About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

July 4, 2009 1:22am by David Farrar

Referendum Voting Guide

Lyndon at Scoop has done an excellent guide to help you vote in the referendum. Enjoy it.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment53

Humour
Humour
Lyndon Hood
Section 59

Related Stories

Humour from Scoop
Blog Bits
Text Adventures in Politics

Comments (53)

Login to comment or vote

Grant Michael McKenna

Funny, accurate, brilliant.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 3:13am
Ruby

Coddington’s article written in 2007 on this issue remains one of the most convincing I’ve read:

Since 1999, when I wrote a feature on the death of 4-year-old James Whakaruru, I have advocated repealing Section 59. Research involved interviewing James’ whanau, where smacks were every-day – nay, every-hour – “discipline” for their kids. Mum’s busy; smack over the head. Dad’s hungover; smack around the ear. Stop grizzling; smack around the bum. Smack, smack, smack. That’s often the only touching many New Zealand children receive from those they look to for love and affection.

Sadly, it will take many years before attitudes towards violence are changed. That was driven home to me when I saw what National MP Chester Borrows’ amendment would allow: smacking kids for wetting the bed, hitting a sibling, breaking an ornament, running on to the road. I can’t believe adults would smack children for this. My God, if parents still believe they can cure bedwetting with smacks, we have a problem.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 7:50am
Cerium

Lyndon should follow that up with a chart on “How to discipline children”. It should be just as simple.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 8:27am
ross

Ruby,

Coddington’s “analysis”, and I use the word loosely, is intellectually dishonest. It wasn’t smacking that caused James Whakarau’s death. He was brutally assaulted. Coddington, like many other child advocates, can’t seem to understand the difference between a light smack and a brutal assault. Indeed, you have to wonder about the strength of their argument when they deliberately associate the two.

I presume, Ruby, that you are quite happy with the current law, where parents that smack for corrective purposes are effectively criminals. Of course, there’s the argument that, well, police don’t prosecute in smacking cases. That’s analogous to saying if I rob a bank and don’t get caught, I’m not a criminal because I haven’t been prosecuted! Yeah, OK. The law is quite clear: if I smack for corrective purposes, I’ve broken the law. Whether I am charged or not is out of my hands. How exactly is that helping parents and their kids?

Whether police prosecute or not, there has been a sharp rise in the number of police investigations of parents who smack or who use inconsequential force. Police should spend their time investigating genuine cases of child abuse and other crimes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 9:07am
Cerium

I’m sure Coddington understands the difference between a light smack and a brutal assault. She also understands that people who are in the habit of giving “light smacks” are more at risk of escalating to brutal assaults when they lose their patience and/or temper. There can be a fine line between a light smack and a brutal smack, all it needs is a snap of energy to make a brutal difference.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 9:16am
Cerium

“Whether police prosecute or not, there has been a sharp rise in the number of police investigations of parents who smack or who use inconsequential force. Police should spend their time investigating genuine cases of child abuse and other crimes.”

Can you suggest how the police would know what is inconsequential and what is genuine abuse without investigating?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 9:19am
democracymum

I have been thinking alot about the anti-smacking legislation lately, and why I believe NZ’s will vote against the legislation in the referendum.

In the past 5 years in particular, New Zealand parents have watched a diet of horrific and gut wrenching child abuse on the nightly news. Who can forget the images of little children whose bodies resembled patchworked dolls, bloodied, bruised, and beaten before their lives have taken by the very people who should have loved them and protected them?

Good New Zealand parents were completely sickened by this nightly parade of child abuse.
We wanted these children protected by our laws and by our society.

But Sue Bradford’s badly drafted legislation GROUPED ALL NEW ZEALAND PARENTS UNDER A SINGLE UMBRELLA

It was the equivalent of saying to pet owners – if you have ever smacked your dog with a rolled up newspaper – then you are as guilty as the sort of person who would leave your dog chained up with no food for days, or cut off a cat’s paws for the sheer fun of watching it in pain.

Good New Zealand parents are now feeling, insulted and appalled that they have been associated with the sort of people who would put a child in a dryer, or stub out cigarettes on their bodies, or beat a child because they had soiled their pants.

This is why this issue will never go away. It goes to the heart of every New Zealander’s sense of fair play, what is right.

The legislation was never about about solving child abuse, if it was 12 children would not have died since the legislation was introduced. Not only did the law not protect the very children it was designed too, but it has implicated every other New Zealand parent as a result.

The anti smacking legislation was Sue Bradford’s personal crusade and socialist agenda. I hope that New Zealand parents and democracy will have the final say through the referendum.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 9:34am
Cerium

“…GROUPED ALL NEW ZEALAND PARENTS UNDER A SINGLE UMBRELLA”

Can you suggest how it should be done? Should there be a law for good parents and a law for bad parents? If you are a good parent you shouldn’t be investigated? And your bad moments are excused?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 9:45am
democracymum

Sue Bradford does not believe that it is correct for a chid to be smacked ever!!!
Therefore she would not allow smacking in any form to be defined in the law.

A light smack could easily be defined, it is on the bottom, legs or the hand and does not leave a bruise

We define all sorts of things in law, how many drinks you can have before you can drive,
what constitutes dangerous driving etc,

It was not hard – it just needed the political will.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 9:50am
GNZ

Ruby,

lets imagine a cross section of society

Ben Haerewa – Ben doesn’t think about the law at all when he beats a baby (James Whakaruru) to death. Telling him that the smacking is illegal as well as the abuse/murder doesn’t cause any behavioural change.

Then we have ‘Bob’ he is a bad parent but he does pay some attention to the law, he is also not at risk of causing serious physical harm to his child. If you make smacking illegal he will make some effort to stop smacking – if he suceeds he will use his next best strategy. But he doesnt know any of the Super Nanny strategies and he definetly isnt going to go and learn them (he is a bad parent). Bob therefore uses timeouts in the closet until the kid stops making a noise and ignoring the child when he hits his younger brother.

Phil on the other hand is an normal parent who sometimes smacks when his son hits his daughter and when he tries to run on the road because as far as he can tell it is the most effective method. Next time his son runs onto the road he is in a state of confusion regarding what to do about it. He shouts and swears and eventually he either decides that the law is an ass and smacks his son anyway or he just takes his son off the road and hopes it won’t happen again.

and Joe is a fantastic parent- basically the male super nanny – the law doesn’t effect him at all (unless smacking really was the best option in a certain scenario).

I sugest the law change is obviously pretty useless in the Ben(James Whakaruru) case but I’m not even sure it is beneficial in any of the other cases either.
If anything what we seem to want is education – for lack of a better word more “super nanny classes” or TV shows.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 10:12am
reid

Can you suggest how it should be done?

Yeah, Cerium. It’s called root cause analysis.

This of course, involves making judgements about what makes a good parent and what makes a bad parent. And involves recognising that bad parents need to be separated and treated differently from good parents.

It’s not hard. Just about everyone who’s a good parent could dash off a list in 5 mins about what makes them a good parent (unconditional love would of course be at the top of every list).

Bad parents however would be completely unable to list a single item, sometimes because they’re ignorant and sometimes because they just don’t give a shit. Which of course is one of the root causes.

Unfortunately, some if not most, left-leaning people seem to imagine that making judgements about a limited group of people and then treating them differently on that basis, is weally weally bad and something to avoid at all costs. The fact that the failure to do so completely negates their ability to deal effectively with the issue they claim to care so much about, always escapes them.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 10:12am
Cerium

Reid, you must be stirring, you can’t seriously believe that those who label themselves as good parents should be exempt from violence against children laws, and those parents labeled bad (by the good parents) should be dealt to?

Black and white, good and bad, left and right. Might work if it was that simple. No laws for right leaning good white parents? The “laws should only apply to others” approach.

But it’s far from that simple, most people are a continuing mixture in the middle.

We have laws and a judicial system to “make judgements about a limited group of people and then treating them differently on that basis” – on a case by case basis.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 10:51am
reid

No, I wasn’t suggesting parents should label themselves, I was illustrating how simple it is to come up with a workable definition of good vs bad parenting.

Of course the laws should apply equally to both sets of parents.

However, if you’re serious about dealing to this issue, then stop playing at the margins and get down to calling a spade a spade and design the legislation accordingly. And please don’t obfuscate by alleging that I’m using that phrase as a racial epithet.

It’s perfectly obvious what the risk factors are. History of family violence, poor education, etc. So open your eyes and look at it, don’t shut them and do a three monkey act by pretending you can’t look at people like that.

And you will find that once you look at it through that particular set of reference points, lo, everything becomes clear and the solution is staring you in the face and yes, it is very simple, actually.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 11:14am
Shunda barunda

Reid, the only conclusion a reasonable person can come to is that people like Cerium are possibly just a bit thick.
They actually still believe this whole S59 schomozzal is about child abuse, it isn’t.
It is about the ideological crusade of one Sue Bradford and her succesful attempt to confuse the issue to the degree that she actually got it passed.
You can’t get a straight answer out of the women precisely for this reason, she is anti parental authority in any form and this whole debate should only be about whether we all agree with her radical human rights ideology or not.
I will be voting no to oppose this ideologue, to try and do something to preserve of what little remains of parental authority in this country.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 11:23am
Cerium

The margins that you are emphasising are simple, of course it’s easy to see the worst cases. And there are some obvious risk factors. But that doesn’t come close to covering it all. It is very difficult, that is why we have a major problem.

A simple example – you could target poorly educated parents with a history of family violence (whacked when they were kids), but the worst of them are the least likely to take any notice.

This is a simple problem that can be quickly be “fixed”. It is a complex problem that with the right attitude and effort can at best be improved over time.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 11:34am
reid

Shunda, completely agree which is why I’ve always deplored Key’s capitulation on this matter. Why can’t people see the blatant manipulation and the real agenda? It’s quite obvious.

It is very difficult, that is why we have a major problem. A simple example – you could target poorly educated parents with a history of family violence (whacked when they were kids), but the worst of them are the least likely to take any notice.

No it’s not difficult at all. There are two parts: identification and remedy. Both parts are quite simple provided you have the will to do them properly. The reason it hasn’t worked up to today, is because misguided fools operating in the name of human rights, have prevented the correct operation of one or both parts.

Simple example: Create a database of bad parents. Require those parents to undergo education and don’t take no for an answer. Make sure the schools knew which of their pupils had a bad parent. Require the schools to undertake immediate procedures upon certain trigger events such as Johnny not turning up. The details of all of this could be worked out and refined over time, but lefties don’t want to do this because e.g. it targets certain people and invades their privacy and for all sorts of other bullshit reasons. That’s the central reason why this issue remains a problem – fucking idiot do-gooders who prevent it from happening because they’re well-meaning.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 11:48am
Cerium

“They actually still believe this whole S59 schomozzal is about child abuse, it isn’t.”

Shunda, you are partially correct (and incorrect in your assumption about me). S59 is fiddling with a part of the law that on it’s own won’t make much difference. But there could be flow on effects.

If this debate has prompted some parents to question the effectiveness of smacking and to look for positive alternatives (smacking may stop an immediate incidence of bad behaviour but it doesn’t teach good behaviour) then there will have been benefits.

If bad parents get a message from this that 80% of people think smacking is fine and parents should be able to deal with their kids however they like then they could take it as a societal green light to carry on abusing their kids. That won’t change anything for the worst of them, but those with bad parental skills that notice and learn may have those bad skills reinforced. That is potentially dangerous for their kids.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 11:49am
Chuck Bird

There may by two referendums about getting rid of this anti-parental discipline legislation. If Mr Key refuses to respect the views and parenting skills of the vast majority of good parents there will be a second referendum at the general election.

ACT is the only party in Parliament that believe that parents not the state has primacy in the raising of children – within reason of course.

If anyone is unclear about the law ACT would like to see in place you can view John Boscawen’s private member’s bill

http://section59.blogspot.com/2009/05/john-boscawens-private-members-bill.html

This bill is very similar to Nationals, Chester Borrows amendment which Key forced Borrows and all other National MPs to vote against.

It should be clear that this bill would not allow rogue juries to find a parent not guilty where the force was obviously excessive. This did happen but very rarely.

The only objections to this watered down version of the old Section 59 are ideological and have nothing to do with the physical welfare of children.

Do not believe John Key. He will take notice of the referendum and he will take notice of this talk particularly if the venue is full.

You presence will help but would you kindly contact Brian Nicolle by phone or preferably email so he had an idea of numbers.

For those either opposed to this attack on parental rights or with at least an open mind on the subject the details of a talk by Bob McCoskrie of Family First titled,
“Why the Referendum Answer is No” are below.

While this issue would not be the top priority for ACT it would be reasonably high on the list. This law can be changed but only if the pressure on John Key is kept up. The more MPs ACT gets after the next election the more bargaining power it will have to convince National that parents not the state has primacy in the raising of children – within reason of course.

You presence will help but would you kindly contact Brian Nicolle by phone or preferably email so he had an idea of numbers.

Rodney Hide Invites You To His Constituent Forum
Theme: The “anti smacking referendum”
Friday 24 July, 5.30pm
Mecca Cafe
Cnr Remuera Road and Nuffield Street, Newmarket
Special Guest speaker: Bob McCoskrie, National Director, Family First
The title of Bob’s speech is “Why the Referendum Answer is No”
Go to Bob’s website http://www.familyfirst.org.nz
Free Entry. Cash bar available. Everyone welcome
RSVP bnicolle@clear.net.nz Further info Phone 09 524 6173
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 11:56am
Cerium

Is that the Rodney who believes in democratic process and referendums unless it involves stuff he wants to push through?

Maybe you can have a three strikes and you’re out amendment?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 12:06pm
Shunda barunda

“(smacking may stop an immediate incidence of bad behaviour but it doesn’t teach good behaviour)”

Absolute bollocks, there is vast evidence to suggest the contrary, unless of coarse you are a left wing ideologue.

“If bad parents get a message from this that 80% of people think smacking is fine and parents should be able to deal with their kids however they like then they could take it as a societal green light to carry on abusing their kids”

Well its just as well smacking is not abuse then isn’t it.

The simple facts are:

*Only a handful of parents (in the past 20 years) ever used the pre Bradford law to get off.

*All of those children survived, so on cost to benefit ratio to reduce child abuse, this whole exercise was a collosal waste of time and money.

*Sue Bradford has been very outspoken against all forms of parental authority previous to this law change, her “all children are fully realised human beings” rant comes to mind.

*Sue Bradford admitted to me, on a frog blog thread, that this issue IS about ideology shift on how to raise NZ kids.

* The real child abuse and murder continues unabated, nothing has been proposed to deal with this shocking reality.

Extreme Leftist ideology always kills people, idealistic in the extreme, impossible to implement without pulling down the strong and legitimising the weak.
These people make me sick.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 12:07pm
reid

If this debate has prompted some parents to question the effectiveness of smacking and to look for positive alternatives (smacking may stop an immediate incidence of bad behaviour but it doesn’t teach good behaviour) then there will have been benefits.

Yes but unfortunately Cerium, those parents who have reconsidered their behaviour as a result, were by definition, never in the bad parent category anyway. If that’s the only successful outcome you can point to, I hope you had the foresight to have never supported the amendment in the first place.

If bad parents get a message from this that 80% of people think smacking is fine and parents should be able to deal with their kids however they like then they could take it as a societal green light to carry on abusing their kids. That won’t change anything for the worst of them, but those with bad parental skills that notice and learn may have those bad skills reinforced. That is potentially dangerous for their kids.

Cerium, people who actually think that thereby demonstrate they have no actual realistic idea of how people do in fact operate in real life in terms of the origins of this particular issue.

Unfortunately as we have seen during the course of this whole debate, some of those people who do think that are in positions of policy-making power and also occupy powerful positions in the very state agencies which are the key to resolving this problem.

Until we eliminate these people from said positions, we will never make any progress whatsover.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 12:11pm
Chuck Bird

80% of people think smacking is fine and parents should be able to deal with their kids however they like

80% of people do not believe that parents should be able to deal with their kids however they like. 80% of people believe that a smack for the purpose of correction should not be a criminal offence as it presently is.

Can you not see the difference? If you cannot then you definitely should not have children.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 12:24pm
davidp

According to the wording of the referendum question, it should be legal only for parents to smack children. So police are still going to have to investigate incidents of smacking in order to determine if the smacker is a parent or not. I’m guessing that parents will have to carry copies of their children’s birth certificates around with them, in case they’re stopped and questioned. And if they’re a step parent, a grandparent, or an aunt then it’ll be a stretch in the pokey for them.

Which is odd. According to commenters in Kiwiblog, NZ is full of children who are in danger of running out on to roads and the only way to stop this happening is smacking. That is fine if a parent is nearby. But what if the child is with an uncle?… Does the child end up squashed? Surely if smacking is required in order to stop children from being killed by motor vehicles, then any adult should have the right to smack any child that looks as if they’re about to leave a footpath in an uncontrolled fashion.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 1:12pm
kaya

These forums and blog sites are like the biggest committee the world has ever seen. There is absolutely no chance of coming up with a solution that will keep everyone happy and a conclusion will never be reached. Can someone pass me a choccy biscuit please? Right, where was I? Mr Speaker………..

You cannot design a law to define good or bad parenting or calculate when a smack becomes a hit, whack, brutal bash, whatever!!!! The normal law of assault covers it, if someone managed to get off an assault charge using S59 then the interpretation was wrong, not the law. Judges and juries sometimes make bad decisions, it doesn’t mean we need to repeal everything. Have we lost our ability to use common sense? The use of a riding crop or jug cord to discipline is assault and abuse, that is a no brainer. The law didn’t fail, the judge and/or jury did in their interpretation!

Let’s address the core issue. Sue Bradford (unelected) rammed through legislation against the will of the majority. The majority are justifiably pissed off for 2 main reasons.

First and most importantly, we resent being told what to do by unelected Marxists who have never had a real job yet are in a position of power far beyond their mandate.
Second, most of us want to retain the option of delivering a smack on the arse as discipline when warranted. Bradord’s crap is like vegans trying to legislate against the eating of meat or Labour supporters trying to legislate against anyone wanting to oppose them (EFA). It is not about preventing child abuse and never has been.

99.99% of us abhor violence towards children. The repeal of S59 did NOTHING to address the problem.
It is another example of the 1970’s school of socialist, academic garbage, is not based on reality, and is instead based on case studies and theoretical models of perfect social engineering derived from text books written by ex-hippies and other assorted substance abusers. A sort of light-weight Orwellian state similar to the one attempted by Frau Klark, Herr Kullen Comrade Bradford and others.
There may be social reasons that contribute to violence against children. (there is NEVER an excuse) How those are addressed is a whole different subject but, legislation is not the way to approach this.

No matter what you think about the wording of this referendum you should use it to send a couple of powerful messages.

Firstly to Bradford – “fuck off you twat, who do you think you are trying to impose your warped and twisted beliefs on the rest of us?”

More importantly to Key -“John, listen carefully, we like you, you aren’t doing yourself any favours here. Dismissing the will of so many people smacks of at worst arrogance, at best political naivety. The referendum may appear to be about the legislation but it’s a lot more subtle than that. You must have advisors who are telling you this, listen to them”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 1:26pm
Shunda barunda

“99.99% of us abhor violence towards children. The repeal of S59 did NOTHING to address the problem.”

Exactly, but the left wing radicals keep chucking ALL who oppose their ugly social experiments into the basket with murderers and abusers.
John Key has revealed a distinct lack of leadership and integrity over this issue, he is obviously gambling over the fact that those that oppose this law are unlikely to vote labour/greens. I would suggest playing that many people as your own personal political bitches is a very dangerous game to play, he has had the chance to consolodate support and he has blown it.
Any National party analysts reading this blog should take note, SORT YOUR SH!T OUT, I can’t be bothered with the blue version of labour, I have had a guts full of politicing and weak arse leadership, and I would imagine many others have too.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 2:04pm
Cerium

“Until we eliminate these people from said positions, we will never make any progress whatsover.”

It shouldn’t be up to said people in said positions. One of our biggest problems is too many people screaming at the government to do something about xxxx and then complaining about what they do, and blaming them for everything.

It should be up to all of us. Personal, family and community responsibilities. If we did that properly we wouldn’t need laws.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 2:07pm
Shunda barunda

“It should be up to all of us. Personal, family and community responsibilities. If we did that properly we wouldn’t need laws.”

Oh for crying out loud!
We’ve been debating with an anarchist!!
“Can’t we all just get along?”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 2:13pm
reid

It should be up to all of us. Personal, family and community responsibilities. If we did that properly we wouldn’t need laws.

Quite agree, Cerium. Unfortunately, in the real world, do-gooders have created a situation which allows people to abrogate their responsibilities both toward themselves and toward others. They have done this because they think it’s the right or kind thing to do. Their stupidity and naivity is appalling.

Having created this situation, they now act to prevent people who know what needs to be done, from acting to mitigate it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 2:14pm
Cerium

And trying to label some theoretical groups and blaming them is going to do what? It’s all the fault of the do-gooders and the do-badders? Overriding those that are perfect?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 2:27pm
Shunda barunda

Cerium was Sue Bradford trying to close a loophole or ban smacking?
Think carefully before you answer.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 2:32pm
Cerium

Effectively she originally tried to ban smacking. There was also an intention to bring assault law for children into line with what it was for adults – which bans smacking.

Democracy (the sort we have) took over, pragmatism was applied and a less than ideal (but in my view no worse than the previous version) compromise was reached and agreed on by a large majority in parliament.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 2:41pm
davidp

I just got pack from the supermarket where I, unfortunately, had to smack a child. She was throwing a bit of a tantrum and looked like she might injure herself, so I gave her a loving smack for the purposes of good correction. I didn’t think there would be any problem, but people went absolutely ape shit! The girl’s parents threatened me with violence and someone said they were going to call the police.

I’m guessing that those people are all going to vote yes at the referendum. It seems like Bradford supporters are everywhere.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 2:50pm
Chuck Bird

he is obviously gambling over the fact that those that oppose this law are unlikely to vote labour/greens.

However, more than in counting them not voting labour/greens they may choose to vote ACT. At the moment he is taking more notice of the Maori Party and the Watermelons. Without a strong ACT presence we end up with a blue version of Labour headed by someone acts very much like Clark.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 2:59pm
jcuknz

Passing a law against abusers has done little or nothing to prevent abuse of children, instead it has made thousands of parents into criminals with the likelihood of time and money wasting court procedures if their children speak against them or others see what they have done. Getting children to speak against parents is what happened in Nazi Germany and Communist states and apparently now in New Zealand. A law change is quite simple … just permit hand smacking on the bottom … part of the body nature has designed for the purpose.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 3:05pm
Shunda barunda

“Effectively she originally tried to ban smacking.”

Exactly, due to the radical human rights ideology that she holds.
But instead of tabling the aforementioned ideology, for debate on its relative worth among all concerned, she confused (deliberately) the issue with child abuse and effectively legislated her morality on the rest of us.
Don’t you left wingers believe in the separation of church and state?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 3:18pm
Cerium

I’m not a fan of Bradford. I didn’t agree with the original amendment. I was lukewarm on the final amendment but thought it was a slight step in the right direction on a law tweak that should have made little difference. I would prefer it didn’t theoretically criminalise parents who hit as a punishment and think the law only sort of addresses that with it’s inconsequential and police discretion bits. I’m a bit bemused by the resulting hissy fit reaction. I think the time, money and passion would have been much better spent on addressing the major problem rather than a minor law tweak.

What that has got to do with left wing and separation of church and state I have no idea. I am sure there very good christian right wing parents and I am also sure there are left wing atheist abusers. And a lot of mixtures in between.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 3:34pm
Shunda barunda

“I’m a bit bemused by the resulting hissy fit reaction.”

Oh really? perhaps thats cause you are not the one being affected by it.
I have shared on this blog before about a complaint I made to my local school regarding the bullying (physical assault under the STATES care) of my Son.
To cut a long story short, My wife and I were threatened, in our own home, of being recorded in the state system because we were honest about ocasionally using smacking. When we asked why our parenting has anything to do with a complaint re bullying, the answer given was that the social worker was REQUIRED to ask this question when ever contact was made with a family.
So was the state changing the law to reduce child abuse?, or are they agresively implementing Sue Bradfords almost religous ideological convictions on parents?

Don’t tell me I don’t have the right to have a “hissy fit” when I have this sh!t pushed on to me in my own friggin home!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 3:50pm
Chuck Bird

I just got pack from the supermarket where I, unfortunately, had to smack a child. She was throwing a bit of a tantrum and looked like she might injure herself, so I gave her a loving smack for the purposes of good correction. I didn’t think there would be any problem, but people went absolutely ape shit! The girl’s parents threatened me with violence and someone said they were going to call the police.
I’m guessing that those people are all going to vote yes at the referendum. It seems like Bradford supporters are everywhere.

I find it hard to believe that you actually wrote this in all seriousness and harder still to think you got a positive Karma.

If what you is true you can count yourself lucky you got out of the supermarket in one piece and were not up before the court. Parents do not need the either the state or busy bodies to tell then how to discipline their children.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 4:05pm
village idiot

I just got pack from the supermarket where I, unfortunately, had to smack a child. She was throwing a bit of a tantrum and looked like she might injure herself, so I gave her a loving smack for the purposes of good correction. I didn’t think there would be any problem, but people went absolutely ape shit! The girl’s parents threatened me with violence and someone said they were going to call the police.

The child wasn’t yours?

Your story is not true.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 4:13pm
village idiot

Shunda Barunda

It astonishes me that you cling so tightly to the idea that Sue Bradford should be the target for your anger. This issue passed out of her hands long ago. What she thinks about it NOW has NO relevance at all. Get over her. You can ONLY hold Key to account now.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 4:16pm
donkey

A smack on the bum from a loving parent to an errant child is not an assault, NEVER has been and NEVER will be, no matter what Key’s law says.

I voted (party vote) ACT because I saw clearly that John Key and National would be labour-lite on Families and social engineering. I called for everyone I know to do the same, They didn’t (silly fcks).
So now we have to push this (Big Govt over NZ families ) uphill.

Since his utterances in the past week or so I have decided that NO MATTER what happens as long as John Key is head of THE NATIONAL PARTY I will be voting ACT (party vote) as that is the only way to keep THE NATIONAL PARTY honest. maybe when enough people wake up we’ll get some traction.

As far as I am concerned 112 MP’s DID apply their minds, (I sent them all an email and letter with my submission) they wanted to stop smacking.

Knowing that would hurt and traumatise ordinary decent Kiwi parents by sending CYPS and NZPOLICE on them.
They also abrogated their (Paid) responsibility to make just, fair and good law. (as Stephen Franks proposes)
Not only that THEY passed THEIR responsibility down the food chain to other paid state officials to decide on as they didn’t.

I hope that the 80% of Kiwi Parents actually do realise this and that they were stupid beyond extreme to give John Key and THE NATIONAL PARTY a free pass after he proved he wasn’t trustworthy (by fcking ordinary parents with his law) and now He has proven by his attacks both on the referendum (both word and process) and the people who set it up.

There got it off my chest and look forward to voting NO on the day.
Mike NZ
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 4:16pm
village idiot

Yes donkey, Act are the only party pushing hard for smacking. It excites them. It suits them. They want it. The are the Champions of Smacking.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 4:20pm
Shunda barunda

“What she thinks about it NOW has NO relevance at all. Get over her. You can ONLY hold Key to account now.”

Atually it is completely relevant, last I checked she was still an unelected member of parliament.
Even the greens have considerable debate on their own blog regarding the Bradford bill, infact its the only issue that the greens membership still seems divided on.
Until the left are honest enough to table the real agenda I will not be “getting over” anything.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 4:32pm
village idiot

Not ‘it’ Shunda, ‘she’. get over HER. You are fixating, just like Big Bro. Issue, not person. Still, it does stop you making progress with your thinking on the matter, having gotten ‘stuck’ on Sue.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 4:44pm
davidp

chuck bird>If what you is true you can count yourself lucky you got out of the supermarket in one piece and were not up before the court.

Like I said… It was a loving smack. Well three actually, since she didn’t stop after the first one. But like just about everyone in this thread has said, it certainly didn’t wouldn’t do any harm. So why do you think this should be a matter for the courts? Why do you want to criminalise harmless behaviour?

Are you Sue Bradford writing under an alias? Fess up, Chuck!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 4:46pm
Shunda barunda

“Not ‘it’ Shunda, ’she’. get over HER. You are fixating, just like Big Bro. Issue, not person. Still, it does stop you making progress with your thinking on the matter, having gotten ’stuck’ on Sue.”

Aaaa yes, I thought I detected a certain “Aphidoidea” about your comments.
I am not “stuck” on Sue, she is a convienient and easy to recognise “face” to this issue, for much the same reasons that the greens hid her during the lead up to the last election
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 4:52pm
donkey

Vote NO.

Then Vote your party vote next election to ACT.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 4:55pm
Chuck Bird

davidp, I cannot believe you are for real. It sounds like you are just trying to stir things up to get a response. I cannot believe you smacked a child you did not know in the supermarket. The mother would have been entitled to give you a good smack in the face. I know plenty who would. If you retaliated you would have been up for assault on a child and assualt on a female.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 5:22pm
Rex Widerstrom

democracymum writes:

Good New Zealand parents are now feeling, insulted and appalled that they have been associated with the sort of people who would put a child in a dryer, or stub out cigarettes on their bodies, or beat a child because they had soiled their pants.

This is why this issue will never go away. It goes to the heart of every New Zealander’s sense of fair play, what is right.

That’s an excellent analysis of the political mess Sue Bradford made in tackling an issue which had the potential to unite the vast majority of NZers behind her (and consequently boost the standing of the Greens). Unfortunately she more than most has been infected with the “I’m an MP, I’m therefore better than you and know better than you” hubris that invariably affects those elected to office in NZ.

Rather than listen, and compromise, she and her supporters demonised as “child beaters” anyone who dared so much as say “Errr, hang on, what about…”

NZers don’t like to be hectored, no matter what the cause and no matter by whom.

Which is why I’m disappointed Lyndon’s hilarious flowchart doesn’t show me a way I could both punch Larry Baldock in the face and annoy the hell out of purse-lipped hippies like Deborah Double-Barrel.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 5:45pm
Cerium

Shunda, I have been investigated by social services, quite a few years ago. One of my daughters had been to A&E with accidental injuries three times in a year and they were required to check it out. They were happy that things stacked up and there was no abuse. And I didn’t mind, I thought it was good that they followed up on the possibilities. I’d rather they did this if it means they find problems with some.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 6:00pm
Shunda barunda

“And I didn’t mind, I thought it was good that they followed up on the possibilities.”

Oh well thats just super.
Personally I don’t like being acosted (ambushed?) by social workers in my own home, call me old fashioned but I just think I should be free from the latetest unproven ideological assault when I am within the four walls of my place of residence.
You may welcome state intrusion into your life, but I am sick to death of it in mine, thats why I and most people that care about children will be voting no in the referendum.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 6:09pm
Cerium

That’s the problem, everyone wants the state to keep out of their lives but sort out problems involving others.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 6:47pm
Shunda barunda

“That’s the problem, everyone wants the state to keep out of their lives but sort out problems involving others.”

No I don’t think so, we just want reasonable laws that don’t force un-proven ideology on the people who are doing things right anyway.

Perhaps if the state hadn’t spent the last 10 years dumbing everybody down we wouldn’t currently be mourning the loss of common sense from our political system.
When people no longer have to think for themselves, or use parental authority, it becomes impossible to “sort out problems involving others.” any way.
More state intervention = more stupidity
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 4, 2009 6:57pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« General Debate 4 July 2009

Liu arrested »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Top Stories

General Debate 25 April 2024
Hysterical Hipkins
General Debate 26 April 2024
High Court quashes Waitangi Tribunal summons
Remembering the war dead
Three Strikes saw lower reoffending
Should media practice what they preach?
Possible changes to End of Life regime
Literature and Males
Two Ministers lose portfolios

Recent Posts

Hipkins wrong 26 April 2024
Possible changes to End of Life regime 26 April 2024
General Debate 26 April 2024 26 April 2024
Three Strikes saw lower reoffending 26 April 2024
Hysterical Hipkins 25 April 2024
General Debate 25 April 2024 25 April 2024
Remembering the war dead 25 April 2024
High Court quashes Waitangi Tribunal summons 24 April 2024
Literature and Males 24 April 2024
Should media practice what they preach? 24 April 2024
Is the Commerce Commission for consumers or suppliers 24 April 2024
Two Ministers lose portfolios 24 April 2024

Never miss a post

Email Address

Recent Comments

General Debate 26 April 2024
Maggie Pie
Hipkins wrong
mikenmildagain
Hipkins wrong
mikenmildagain
General Debate 26 April 2024
G the giant from Dunedin
General Debate 26 April 2024
Ghost
General Debate 26 April 2024
G the giant from Dunedin
Hipkins wrong
Benedict Yu
General Debate 26 April 2024
G the giant from Dunedin
General Debate 26 April 2024
Damocles11
Hipkins wrong
Philview
Possible changes to End of Life regime
Scott
General Debate 26 April 2024
Stellaboxer
Possible changes to End of Life regime
Lenticular
Hipkins wrong
greenjacket
General Debate 26 April 2024
Maggie Pie

Links

"Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory"
Not PC
Is Oranga Tamariki guilty of neglect?
Point of Order
Sowell says
Hompaddock
THE WAY THINGS WERE
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
“You Should Stay The Hell Out Of It”
No Minister
US v. Google: do complaints have to be internally consistent?
Utopia
Eruption of pro-Palestinian protests on American Campus evidence of a conscience – the difference between Anti-Semites and Anti-Zionism
The Daily Blog
Open mike 26/04/2024
The Standard
"Comity" versus the rule of law
No Right Turn
Jacinda’s legacy – Increasing number of abortions
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 15
Stats Chat
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d