those on the right do … – trying to portray the other side as like “that” to marginalise their point of view is pathetic. It is just base appeal to partisanship against others. At its base level its petty tribal nationalism and the approach leads to the reason why we have legislation including words such as political creed, religious group and race.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    I’m not necessarily pro-smacking myself. But I am pro-rule of law.

    Well said Cato.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    So in other words, you choose not to give a straight answer to that fairly simple question?

    Well, that’s enough of an answer for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    Cato 9.11, you don’t get the premise about over-reach in a position after all your posts on that theme. Really?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    Cato

    Nice attempt to weasel out….race is in this case relevant because I mentioned weight.

    I’m not defending Bradford or the Greens or the Left in general…..they changed the law in a two faced manner & lied like flatfish as the need arose. In this your argument is valid.

    What I don’t want is a return to S59…..it was vague & waffly & open to interpretation d’jour.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Nice to see so many Pro’s out tonight working their respective corners! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    Harriet

    Extreme violence begats the same & that’s what many of those kids experience from day one.

    And the parents, if pushed for a reason, will trot out tradition & wait for it…..Christian teaching pushed by their churches.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Cato, there are many judgement decisions made all the time. If a rugby player hits or stomps or shoulder charges another player he could be charged with assault and convicted. Why not? Are all rugby players, and netball players, and boxers, and soccer players criminals?

    If you are pro rule of law regardless of the circumstances most people could be classified criminals one way or another.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    Cato, put it this way over half the women of the age 15 to 45 in the Catholic Church are on the pill, and they partake of communion each Easter and Christmas without once going to confession on this matter before hand.

    The Catholic Church knows this and ignores it. These are good Catholics.

    Does anything need to change?

    And half of the women taking children to school in February might have smacked their child over the holidays. The teachers and police know this and everyone ignores it – unless their bruises on the child’s body that they can see. These are good parents.

    Does anything need to change?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Extreme violence begats the same & that’s what many of those kids experience from day one.

    The law said “reasonable in the circumstances”.

    Reasonable, by definition, rules out extreme. So again, you’re pulling out the straw men.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    I’m not defending Bradford or the Greens or the Left in general…..they changed the law in a two faced manner & lied like flatfish as the need arose. In this your argument is valid.
    What I don’t want is a return to S59…..it was vague & waffly & open to interpretation d’jour.

    You *do* realise that the same two-faced liars were the very ones who went to such efforts to make sure everyone thought the old law was unworkable?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. deadrightkev (511 comments) says:

    Everyone is an expert on Colin Craig but no one on this post has probably met him or knows he has one girl aged 9.

    I listened to Cam Slater on Radio Live today. I was disgusted how anti Craig he was along with socialist Pagani. People should be allowed to smack their kids Cam, get a scrotum mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    The teachers and police know this and everyone ignores it – unless their bruises on the child’s body that they can see.

    That’s all very well until they don’t.

    All it takes is one call to CYFS, and one grouchy case worker and your life is torn apart. Yes, that’s partially the fault of the way CYFS works anyway but the smacking law gave a lot more leeway to an agency that did. not. need. it.

    Know how the riding crop case came to light? The kid behaved himself. Go look it up if you don’t believe me.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    …”Reasonable, by definition, rules out extreme. So again, you’re pulling out the straw men.”….

    Since S59 provided no guidelines on what was reasonable extreme was deemed to be legal or at least borderline.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    What it means is that it’s a judgement call. If a 12 yr old kid swings a baseball bat at someone’s head, then it’s reasonable to give him 6 of the best.

    Wow what inspired logic. Addressing an issue of violence with violence.

    Show me the research that demonstrates the efficacy of this approach.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Since S59 provided no guidelines on what was reasonable extreme was deemed to be legal or at least borderline.

    So you’re saying that a jury said “hm, this is pretty extreme given the circumstances but we’ll call it reasonable in the circumstances”.

    I’ll certainly grant that there was at least one case that was extreme outside the actual circumstances. But when put in the proper context it was reasonable. It may not have been *the* right thing to do but it was reasonable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Pete George, if you are saying there are too many criminal laws then I agree. However your comments seem to suggest that, like SPC, you may not be aware of the difference between a crime and a mere offence. Running a red light is not a crime. Common assault is.

    It is fundamental that good criminal law is applied objectively and in a consistent and easily understood manner. People need to be able to base their actions with some certainty about the legal consequences. Again, I pose the simple question nobody has the courtesy to answer: Can you see why it might be problematic to drastically widen a criminal offence, leaving no defence to the now criminalised activities, while telling the population that it’s your intention that the new law not be enforced except in the cases where a policeman subjectively determines otherwise?

    SPC I just have no idea what you are going on about.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    This is a very good column written before the law was passed.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10430966

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Wow what inspired logic. Addressing an issue of violence with violence.

    Wow, equating smacking with violence. It’s been a good… what, 5 minutes since someone tried that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Show me the research that demonstrates the efficacy of this approach.

    “By Fear and Fallacy” by Michael L Drake discusses the anti-smacking research at length.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    ….”So you’re saying that a jury said “hm, this is pretty extreme given the circumstances but we’ll call it reasonable in the circumstances”.”….

    That would be about it…..rest assured that nothing that fell below that threshold would ever be prosecuted again. In the presence of waffly statutes case law is everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “If a rugby player hits or stomps or shoulder charges another player he could be charged with assault and convicted. Why not? Are all rugby players, and netball players, and boxers, and soccer players criminals?”

    Pete George QC! Stick to your day job mate! It’s long been established that somebody can incur liability for deliberately committing a violent act on the sports field. Where the violence is sanctioned by the rules, of course, it occurred with tacit consent. Where the rules were deliberately breached, it’s battery – no question.

    Again, that’s not to say it will be prosecuted by the police. But it’s still a crime. It could be privately prosecuted. These concepts are not controversial.

    Let me just be really clear. I’ve got no invest,met in it being legal to smack. It just really struck me how duplicitous and (in some cases) ready to lie the reform’s advocates have been in the interests of getting on the books.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Does smacking never involve violence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Nasska – I agree. However, the law could have been changed so that the “reasonableness” could be measured more objectively rather than throwing the entire law out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    That would be about it…..rest assured that nothing that fell below that threshold would ever be prosecuted again. In the presence of waffly statutes case law is everything.

    Nope. Case law doesn’t apply to juries. Nor do they set it.

    There were a couple of reasonably well publicised borderline cases (bruised bottoms) that were successfully prosecuted before the law change. So no, the police were not put off prosecuting any sort of cases – let alone strikes to the head. There is just no evidence to support that contention – it’s 100% fiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    From the link posted above:

    Of course there will be the occasional case where section 59 has excused parents who overstepped the mark, but these are not cases where a child has been thrashed or beaten or injured. I challenge anyone to find a case where section 59 has excused a real bashing that left a child injured.

    In my experience of those sorts of cases, the section 59 defence simply isn’t used. The accused denies the assault. New Zealand juries are not stupid.

    Sue Bradford doesn’t trust the New Zealand public so I find it amazing that she has so much faith in both the police and the justice system.

    She is proposing to give a huge amount of discretion to individual police officers.

    She expects them to wisely ignore the letter of the law. They won’t. I know this and so does National MP Chester Borrows, with whom I worked and who was a superb, wise and compassionate detective sergeant.

    The police may not, and I’m sure will not, prosecute every case of smacking, but they will be obliged to at least investigate – and therein is the harm. Picture this: a child at the centre of a custody battle comes back from an access visit. Mum questions the child: Did Daddy smack you? Has Daddy ever smacked you? The child says yes.

    Mum takes the child to the police station. She is vocal and upset. “Investigate” sounds benign. It is not.

    That child will be put through the evidential interview process. It’s not a process you want your child involved in. Dad will be asked to go to the police station to make a statement.

    All this will probably be good for lawyers. Probably no charges will be laid, but the child and the family will have been through a traumatic and damaging experience.

    This scenario will happen without a doubt. It will happen over and over again and the children at the centre of Sue Bradford’s concern will suffer it. The poor and powerless will be far more vulnerable.

    Most police are honest and upstanding and we are lucky to have them.

    Some are not. Some get caught up in a “means to an end” approach to criminal law. Some will use this legislation – and the discretion it gives them – for the wrong purpose.

    It won’t be me or people like me who suffer this. It will be the very people Sue Bradford has fought for in so many other ways.

    I think that covers most of the points made here tonight.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    Cato,

    “It is fundamental that good criminal law is applied objectively and in a consistent and easily understood manner. People need to be able to base their actions with some certainty about the legal consequences.”

    And light smacking has not been prosecuted, just as the PM indicated when the law came into effect.

    “Can you see why it might be problematic to drastically widen a criminal offence, leaving no defence to the now criminalised activities”

    There is no need to mount a defence when one will not be charged.

    “while telling the population that it’s your intention that the new law not be enforced except in the cases where a policeman subjectively determines otherwise?”

    The policeman’s subjective decision does not include prosecuting for light smacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    The strongest point in the Michele Wilkinson-Smith column is that the, whether charges are laid or not, the fact that the crime is committed obliges Police to investigate. Very often people with no experience of law enforcement and regulatory compliance fail to understand that the process is it’s own form of punishment.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. OneTrack (3,221 comments) says:

    KevinH – “The public has moved on from the smacking debate ”

    What you mean is you wish they would move on from the smacking debate (because its currently the way you like it). The debate here tonight clearly indicates some of the public havent “moved on”.

    And some might be somewhat unhappy about how the intelligentsia simply ignored overwhelming public opinion to do what they knew was best for the simple proletariat. But then when that same elite want public support to effectively overrule a valid election result with a gerrymandered referendum, suddenly it is direct democracy or nothing. Yeah, right. And what will you do when the next CI referendum comes through next year to drop the anti-smacking legislation. Will you support “the people” then, or will it be back to a we know whats best approach?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    the law could have been changed so that the “reasonableness” could be measured more objectively

    I presume that was deemed to be too difficult, and that wouldn’t surprise me. The more you try and define a “reasonableness” line between discipline and assault the more open you leave it to being loopholed or missing a set of circumstances that might justify acquittal or conviction.

    Laws try and get the right balance. Imperfectly. Can’t be avoided not catering for everything correctly or reasonably.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    I give up SPC. It’s a bit like having a zero tolerance for BAC but then quelling the protest by loudly announcing that the Police won’t prosecute if the officer in question does not consider it to be in the public interest.

    Perhaps you are tired. Look at the matter with fresh eyes tomorrow so you don’t miss the point.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    the fact that the crime is committed obliges Police to investigate

    No it doesn’t. The police said they weren’t interested in investigating Craig’s admission he smacked his nine year old daughter. No one has claimed they are obliged to investigate – unless someone specifically makes a complaint.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    PG, except – you fucking idiot – that you’ve maintained the subjective element by just subsuming it into the police’s discretion. Which makes it non-justiciable. Which makes the police both law enforcer and supreme law interpreter on the question. Which removes it as a civil liberty. All very good – as long as you have complete and utter faith in the infallible judgement of the Police to the result that you do not believe they need to be subject to independent oversight on the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Yes. And if a complaint is laid, they are obliged to investigate. Which is what the column in question said. Which is what we were discussing.

    Asinine!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Abuse doesn’t help your arguments Cato, it sounds like you’re losing it.

    What criminal laws are not at the discretion of the police? What investigations are not at the discretion of the police? Whether they investigate can theoretically be no choice but how they investigate and how far they take any investigation often involves police discretion. They make choices. I don’t see how you can avoid that with many laws.

    The police are far from infallible. They can be terrible. But we don’t have a better alternative available.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Since you are here, Beige Badger, perhaps you could just clarify your position. All other things being equal, should the rapping of a child’s knuckles by her father for correctional purposes be a crime to which there is no possible legal defence?

    Now, please remember that I have stipulated that this is ceteris paribus. Pretend there are no other material facts. I’m not asking you to consider every possible contingency. Just apply the legal method as if you understood that criminal law needs to be predictable in application.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “The police are far from infallible. They can be terrible. But we don’t have a better alternative available.”

    Great! We are getting somewhere at last.

    Ok, try to follow along, BB…

    Let’s take you at your word and stipulate that you are comfortable with light smacking. Let’s stipulate further that the pronouncements of Sue Bradford, your hero Peter Dunne et al to the same effect were made in good faith. Accordingly, ordinary parents have been led to believe they have a licence to continue ordinary, non-abusive smacking.

    Right. Now let say (hypothetically) so e busybody policeman takes a dislike to someone and prosecutes them for light smacking. Not likely to be very common but you have said that you agree that individual policemen are not infallible.

    Now, in those circumstances, the parent has no defence. The judge has no defence to allow. The police decision to prosecute is not subject to any kind of court oversight or review.

    Can you fathom, Beige Badger, that there’s more than a kernel of a rule of law problem in that plausible scenario?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    Cato, the subjectivity over discretion of prosecution is just the same as when it goes to charging over use of unreasonable force under S59 – if a complaint of unreasonable force use was raised. And or letting the jury decide by going ahead with a prosecution under either law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Cato (10.23) that’s beyond my legal expertise. You seem to have a fixation with this particular scenario, you tell me, how would you want that defined in law. Presumably you think there should be a legal defence. Should a defence always be available, or only in defined circumstances? If so how would you define those circumstances? It would have to cover more than just rapping knuckles, unless you think knuckle rapping needs it’s own definition.

    Take the police out of the equation if you can.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Cato, your next comment (10.31) is getting too snarky to be bothered responding to. I’m not on trial and don’t appreciate being addressed like that. Sneer at someone else. If you can’t be polite I’ve got better things to do than deal with that sort of crap. I’m off.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    Cato, you would distinguish the cases at court level by saying those who had smacked their child had no defence (unless they did so not for corrective purposes but for their safety).

    If there ever was a case at court level where light smacking was being prosecuted – one imagines the defence would simply say this was not the purpose the law was designed to cover. And if the prosecution was successfully made it would have consequences for the law and its future enforcement. The police know this and such cases will and do not go to court.

    The issue as the Masterton case shows was between reasonable and unreasonable use of force under the old law and between and light smacking and smacking that leaves bruising days afterward under the new law.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    And the irony of this debate so far – is that Craig quite deliberately refers to his resort to a flick on the knuckle rather than light smacking on the buttocks. Probably because of the one case where someone was prosecuted for smacking the hand. His purpose being to elucidate from the PM some comment about how this like light smacking of the buttocks was OK in his eyes. Thus to be also seen as reasonable/light use of force.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Dazzaman (1,145 comments) says:

    Light smacking is for those kids that are already good….ratbags need thrashing.

    Still, I’ll be voting for this guy. Key has betrayed all true conservatives with his bending over & taking it from behind, all with a smile of course, from his homo mates. Not to mention his passive support for the anti-smacking bill.

    The true conservative needs to come out of the National party who are continuing the idiot crusade of social liberalism. Running a decent economy means nothing if you keep increasing the numbers of amoral trash by promoting social liberalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Steve Taylor (211 comments) says:

    Whaleoil said: “According to an Andrea Vance article in 2012 his child…note there is only one…was 6 years old…in May. It is a girl.

    Therefore what he has admitted to doing…and he stated he is still doing currently in the present tense is hitting a girl aged at least 7 but possibly 8 years old.

    How bad is this girl that she needs smacking at 8 years old? How poor is his parenting that he needs to smack an 8 year old girl?

    Q: How bad is it, that a 3 times failed businessman (Slater) believes that he has the moral authority to judge a 5 times successful businessman? (Craig)

    Q: How poor is it that a husband that can’t stay faithful to his wife (Slater) has the temerity to pass judgement on a husband that can stay faithful to his wife? (Craig)

    Q: How bad is it that a convicted criminal (Slater) attempts to claim the moral high ground upon a person who has never been convicted of a crime? (Craig)

    And Slater nominates Craig as a moron? I would argue that the reflection looking back (Slater) more rightly fits the bill of the description.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Steve Taylor (211 comments) says:

    Deadrightkev said: “I listened to Cam Slater on Radio Live today. I was disgusted how anti Craig he was along with socialist Pagani. People should be allowed to smack their kids Cam, get a scrotum mate”.

    The reason Slater is so anti-Craig has nothing to do with differing political ideologies, and everything to do with the fact that when the Conservative Party was born, it stuffed up Slater and Simon Lusks “grand plan” of creating a National Party “inner circle” of Conservatives – when Slater made an approach to the Conservative Party to assist them – he was roundly rebuffed, and has been having a hissy-fit ever since: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10887749

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Steve Taylor (211 comments) says:

    Even the “Whale Army” seem to be turning against their “General”: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/01/huddle-tonight-1740-2/#disqus_thread

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Wow, equating smacking with violence.

    How is intentionally inflicting pain on someone not violent? (especially when, as it nearly always is, accompanied by anger)

    I suspect that, like public hanging and bear bating, smacking will be seen by future generations as a barbaric practice.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    *bear baiting

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    The child beaters need to be stopped. There’s no good moral case for hitting anyone as a form of punishment.

    Next, let’s prevent loons raising their kids in any religion, which is another form of child abuse. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Jack5 (5,150 comments) says:

    So Tom Jackson (12.48 post), you would take children off religious parents, on the ground that religious upbringing is child abuse.

    That would be a bit like the Nazis kidnapping blond kids and shipping them back to Germany for adoption, wouldn’t it, Tom?

    For someone who says he opposes hitting anyone (as punishment), you have a fairly authoritarian personality.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Steve Taylor (211 comments) says:

    From the front line: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1401/S00022/family-first-right-on-anti-smacking-legislation-outcomes.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    He said mostly his discipline consisted of “a flick of a finger on the back of a knuckle”.

    “It’s hurts for a moment,” he said.

    He doesn’t say what the rest of his discipline is. To hurt an eight year old would take quite a “flick of a finger”. He doesn’t make it clear but this sounds more like a punishment than an intervention. By the time a child is eight it’s parents should have worked out there are far more effective ways of disciplining than hitting.

    He risks teaching his child that you hit someone when they do something you don’t want them to do.

    He said he did not believe that other people should break laws they did not agree with, such as people smoking cannabis.

    Flouting the law (and most parenting manuals) to hit a child is good, but adults choosing to self administer a mild drug is bad?

    Rule breaking for him is ok, rule breaking for others is not.

    I wonder how old his daughter will be before Craig stops smacking her. I hope he doesn’t catch her puffing weed. What if she becomes one of “the most promiscuous in the world”. That’s not uncommon for children of authoritarian parents. What sort of flick on the knuckles will it take to hurt his daughter then? Maybe he will think it’s real ratbag behaviour.

    “Light smacking is for those kids that are already good….ratbags need thrashing.” (Dazzaman)

    Apart from the absurdity of hitting good kids this highlights a major problem for parents with a smacking habit. If a light smack doesn’t work, what then? Escalate? Lose your temper?

    Or try something else. I suggest trying something else before the flicking/smacking/hitting and hurting your kid option. It’s safer and more effective.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. kiwi in america (2,508 comments) says:

    I don’t think that Colin Craig has done himself many favours with some of his answers to the various gotcha questions that have been fired at him (chemtrials, fluoride, 9/11 etc) but in this instance, he’s on very safe turf in my opinion because he is admitting to doing what most NZ parents are continuing to do – flout a silly law. The results of the referendum on smacking tell us that excessive political correctness on this subject was rejected by a very sizable majority of NZers. The more the commentariat and opponents attack him on this issue, the more they give the Conservatives valuable publicity on an issue that will resonate with enough voters to nudge them from the high 2’s in the polls to just over 5%. Colin Craig is not my cup of tea but he only needs to be palatable enough to perhaps 40,000 more voters to make the threshold – and that’s without any accommodation that National may make in say East Coast Bays to ease Craig in.

    John Key doesn’t have to even like or agree with Colin Craig but if the price of a 3rd term is a Conservative Party ordered review of the smacking legislation then Key will do it. The left will howl but if you live by the MMP sword then you can die by the same sword.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    As NZF discovered, in 1999 (and 2008?), being the party keeping a third term government in power has consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Prime Minister John Key, deputy Prime Minister Bill English and Justice Minister Judith Collins were unavailable for comment.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if they are ducking for cover. But Craig looks determined to force National’s hand on this.

    Craig has been obsessed with overturning Section 59 (smacking law) since the march he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on in 2009.

    He has spent millions setting up the Conservative Party and campaigning, seemingly with the primary aim of overturning Section 59.

    National won’t be able to avoid being drawn into Craig’s smacking campaign. They will have to state their position on repealing or replacing the law, or leaving it as it is. They can’t keep ignoring it, Craig won’t let go of it. He seems as determined to keep pursuing this as he is to keep smacking his daughter.

    In what is predicted to be a tight election Craig is pushing his own agenda on smacking as his main bargaining tool.

    It’s possible that one man’s obsession with one law that has annoyed many but is inconsequential for most could have a major influence on the outcome of the election.

    This poses major risks for National. There is nothing for them to gain from it, and much to lose.

    John Key said he would announce National’s preferences and approach to potential support partners early this year.

    If he signals support for Craig he will associate National closely with Craig and the smacking issue. That’s unlikely to gain support for National.

    If the Conservative Party gets a few percent of the party vote that’s certain impact on National more than Labour or Greens.

    If Craig gets a seat or the Conservatives make the threshold it looks like Craig is determined to push his hobby horse smacking repeal in any coalition negotiations. NZH reports:

    Colin Craig targets anti-smacking law

    Political hopeful Colin Craig has made repealing a controversial anti-smacking law a condition of his support for a National-led Government after the election this year.

    Mr Craig told APNZ the referendum “overwhelmingly” pointed to changes being needed in the law.

    “I can’t think of too many other laws that have … had such an overwhelming vote by the public to get rid of it.”

    Craig seems overwhelmingly determined to get rid of it.

    His single issue obsession will backfire if he gets rid of a National government. Will smacking supporters see this risk? How many will take this risk?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. flipper (4,198 comments) says:

    PG….
    How many children have you brought up?
    How many grand children have you helped your children bring up?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    I hope he doesn’t catch her puffing weed. What if she becomes one of “the most promiscuous in the world”. That’s not uncommon for children of authoritarian parents.

    That’s a curious leap to make there, Pete. How do you define “authoritarian”, Pete? Is Colin Craig authoritarian simply because he uses a form of discipline that you don’t approve of? Is he authoritarian because he “flicks” her at the age of eight, in which case what age is appropriate to still do this? Do you know for certain that Mrs Craig is authoritarian?

    How did you discipline your children, Pete? Your grandchildren?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. itstricky (1,880 comments) says:

    KIA

    Don’t think so. He’s bringing up a dead topic. From where I sit people are sick of it. JK has already gone to great lengths to show/prove/”guarantee” that this won’t harm ordinary Kiwi parents. Craig is aiming for more publicity on his obsessive pet topic and, well, getting this:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11185770

    And pushing himself further into the realms of loony-ism.

    scrubone – there’s no harm in ratifying the law to prevent any further cases of use of child discipline as an excuse for excess violence. No harm at all. In fact it’s the right thing to do. Regardless of how many cases there were in the past.

    You’d do well to read this:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10772163

    And then ask yourself where you sit on improving the situation instead of complaining about things that otherwise make good common sense. Please don’t tell me your answer is to give them a good Christian upbringing – I’ll baff on my cornflakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Alan Wilkinson (1,887 comments) says:

    @itstricky: “this won’t harm ordinary Kiwi parents”. Oh yes it will. The more power the State has over individuals the more harm it will inevitably cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. kiwi in america (2,508 comments) says:

    itstricky
    I think you miss my point – its not what yanks the chain (or not yank the chain) of the majority of voters on this subject, its whether around 2% additional voters are exercised enough on the smacking issue to consider voting for Craig when they were agnostic to the option before. This is a play at the margins of politics not the centre. Craig’s target in this instance is NZ First’s soft vote – with Winston’s steady decline in power, influence and coherence, this is an easy target. Oh and this target group don’t take the NZ Herald’s slant on this topic with any degree of seriousness.

    David’s point is that this helps not hurts Craig. I agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    How many children have you brought up? 3

    How many grand children have you helped your children bring up?

    I have eight grandkids/step grandkids. I have a lot to do with five of them, we regularly child care one of them. The other three will be visiting and staying later this week. I’ll be babysitting.

    With my own kids I’ve tapped a few hands and bums. Only once did I try and hurt, sort of, I spanked my oldest daughter when she was four. That was a pathetic attempt at discipline that embarrassed me. I never tried it again. People often commented on how well behaved my kids were.

    I don’t like hurting anyone, Especially people I love.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. bringbackdemocracy (428 comments) says:

    It is good Pete that you were able to bring up your children as you wanted to, it’s just a shame that you deny other parents the same privilege.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    How did you discipline your children, Pete? Your grandchildren?

    Kindness, firmness and consistency. Get to know them, what makes them tick, what they respond to. Building a trusting relationship. Pick your battles. My grandkids know that if I say no I mean it. Balanced against that I far more often say yes to doing things with them. Minimise the noes, maximise the yeses and they respond well.

    For discipline most often a look is all that is needed, sometimes a word or two. Deal, divert and encourage them from negative to positive. You could describe it as child whispering.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    it’s just a shame that you deny other parents the same privilege.

    I’m not denying any parents anything. I haven’t interfered with the privileges of other parents. All I have done is express my opinion. I hope some people learn something useful but that’s up to them, I can’t make them do anything or deny them anything.

    Are you suggesting that legally being able to hit your kids is a privilege?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Pete, you stated that “With my own kids I’ve tapped a few hands and bums.” What’s the difference between that and Colin Craig’s “flick of a finger on the back of a knuckle”? I assume from what you’re saying that your taps on the hands and bums were not intended to cause any pain – is that correct?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Correct Graham, not intended to cause any pain. Unlike Craig who seems determined to continue causing pain. Hurting his daughter. That’s not my style for sure.

    Morning Report to Colin Craig: “So you’re saying to reduce child abuse we need to allow parents to smack their children?”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    After reading this thread the main thing that sticks out is how creepy Alan Wilkinson is……….. you hit a neighbourhood girl on the bottom? is that sexual assault?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    So why tap them at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. itstricky (1,880 comments) says:

    KIA yes sorry if that was the point you were making I missed it. Won’t the kind of people who are still interested in this be voting for him/his party anyway regardless? His persona/values are well defined – if you were going to jump from NZF you would have probably made your mind up before now.

    Alan W – said by the guy who thinks he should have a right to smack other people’s kids on the nether regions. I am sorry – that is creepy and not a right anyone should have. I’d implore you to do some self analysing on where you sit on NZs child abuse record.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    “So why tap them at all?”

    Parenting is a hands on job and touching, tapping, guiding, holding, carrying, restraining are all parts of physical interaction.

    I think the best guideline is if there’s a risk of hurting then don’t. Hurting is a line I’d draw, but it’s not simple to define in law. A bruised leg is relatively easy to see but a bruised brain is not (one of the most damaging and risky injuries).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    “David’s point is that this helps not hurts Craig. ”

    So far (the last couple of months of last year) Craig’s publicity seeking hasn’t appeared to have helped him in the polls. The current timing may well be to deliberately coincide with Roy Morgan polling which has been taking place over the last week or so, but it may not be an accurate indicator because it may have missed the most recent publicity.

    So the jury is out on whether it is helping Craig.

    There’s a stronger possibility it is not helping National and is more likely to hurt them. Craig may not care about that, but voters may wake up to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. jcuk (713 comments) says:

    The law is an ass, like six oclock closing was, and hopefully some sense with come to parliament and it will be adjusted to punish assult but not discipline. As for breaking laws … how many broke the six oclock law … if you are old enough to have been able to do that …. how many of you drive over the speed limit … a law is a law … and bad laws get broken by good mostly law abiding people.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    So the jury is out on whether it is helping Craig.

    Admit it Pete. You just don’t understand politics.

    There’s a stronger possibility it is not helping National and is more likely to hurt them.

    With 87% who don’t like the law and therefore approve of CC’s move on this, “yeah right” is the appropriate response here.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. jcuk (713 comments) says:

    The pain angle is silly … the idea is to cause a measured degree of pain which is strong enough to be effective reminder not to do the offence again, like we send people to prison or fine them, but not strong enough to cause lasting damage … which rules out hitting the head but the bottom is a good place with plenty of padding.

    From experience I do not think the hand is a good place.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Admit it Reid. You just don’t understand religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    With 87% who don’t like the law and therefore approve of CC’s move on this

    And you don’t understand referenda or politics. That’s a retarted assumption.

    I’ll retract that if Conservatives get 87% in the next poll. Hell, I’ll retract if they get 8.7%.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    Admit it Reid. You just don’t understand religion.

    Why? Because in your hallucination religious people love all people and you think I don’t love you?

    And you don’t understand referenda or politics. That’s a retarted assumption.

    I understand politics far better than you Pete. You’ll recall I made the same comment that’s the subject of this thread yesterday on GD, well before DPF posted this thread, for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Than (488 comments) says:

    So far (the last couple of months of last year) Craig’s publicity seeking hasn’t appeared to have helped him in the polls.

    This is the first time he’s had positive publicity though; actually talking about a policy issue where he’s with the majority of public opinion, rather than looking like a conspiracy-theory nut. That said, smacking is only a vote-deciding issue for a small minority of people (most of whom will already be voting Conservative) so I doubt any gains they make will be huge. Certainly the people talking about 5-10% just on this issue are in fantasyland.

    But the risk with making smacking law a bottom line is how National (and in particular John Key) will react. An arrangement with National is the Conservatives only realistic chance of getting into parliament, and pushing this issue makes that less likely. John Key personally seems to be a genuine supporter of the anti-smacking bill, and the fact that he (and Bill English, and Judith Collins) were all “unavailable for comment” yesterday is telling.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    “I understand politics far better than you Pete.”
    “With 87% who don’t like the law and therefore approve of CC’s move on this”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. dime (10,100 comments) says:

    PG – you dont understand politics.

    You say bad move by craig, DPF says good move. Im more inclined to go with DPF’s judgment.

    Its pretty clear this is still a huge issue for a lot of people.

    IMHO the issue is more about whether or not people actually smack their kids.. its about the fucking govt interfering with how people choose to raise their kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    That’s right Pete. And with 87% of people in that camp your comment that:

    There’s a stronger possibility it is not helping National and is more likely to hurt them.

    …has a 13% chance of being correct and an 87% chance of being wrong.

    Doesn’t it.

    So it’s not a “stronger possibility,” is it.

    I told you, you don’t understand politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    PG, why have you not bothered to look at the bill John Boscawen tried to have implemented instead of repeating the same old mantra that the law could not allow a reasonable smack but outlaw a smack to the head as is the case in Oz?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    IMHO the issue is more about whether or not people actually smack their kids.. its about the fucking govt interfering with how people choose to raise their kids.

    I think that’s probably right.

    Its pretty clear this is still a huge issue for a lot of people.

    That’s not clear at all. If Craig didn’t keep bringing it up most people would have forgotten about it. Most people won’t have noticed Craig’s attention seeking and still won’t care. A bit of blog reaction is not representative of wider public interest.

    The last Roy Morgan poll in July 2013 to look at important issues in New Zealand smacking didn’t figure at all.

    Economic issues totaled 51%

    Social issues totaled 18% and of that:
    – Child Abuse/ Lack of Care of Children/ Bringing up Children Wrongly 2% (down from 5% in January 2012)
    – Breakdown of Family Unit/ Family Violence 1%

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    “So why tap them at all?”

    Parenting is a hands on job and touching, tapping, guiding, holding, carrying, restraining are all parts of physical interaction.

    I’m not sure if I have misunderstood you, Pete. I thought you were “tapping their hands and bums” as a form of correction or discipline, but you seem to be trying to infer it was just part of “normal parenting”. Were you “tapping their hands and bums” as a form of discipline, or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Not as after the fact discipline. I don’t believe in doing that. There are far more effective methods that don’t risk hurting the child. If you have time to stop and think about it then think of something non-harming and effective.

    If smacking was effective than Craig wouldn’t still be smacking his daughter at 8 years old.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    When Mr Craig made repeal of the “anti-smacking law” a bottom line for coalition he did himself few favours & considerably less for the country. In one swoop he cemented in the support he was going to get anyway yet alienated the sane who would rather live under a flawed National government than the socialist rabble that will govern if the political right is split.

    In a political sense John Key read it right in 2007. There’s not one extra vote guaranteed to come National’s way from leaving itself open to accusations of supporting child bashing which the opposition parties would hammer to their certain advantage.

    The whole subject is a negative one for the right so long as the religio-conservatives keep playing the issue in the manner of the children they so desperately wish to discipline.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. dime (10,100 comments) says:

    “That’s not clear at all. If Craig didn’t keep bringing it up most people would have forgotten about it. Most people won’t have noticed Craig’s attention seeking and still won’t care. A bit of blog reaction is not representative of wider public interest.”

    And thats the problem. Until Craig, people had to forget it because they had no representation on the issue.

    Dimes at the age where his friends have young kids. If the subject is bought up, their is a lot of passion displayed. People are pissed off. I dont think any of my friends even hit their kids.

    The law was downright offensive.

    Just because it doesnt feature in an “important issue” survey, doesn’t mean its not important to a lot of people.

    I suspect if their was another referendum, 80%+ would still vote the same way.

    You are blinded by your anti-craig stance.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    If Craig didn’t keep bringing it up most people would have forgotten about it. Most people won’t have noticed Craig’s attention seeking and still won’t care.

    It’s an open wound that’s never healed and he knows it, that’s why he bought it up. As I said on GD yesterday and DPF repeats here, all he needs is 5%. That’s what he’s aiming at.

    And there are at least 5% who do care. And this is not his centrepiece policy no matter how much desperate politically ignorant shills attempt to paint it as such. This is a mere vehicle to put his name on the radar so that when he comes out with his other policies he’s got name recognition.

    When Mr Craig made repeal of the “anti-smacking law” a bottom line for coalition he did himself few favours.

    nasska you haven’t been getting your political analysis off of Pete have you? Just because he says it’s a bottom line today doesn’t mean it will be, come post-election negotiations.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. RRM (10,009 comments) says:

    IMHO the issue is more about whether or not people actually smack their kids.. its about the fucking govt interfering with how people choose to raise their kids.

    But the government DOES interfere when people choose to raise their kids by bashing them so hard they die, or when they whore their kids out to pedophile rapist truck drivers from the south island, or when they get pissed and then drive their kids across town, or when they leave their kids alone in the car at night while they get a root at the splash club.

    And a lot of people on here seem to have no problem with THAT interference.

    So there has to be some threshold, between what’s “child abuse” that should be stopped, and what’s “parenting” that should be left alone.

    I don’t think smacking should be illegal. (Although I don’t smack my kids, and I believe that if you get to the stage where you think that’s your best option, then you’ve already fucked up that particular opportunity for learning and improvement.)

    But “society” has got to be willing to re-eveluate what’s ok and what’s not, because if we weren’t open to considering change then we’d still be practising European dark-age style laws not too distinguishable from Muslim Sharia law, and I don’t think many on here would say that would be a good thing??

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    And a lot of people on here seem to have no problem with THAT interference.

    Only galloping insane lefty commies conflate that with a mild corrective smack.

    And 87% of people can tell the difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    ….”Only galloping insane lefty commies conflate that with a mild corrective smack.”….

    Give us a sound bite that will negate the images of child bashing that the Left will conjure up on the campaign trail.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Not as after the fact discipline.

    I fail to see how that is relevant, to be honest – I don’t remember reading anywhere that Colin Craig was using his “flick” as “after the fact” discipline either.

    Are you saying that you were “tapping their hands and bums” as a form of discipline, or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. RRM (10,009 comments) says:

    Only galloping insane lefty commies conflate that with a mild corrective smack.

    Sigh… are you a liar, or could you genuinely not be bothered to read even the very next line below that one you quoted, before you made that comment?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    Give us a sound bite that will negate the images of child bashing that the Left will conjure up on the campaign trail.

    Think of all the children who have died of child abuse since the law was passed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    ….”Think of all the children who have died of child abuse since the law was passed.”….

    Readily countered by an invitation to think of all the extra children who might have died if the 2007 legislation had not been passed.

    Want another try?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    Sigh… are you a liar, or could you genuinely not be bothered to read even the very next line below that one you quoted, before you made that comment?

    RRM, nothing has changed since this law was passed, in terms of changing child abuse. Nothing. So no, society does NOT need to re-evaluate, since it was never going to stop that from happening. And conflating corrective smacking with that is disingenuous bullshit.

    Readily countered by an invitation to think of all the extra children who might have died if the 2007 legislation had not been passed.

    How are you going to prove that, nasska? By interviewing Pete? But seriously, compare the before and after stats. Easy. Try again.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    It doesn’t really matter what you or I personally think or what can be proved about the subject Reid. It’s all about perception & election campaigns conducted in sound bites.

    Explaining is losing & anyone promoting the physical disciplining of kids is going to spend eight weeks on the back foot.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    There’s no way of being sure if abuse has got better or worse or hasn’t changed because of the law change. And even if it could be measure it’s far too soon to tell.

    If the law change and associated publicity prompted some parents to re-evaluate the effectiveness of physical punishment and try more effective alternatives (and most parents are interested in improving their parenting skills) then the benefits may be long term, inter-generational.

    The worst (small minority of) parents will still badly abuse and kill. But most parents may be better for all the attention. Or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Than (488 comments) says:

    And there are at least 5% who do care.

    But not enough to decide their vote apparently.

    Repeal of the anti-smacking bill isn’t something new, its been a core Conservative policy since their formation. And despite being one of the few (only? I’m not aware of NZF’s position) parties taking this stance they still only got 2.6% of the party vote in 2011.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. dime (10,100 comments) says:

    “There’s no way of being sure if abuse has got better or worse or hasn’t changed because of the law change. And even if it could be measure it’s far too soon to tell.”

    its a shame you cant apply that standard to other issues PG.

    like gay marriage – “the sky hasnt fallen” on day one..

    so which is it? it takes time to judge the impact of social laws? or it happens on the first day?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    It doesn’t really matter what you or I personally think or what can be proved about the subject Reid. It’s all about perception & election campaigns conducted in sound bites.

    Explaining is losing & anyone promoting the physical disciplining of kids is going to spend eight weeks on the back foot.

    nasska you asked a question and I answered it. Based on current polling 87% of people disagree with you and Pete. And the whole point of this thread before both of you started obfuscating is that all Craig needs is an appeal to 5% and this is only an issue to get him name recognition. Simple. And it will work. Case closed. Objective attained.

    But not enough to decide their vote apparently.

    Campaign hasn’t started yet Than. Name recognition is the objective here. Objective will be achieved. Nothing you or Pete or nasska can do about it.

    its a shame you cant apply that standard to other issues PG.

    It seems there are limitations to being fair, sensible and reasonable dime.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Than (488 comments) says:

    Colin Craig already has name recognition. His name being recognised is biggest obstacle the Conservatives have to getting into parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    like gay marriage – “the sky hasnt fallen” on day one..

    so which is it? it takes time to judge the impact of social laws? or it happens on the first day?

    The marriage law change is quite different, the effects have been immediate – couples who couldn’t get married now can.

    There’s one similarity – neither the smacking law changes nor the marriage law changes have affected me.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    If you have a minute to answer Pete, I would appreciate clarification to my question at 9:57 – did you, wrt your own children, “tap their hands and bums” as a form of discipline, or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Depends on what you mean by discipline graham. I’ve done it as part of disciplinary interaction with my kids – a tap on the hand to stop them touching something, a tap on the bum to move away from something, all immediate actions.

    I’ve described above the only time I physically disciplined/punished after the fact, and realised it was stupid and ineffective so didn’t do it again.

    From my experience the strongest punishment for a child is when they miss out on doing something or getting something they want to do or get, especially when other kids do it or get it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. dime (10,100 comments) says:

    “The marriage law change is quite different, the effects have been immediate – couples who couldn’t get married now can.”

    lol the effects of smacking were immediate too. you could be prosecuted at the drop of a hat.

    Anyway, i will let you have the last word. enjoy :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    The marriage law change is quite different, the effects have been immediate – couples who couldn’t get married now can. There’s one similarity – neither the smacking law changes nor the marriage law changes have affected me.

    This is one of the many reasons you don’t understand politics Pete. You don’t appear to recognise social engineering when it happens. Social engineering is opinion management. This is why they need to poll. You’ve heard of polls? Polls are not just used to plumb current opinion, they’re also used to track progress toward a given opinion. That’s why politics is about power. Because power is not just the ability to pull levers in the real world at the present moment, it’s the ability to shape society which is done by shaping opinions because opinions drive actions.

    The fact you have such a profound ignorance of such a political fundamental is remarkable. Many people don’t understand social engineering but, unlike you, those people don’t actively engage in political debate. Those people look at sports and think about celeb lifestyles and what’s happening at work and in the housing market, etc. But the only time they ever think about politics is for about six weeks once every three years. And thus their social engineering happens to them on the sub-conscious level. They’re the mice in the maze designed by the opinion makers. They’re the people who take stuff off the shelf on the supermarket seemingly without even thinking about it but really because the other night they saw an ad and stored it away in their sub-conscious.

    Those who are aware of politics are, to a greater or lessor extent, more self-aware than the mice, and the more self-aware you are, the more able you are to see through the current manipulations into the future and thus perceive the objective of those who are not reflecting current opinion but rather, are shaping the future opinion. And the extent to which one can do that is why they call politics an art not a science.

    But your comment about it not affecting you Pete, suggests you understand nothing more than the mice, because both of those issues are major red-flag opinion shapers, and many to most political observers understand that basic fundamental, even if only a small fraction of those can see the actual final objective.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Alan Wilkinson (1,887 comments) says:

    @itstricky, ok, you think I’m creepy and I think you lot are moronic dick-heads. At least we understand each other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    He’ll get his 5% at this rate. Clever move. What’s even better is that he may take a few % off Labour. Their church going South Auckland vote will warm to his stance. They’re not so happy with gay Labour, I suspect…..

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Reid and his grand social engineering conspiracy again.

    Gay marriage doesn’t affect my because I don’t get my tits in a tangle over what other people do.

    Religious attempts at social engineering are far more prevalent than political social engineering. If you had an awareness of how religion works you would understand that Reid, but religious social engineering is so ingrained in your subconscious that you are a mouse in a maze designed by the opinion makers.

    Conspiracy Reid and Chemtrails Colin. Desperately trying to retain religious control of the masses, beginning with beating kids into submission (I know someone well who went to a Catholic school and was hit over the knuckles with a ruler if she didn’t get her sums right).

    The bible is not a good parenting manual, it’s way out of date and superseded by accumulated knowledge and understanding.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    Pete try to refute logically anything I said above about the nature of politics without resorting to childish name calling. If you can.

    Failure to do so indicates you’re not being fair, reasonable or sensible.

    I’ve noticed that when you get yourself in a corner with me you resort to that. Such as your 9:12 response to me. Says a lot about you Pete, both intellectually and emotionally.

    Well, go on then. Try to explain how politics isn’t about shaping opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Paulus (2,660 comments) says:

    I am awaiting TVNZ new Political Reporter to have a snide go at Craig along with little John.
    You know the one – the activist daughter of Bradford formerly with the GreenTaliban now employed as a political reporter by TVNZ.
    Like her mother she cannot speak properly either.
    What do TVNZ think they are doing employing a known activist – see photo’s in the press, in such a role in Election year.
    Good for National though to see this idiot exposed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. RRM (10,009 comments) says:

    “Like her mother she cannot speak properly either.”

    “….photo’s in the press…”

    :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. kowtow (8,755 comments) says:

    paulus

    Mum’s already had her say through RNZ.

    Apparently Craig is “promoting family violence”

    Communist newspeak.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/233261/smacking-comment-by-craig-appals-ex-mp

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    Reid

    There are those within political circles with an agenda that involves changing society but by & large parliament spends its time playing “catch up” with trends that develop within the electorate.

    Sometimes they get ahead of the voters such as in passing the repeal of S59 & what we are seeing is the fallout from that move.

    What you see as social engineers boiling the frog can also be regarded as the continuing evolution of western society. S59 when introduced in 1961 was restricting the “rights” of parents from what was acceptable up until that time. If we go far enough back kids along with wives, servants & livestock were deemed property & the right to chastise them was left up to men as their owners. It was covered by English common law which evolved from Biblical teachings.

    You would not wish to live in that era & if you were suddenly transported back in time the customs & mores of the relatively recent 1950’s NZ would seem strange….maybe even barbaric to you.

    Indeed when your arguments are reduced to their basics, your opposition is more to the speed of change rather than change itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Desperately trying to retain religious control of the masses, beginning with beating kids into submission

    WTF?!

    Pete, there is so much wrong with that. For starters, I do not see any indication that Colin Craig wants to retain “religious control” of the masses; even if he did, how on earth would he do that in New Zealand? Short of becoming a major party, getting enough seats in Government that he could dictate laws, and introducing Sharia law, it just ain’t gonna happen.

    “Beating kids into submission”? We’re talking about smacking, not beating; for the purposes of discipline and correction, not to cow them into submission; Colin Craig has stated he “flicks” his daughter, which is so close to your own stated “tap on the hand and bum” as “part of disciplinary interaction with my kids” that if he is guilty of being an “authoritarian parent” as you infer then so too are you.

    And to claim that Colin Craig has “spent millions setting up the Conservative Party and campaigning, seemingly with the primary aim of overturning Section 59″ might sound good in your own mind, but is sadly lacking any facts to back it up. I suggest you read through their website, their vision and policies, check out the stories in the media, and calculate how much effort has been expended on the smacking issue compared to how much effort has been expended on, for example, housing, the Treaty of Waitangi, constitutional review, charter schools, etc.

    I would like to believe that you are being reasonable, fair and robust in your assessment of Colin Craig, Pete, but all indications are that you have a major obsession with discrediting him.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. RRM (10,009 comments) says:

    Smacking comment by Craig appals ex-MP

    And they can’t even catch a spelling mistake in the headline… :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    The marriage bill was not social engineering, it was giving the legal right of getting married to a small minority that was enjoyed by the majority.

    The majority should not be affected.

    The smacking bill was partly social engineering. It tried to encourage parents to switch to alternatives of discipline to physical punishment of their kids. It tried to address a problem with child abuse with a minority of parents.

    The majority should not be affected unless they took the cue to learn better parenting skills.

    Craig’s actions suggest he is trying to socially engineer the population so they believe that routinely smacking kids is a part of good parenting. This may or may not win him enough votes to get into Parliament. It may or may not lead to a change of the smacking laws.

    But I think it’s bloody sad to see an aspiring politician trying to succeed on the back of smacking kids.

    Jesus loves me, this I know,
    For the beating tells me so;
    Little ones to Him belong;
    They are weak, but He is strong.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Apologies to the majority of Christians who are good parents and who don’t like hurting their children.

    The main promoters of S59 repeal are Colin Craig who despite his caginess about it has fundamental Christian connections, as do others in his Conservative Party, plus Family First which is a vehicle of Bob McCoskrie with strong fundamental Christian associations.

    And people like Reid here who talks of social engineering conspiracies but is wedded to one of the biggest social engineering organisations in the history of human existence.

    We are evolving into a more secular and less violent society. Ironically this is in large part due to the laudable efforts of some Christian organisations to promote better education and personal knowledge to the population (very positive social engineering) despite traditional established religious power wanting to retain power, control knowledge and control the population (negative social engineering).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Dirty Rat (383 comments) says:

    If Dime laid a finger on my 24 year old daughter…i’d cut his fucking balls off

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Good god Craig hits a eight year old girl, just how sick is the man ?
    And when she is fifteen he will be using a belt on her no doubt.
    Where the hell do you people get your wish to hit children, want to hit someone might I suggest you find some large mean male and swing a punch, you may get a surprise.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    I think this is a good issue for Colin Craig. I support repealing the anti-smacking bill and going back to section 59, “reasonable force”. It is time for the state to get out of telling reasonable parents they cannot physically admonish their own children!
    And 85% of New Zealanders agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Manolo (14,044 comments) says:

    Just ask the whanau, hori.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Manolo (14,044 comments) says:

    The faithful and obedient P.G. has found a hobby horse. Fresh orders received from Oahriu, so he’s back in business.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. itstricky (1,880 comments) says:

    It is time for the state to get out of telling reasonable parents they cannot physically admonish their own children!
    And 85% of New Zealanders agree.

    I imagine that 100% of all people who use the word admonish agree. I mean, seriously, who uses that word apart from Good Strong Christian Men Who’ve Just Read It In The Book of Ecclesiastes?

    Time to repeat PGs little ditty:

    Jesus loves me, this I know,
    For the beating tells me so;
    Little ones to Him belong;
    They are weak, but He is strong.

    Thereby proving that Craig is only really gathering votes of those he already has – Good Strong Christian Men. No one else. Just them there Moon Walking, Cloud Chasing, Christian, Believers.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. itstricky (1,880 comments) says:

    Just ask the whanau, hori.

    Yeah, you’re a knob; we all know. Quite surprised you didn’t slip in “stone age” though? Maybe you’re on the mend.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. itstricky (1,880 comments) says:

    Quite surprised you didn’t slip in “stone age” though? Maybe you’re on the mend.

    Actually, come to think of it, maybe Colin Craig has had you over his knee and that’s corrected your behavior?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. OneTrack (3,221 comments) says:

    “And 85% of New Zealanders agree.”. -Such a quaint idea that old-fashioned democracy wasn’t it. No, the elites know whats best.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Time to repeat PGs little ditty:

    Jesus loves me, this I know,
    For the beating tells me so;

    Funny; one story I recall about Jesus was how he STOPPED a bunch of people from stoning a woman caught in adultery. And once they all slunk away, he told the woman, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more.”

    No beating. No scolding. Just a plea with the woman to mend her ways.

    But, if it makes you feel better, continue making stuff up out of your warped imagination.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    LOL losers!

    Tony Abbott has come out and said that he smacked his daughter….and that smacking has a place…….Tony Abbott probably still pokes his daughters in the arm at the dinner table for ‘abusive outbursts’ ‘vulgarity’ ect and they’re three times the age of Mr Craigs daughter. And Mr Craigs 9yld is sure to say things that need a solid rebuke. All conservative parents do this. Mr Craig is not out of the ordinary in respectable homes.

    Ever wondered why that is losers? :cool:

    We respect discipline. Discipline has it’s place.

    btw. Tony Abbott was an Oxford Blue in boxing! His wife was a corporate executive. His daughters speak for themselves. The entire family is very well respected.

    You losers just hate the fact that Christians and Conservatives breed better children than the mongrels you produce! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. itstricky (1,880 comments) says:

    “And 85% of New Zealanders agree.”. -Such a quaint idea that old-fashioned democracy wasn’t it. No, the elites know whats best.

    In the preliminary result released last night, 67.2 per cent of those who voted said they did not support the Government selling up to 49 per cent of Meridian Energy…

    Did you read this, BTW?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10772163

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. itstricky (1,880 comments) says:

    Tony Abbott has come out and said that he smacked his daughter….and that smacking has a place

    Forgive me if I’m not awestruck by the “everything is better in Australia, all hail the leader of the free Asia Pacific, I want to be like Mike” bubble you inhabit.

    And Mr Craigs 9yld is sure to say things that need a solid rebuke. All conservative parents do this.

    Wow? She’s nine now, it just keeps getting better and better.

    All conservative parents do this. Mr Craig is not out of the ordinary in respectable homes.
    You losers just hate the fact that Christians and Conservatives breed better children than the mongrels you produce!

    Sure, I guess it all depends on what you class as respectable and better. If you’re talking about children-will-be-seen-but-not-heard-they-will-do-what-I-say-when-I-say-it-or-they’ll-get-the-back-of-my-hand-go-to-mass-or-you’ll-go-to-hell then -: ABSOLUTELY!

    I don’t tend to associate the words respectable and better with that but, as they say – to each his own.

    BTW, have you read this:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10772163

    And put forward some suggestions on what legislation will curb family violence once S59 has been repealed and the definition of reasonable force becomes open again?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. RichardX (329 comments) says:

    Harriet (3,410 comments) says:
    January 14th, 2014 at 9:21 pm

    You losers just hate the fact that Christians and Conservatives breed better children than the mongrels you produce!

    And this is why you want the right to smack them?
    Impeccable logic as always

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Jesus loves me, this I know,
    For the beating tells me so;

    Funny; one story I recall about Jesus was how he STOPPED a bunch of people from stoning a woman caught in adultery. And once they all slunk away, he told the woman, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more.”

    No beating. No scolding. Just a plea with the woman to mend her ways.

    Funny, the stories I recall about Jesus depict him as a non-violent, caring person. No beating. No scolding.

    So why do some Christians still insist on the Old Testament approach of beating and scolding their children?

    Would Christ have kept smacking his child as it grew up?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Or would he have “tapped” them on their hands and bums to discipline them?

    And just how hard does a “tap” have to be before it crosses the line into a “smack”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. OneTrack (3,221 comments) says:

    itstricky – “Did you read this, BTW?”

    It is so hard to tell the difference between a quick smack on the bottom, which is quickly forgotten by the child, and putting them in a clothes dryer. Who knew?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. OneTrack (3,221 comments) says:

    itstricky – “In the preliminary result released last night, 67.2 per cent of those who voted said they did not support the Government selling up to 49 per cent of Meridian Energy…”

    Ok, so now you are happy that the government wont react to a referendum that gained less support than the amti-smacking one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    graham – a good guideline for drawing a line is ‘intention to hurt’.

    I intended to hurt one of my daughters once. And decided it was wrong, so didn’t do it again.

    In promoting the hurting of children Colin Craig is trying to portray himself as “the typical New Zealand parent on this which I pretty much am”. Heb pretty much isn’t, most parents don’t want to hurt their kids.

    I don’t think he’s even the typical New Zealand Christian.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Colin Craig is not promoting the hurting of children. If his discipline consists of “a flick of a finger on the back of a knuckle”, then this is not going to hurt a child any more than your “tap on their bum or hand” will. In fact he is probably overstating its impact when he says “It hurts for a moment.”

    Try it on yourself – flick your own knuckle with your finger – it’s actually quite hard to cause any pain, and by the time you’re flicking hard enough to cause pain to the child you’re going to be feeling a bit of a sting yourself. Whereas a firm tap with four fingers on the back of the hand will sting for several seconds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    I agree it’s hard to cause pain like that, it takes real intent. Craig has said he hurts his daughter. That is his intent.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. itstricky (1,880 comments) says:

    It is so hard to tell the difference between a quick smack on the bottom

    What I am saying is that if you think repealing is the democratic thing to do why don’t you fill us in on the legislation and defintion of abuse that you would bring in to address NZ’s bad record. After all this is about denying the use of legal standing for ‘I was just smacking my kid’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. itstricky (1,880 comments) says:

    Ok, so now you are happy that the government wont react to a referendum that gained

    What I am indicating is that Colin Craig peddles a policy of the binding referendum. So if repealing the AS law is democratic you would also have to be happy to accept that asset sales were stopped hence forthwith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. ChardonnayGuy (1,213 comments) says:

    This assumes a unilateral effect from any pro-hitting campaign. What if there isn’t? What if anti-violence voters decide that they cannot risk the entry of this populist demagogue to Parliament, and vote for political parties opposed to the reintroduction of indiscriminate parental corporal punishment? And what if some moderate voters dislike CC’s stances on other issues sufficiently not to vote for him, despite his stance on other issues? I know some anti-euthanasia Catholics who feel that way on his pivotal binding referendum policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    What Colin Craig has said is “It hurts for a moment.” Before accusing Colin of having actual intent to hurt his daughter, I would want to know considerably more detail. How does he know it hurts “for a moment”? Does he ask his daughter? If so, has he asked her immediately after administering the flick? That doesn’t really sound credible, flicking or tapping your child and then immediately asking them, “did that hurt?” Has he sat down and had a conversation with his daughter? “Hey, when I flick you on the knuckle, does it hurt?”Would you expect an 8-year-old to be able to discuss this objectively with her father? Do you make a habit of discussing your disciplinary methods with your children – I don’t. Come to that, how do you know that your “taps on the hand or bum” don’t hurt your children? Even just a little bit?

    This sounds like an off-the-cuff remark that he possibly didn’t think through, and it is now being dissected in far more detail than is justified. Although I have not heard the radio interview, I suspect what happened was he said that he flicks his child, probably thought “I’d better clarify that” and said “it hurts for a moment” to clarify that a “flick” is not actually a euphemism for “beating the living shit out of the kid”.

    And as we agree, it is pretty hard to actually cause real pain using a flick across the knuckles with a finger. Whereas “tapping” a kid on the hand can cause a nasty sting quite easily.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    “pretty hard to actually cause real pain using a flick”
    “tapping” a kid on the hand can cause a nasty sting quite easily”

    FFS graham.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    I’m sorry, Pete – do you disagree with what I’ve said? At 8:19 am you agreed that it’s hard to cause pain with just a flick, are you now disagreeing with that? Or do you disagree that “tapping” a kid on the hand can cause pain quite easily?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    A flick on the finger, no matter how it’s done and no matter how it’s downplayed, can only ever at the very most cause the tiniest amount of momentary pain.

    A tap on the hand may be barely felt but more likely will tend towards crushing every bone in the hand and probably extracts the fingernails at the same time. Especially when Pete George does it with a sledgehammer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. RRM (10,009 comments) says:

    I want my children to grow up to be smart, capable of thinking for themselves; compassionate, able to differentiate right and wrong and treat others fairly; and competent, possessing their own motivation to succeed.

    Teaching them that they must do what I say, when I say so, and because I said so, or else I will punish them by [hurting them / not rewarding them / withdrawing love by sending them to “time out”] for not meeting my expectations seems like a GREAT way of achieving those goals!

    :neutral: Not.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Pete George at 9:36 am – I honestly don’t see what your problem is. I have lost count of how many times you have taken statements and media releases made by various people and proceeded to dissect them, downplay them, put your own interpretation on them, re-examine them in the minutest of details, question the reasoning or motivation behind them, challenge them, and pull them to bits.

    You now seem to be complaining because I am doing the same to Colin Craig’s statement and to yours.

    If you disagree with what I said at 8:52, then go ahead and explain why. Making snarky sarcastic comments doesn’t add anything to the conversation, but hey if you want to then go right ahead, it’s a free country.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote