Bradfordism: Bill for referendum due to bill [Archive]

Marmoot

17th June 2009, 16:22

The Stranger

17th June 2009, 16:31

Sue Bradford is just an amazing political machine that never tires. Maybe all our MPs should follow her example of dedication.

Another bill from Sue Bradford (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10579036)? The last one triggered this referendum and now she wants to have another bill to respond to this referendum, which was originally caused by her? All these debacle wouldn't have happened had she thought before opening her mouth in the beginning. MPs who waste our time and tax money on such things need to be expelled.

"Ms Bradford said the wording of the referendum had been a shock and ambiguous questions should not be allowed."

But presumably ambiguous laws (unnecessary speed or acceleration, noise and boy racer laws for example) are just fine.

HenryDorsetCase

17th June 2009, 16:33

that fucking cooze never tires of spending my goddamn money, huh? Maybe I should just marry her, divorce her, and buy her a goodamn house?

Mully

17th June 2009, 16:37

Did no-one tell her what happened in November??

FUCK OFF SUE - YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION NOW, MORON.

Skyryder

17th June 2009, 16:52

xwhatsit

17th June 2009, 17:40

It is an exceptionally poorly-worded referendum question. No doubt about it. Breaks all kinds of principles they have in statistics about interviewer bias, selection errors etc.

Dunno what should be done about that though... it's what the people asked for. And you have to allow people to propose whatever referendum they want, provided they get the signatures for it, as that's how democracy should be. If you start having committees which alter the wording then that's open to all kinds of government influence... the last thing you want.

But on the other hand -- this being an extreme example, of course -- man, what a waste of money putting up such an ineffective referendum question.

Maybe the principles of democracy are important enough that they shouldn't be diluted to save a few million dollars? Who knows?

RantyDave

17th June 2009, 17:44

I don't get this, there's nothing wrong with the law around referenda. If someone can get 10% of the population to sign a petition asking for a referendum on whether or not the sky should be painted pink, then we should have a referendum on it. All this current referendum proves is that somehow 300,000 people thought the rest of New Zealand (including both party leaders) would fall for such a spectacularly transparent attempt at a con job.

I guess we'll see.

Dave

HenryDorsetCase

17th June 2009, 17:48

the problem is democracy.

It just doesnt work.

I am going to seize power, and rule with an iron fist in an iron glove while wearing an iron jockstrap.

in the immortal words of Darryl Kerrigan "Suffer in yer jocks".

I'm thinking some sort of plutocracy, with me as the plutarch, and everyone else as serfs, nubiles, or technocrats.

Who's with me??

RantyDave

17th June 2009, 17:49

Maybe the principles of democracy are important enough that they shouldn't be diluted to save a few million dollars?
Yeah, I'd agree with that. The people who proposed this referendum are idiots, but people's individual right to be idiots is worth defending.

In related news the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) are currently defending someone who wants to register the license plate "ACLUSUX" (http://www.examiner.com/x-6256-Denver-Legal-News-Examiner~y2009m5d9-ACLU-wittily-defends-ACLUSUX-proposed-license-plate). Same principle.

Dave

RantyDave

17th June 2009, 17:51

I am going to seize power, and rule with an iron fist in an iron glove while wearing an iron jockstrap.
...with fireworks on the end.

"FEAR ME, PEONS!! ffssssshhhhhhHHHHHHHH!!"

or something like that

Dave

Oakie

17th June 2009, 17:51

Skyryder

17th June 2009, 17:54

There's just one word too many in the question. I can't remember what it is but it's the adjective before the word parenting. It's something along the lines of a "smack being part of good parenting". If they took that adjective out I believe the question would be more acceptable to a wider range of people.

I think those that framed the wording have been too clever for their own good.

It's not the yes or no that I'm interested in it's how many will not vote.

Skyryder

Marmoot

17th June 2009, 18:45

Everyone focuses on the wording of the referendum, but no one is smart enough to focus on why the referendum had to happen.

If there hadn't been a Bradford, there wouldn't have been any of this.

Besides, the question is clear as it is. Only Asians who doesn't speak English well may not understand it. Unless some kiwis are really that bad in English or just that plain thick.

The Stranger

17th June 2009, 18:56

Besides, the question is clear as it is.
Unless some kiwis are really that bad in English or just that plain thick.

Ok, ok, I was too scared to admit it.
It (the question) appears abundantly clear to me.

I'm afraid to ask.
Given so many find it ambiguous, does this mean I'm just too stupid to see it?

rphenix

17th June 2009, 19:37

Sue Bradford is just an amazing political machine that never tires. Maybe all our MPs should follow her example of dedication.

Another bill from Sue Bradford (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10579036)? The last one triggered this referendum and now she wants to have another bill to respond to this referendum, which was originally caused by her? All these debacle wouldn't have happened had she thought before opening her mouth in the beginning. MPs who waste our time and tax money on such things need to be expelled.

Can we have some sort of referendum to get rid of Sue Bradford before the next election?

Marmoot

17th June 2009, 19:53

Ok, ok, I was too scared to admit it.
It (the question) appears abundantly clear to me.

I'm afraid to ask.
Given so many find it ambiguous, does this mean I'm just too stupid to see it?

Phil Goff declared it ambiguous. Lots of sheeps followed.
If you find it clear then you're not stupid.

xwhatsit

17th June 2009, 19:54

There's just one word too many in the question. I can't remember what it is but it's the adjective before the word 'parenting'. It's something along the lines of "a smack being part of good parenting". If they took that adjective out I believe the question would be more acceptable to a wider range of people.
That's the main issue in my eyes. I don't have an opinion either way on the matter (not having children yet and I don't remember being young enough to be smacked -- although my father does have big hands and a temper :bash:). However I feel the question is pretty unbalanced. Regardless, NZers are going to vote in favour of `it should not be a criminal offence' but there's no point asking a question if it's prone to question bias.

This referendum question constitutes a loaded question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question) which is a kind of logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy) and has drawn criticism for this. Murray Edridge, Chief Executive of Barnardos, noted that the question "presupposes that smacking is part of good parental correction" which he described as "a debatable issue".<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference">[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_corporal_punishment_referendum,_2009#c ite_note-3)</sup>

The question has also drawn criticism from the leaders of New Zealand's two main political parties, neither of whom intend to vote in the referendum. Prime Minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_New_Zealand) John Key described the question as "ambiguous" and pointed out that it "could be read a number of different ways". Leader of the Opposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Opposition_%28New_Zealand%29) Phil Goff expressed concern that the question "implies that if you vote `yes' that you're in favour of criminal sanctions being taken against reasonable parents — actually nobody believes that."<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_corporal_punishment_referendum,_2009#c ite_note-4)</sup>

It doesn't seem a particularly ambiguous question to me, not sure what John Key's getting at there. It's clumsily worded though. Simply removing the word `good' and asking `Should a smack as part of parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?' would be a start. Or simply ask it plainly: `Should it be a criminal offence for a parent to smack their child?'

The Stranger

17th June 2009, 20:07

That's the main issue in my eyes. I don't have an opinion either way on the matter (not having children yet and I don't remember being young enough to be smacked -- although my father does have big hands and a temper :bash:). However I feel the question is pretty unbalanced. Regardless, NZers are going to vote in favour of `it should not be a criminal offence' but there's no point asking a question if it's prone to question bias.

It doesn't seem a particularly ambiguous question to me, not sure what John Key's getting at there. It's clumsily worded though. Simply removing the word `good' and asking `Should a smack as part of parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?' would be a start. Or simply ask it plainly: `Should it be a criminal offence for a parent to smack their child?'

I must admit I had assumed the word "good" was used to distinguish between good and bad parental correction and that the law would (ambiguously no doubt as is the latest craze made popular by the last government) be structured around this approach. That is, a smack may be acceptable as part of good parental correction, but you may not use that defence for bad parental correction.

u4ea

17th June 2009, 20:22

9 million dollars for a seriuosly bad perm:dodge:

MisterD

17th June 2009, 20:56

I heard Larry Baldock on the wireless for the first time today talking abou this subject (possibly paraphrasing):

"The question had to be passed by the clerk (? of something, bad memory*), and was posted for fifteen days for public submissions, of which two were received. One, from the Min of Justice caused a minor re-write (one word was changed). I don't see how that process could really be improved upon, unless every time you wanted to do something in this country, you had to ask Sue Bradford if it was OK first."

*That last comment had me laughing so hard I forgot this bit...

Manxman

17th June 2009, 20:58

that fucking cooze never tires of spending my goddamn money, huh? Maybe I should just marry her, divorce her, and buy her a goodamn house?
:lol::lol:

She is the antichrist.

The woman hasn't got a fecken clue how ironic her current argument is, in light of an equal amount of money she threw away in amending a perfectly workable law in the first place.

Like her law change really helped stop child abuse. Well there's a Tui ad right there...

MUPPET.

Genestho

17th June 2009, 21:12

Hmmm I find this all very strange, let's say the referendum was called for by parents, who objected to experts on the subject telling them how to correct their kids...

Is it ok for an adult to hit an adult? Apparently not, but Police have truncheons, tazers and handcuffs to "correct" Adult behaviour...(I'm playing devil's advocate)

So how does an unruly childs behaviour become corrected?
Or a toddler that's a loosecannon that doesn't compute the word "No"
By being positive..."Positive Parenting" Right?
And we see the effects of positive parenting on the streets, and youth crime stat's.

Don't get me wrong, violence breeds violence - I know this for a fact, but that's not what's being talked about here, we're talking about "correcting" behaviour. I also feel that this law disables families asking for help when they need it.
Example: young girl, bad heart, is now an absolute brat, and terror by being treated with kid gloves all her life, she also knows her Mum can't do anything about her behaviour.
Mum's at wits end, goes to school to ask for help, reported to cyfs. Job done.

"A response received this week to our Official Information Act request shows that there have been nine prosecutions under the new law in the first 15 months since the law was passed.

Many of these cases have resulted in the parent being discharged without conviction, sent to a parenting course, or receiving a suspended sentence"

Police reports show four prosecutions in a six-month period for “minor acts of physical discipline” and report a 200 per cent increase in families being investigated – yet fewer than 5 per cent were serious enough to warrant prosecution.

There has been a huge 32 per cent increase in CYF’s notifications.

Not surprisingly, the child abuse rate has continued unabated, with 12 child abuse deaths in the 21 months since the law change – the same rate as before the change.

To be quite honest I'd like to see the referendum scrapped (like that'll happen) and an enquiry into child abuse, with the reasons of why child ABUSE happens, and addressing those reasons. Families involved in drugs, alcohol, poverty, and family dysfunction. I'd like to see the law targeting the real causes.

Manxman

17th June 2009, 21:21

oldrider

17th June 2009, 21:31

Prime Minister John Key has indicated the Government could review the rules for referendums after growing criticism of the question in the postal ballot, to be held from July 31 to August 21.

Mr. Key said the wording was ambiguous and it would "make sense" to look at whether stricter rules for referendums were needed.

Labour leader Phil Goff said he would not vote in the ballot because the question did not make sense. "The question implies that if you vote `yes' that you're in favour of criminal sanctions being taken against reasonable parents actually nobody believes that."
UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne said the wording was "bewildering".

From

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2506398/MPs-slate-smacking-poll-words

I know it’s fashionable to blame Bradford for this but I suspect she has correctly interpreted the current thinking in Parliament. Either that or she is now Keys puppet and introducing bills taht the Nats would not dare too. Don't belive me??

Watch them support this

Skyryder

Like I always said, there is the "Red" Labour party and there is the "Blue" Labour party and all the others are just blends of the same.

Henry Ford set the standard when he declared that the customers can have any colour they like, so long as it's black and you still got a model T.

Doesn't matter what political "colour" you support in New Zealand, because you will always get a socialist government!

Sideshows and circuses are used just to keep the media occupied and the people's attention on things that don't matter! :brick:

I am growing more and more disappointed in Helen Key, every day! :slap:

Personally I believe this country is now "pregnant", it was fucked long ago! :yes:

Winston001

17th June 2009, 21:44

Everyone focuses on the wording of the referendum, but no one is smart enough to focus on why the referendum had to happen.

If there hadn't been a Bradford, there wouldn't have been any of this.

Yeah? How do you explain the parliamentary vote of 113 for and a mere 8 against....? Almost all NZ members of parliament voted to tighten the law - and most of them would prefer to be in another building well away from Sue Bradford. So how come they supported this law??

Winston001

17th June 2009, 21:53

It doesn't seem a particularly ambiguous question to me, not sure what John Key's getting at there. It's clumsily worded though. Simply removing the word `good' and asking `Should a smack as part of parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?' would be a start. Or simply ask it plainly: `Should it be a criminal offence for a parent to smack their child?'

Yes I don't think its particularly ambiguous either. But pointless. The law says nothing about "good" or "bad" parents or "smacking". So the referendum question is senseless.

Moving on, the suggestion is that questions submitted for any national referendum be carefully worded, deal with single issues (a,b,and c if necessary) and be clear. Seems pretty sensible to me.

Marmoot

17th June 2009, 23:39

Yeah? How do you explain the parliamentary vote of 113 for and a mere 8 against....? Almost all NZ members of parliament voted to tighten the law - and most of them would prefer to be in another building well away from Sue Bradford. So how come they supported this law??

Because they're just as misled as she was/is.

You're talking about 113. How about the 300,000+ that complained?

Winston001

17th June 2009, 23:57

Because they're just as misled as she was/is.

You're talking about 113. How about the 300,000+ that complained?

Well that leaves 3,700,000 who have better things to do. :D

C'mon, we had a parliament where they are at each others throats day and night, heaps of political points to score by not supporting the law change (there was an election looming) and lots of noise from upset Kiwis about their "rights". Despite that - almost every MP voted in favour of the amendment.

Why?

The Stranger

18th June 2009, 00:11

Why?

I give up, why?

awayatc

18th June 2009, 00:51

Personally I believe this country is now "pregnant", it was fucked long ago! :yes:

Wasn't Helen wearing a condom.......?

Marmoot

18th June 2009, 08:45

Well that leaves 3,700,000 who have better things to do. :D

C'mon, we had a parliament where they are at each others throats day and night, heaps of political points to score by not supporting the law change (there was an election looming) and lots of noise from upset Kiwis about their "rights". Despite that - almost every MP voted in favour of the amendment.

Why?

Wrong. You had 3,700,000 (minus 113 in the parliament) that prefer not to say anything or was too busy to actually think. Or supported whatever their party is saying just because they depend on them being in power to hand out cash in the form of benefits.

And you don't need me to tell you that parliament often voted in virtual unison against the wishes of a large number of the population.
For recent examples, see prostitution reform act, lowering drinking age, crushing cars act, hell even taxcut had almost half of the nation saying no.
For historical example, you only need to see Guy Fawkes.

You would be very naive if you think Democracy is all about representation, and that everything said and done in the Parliament is to be interpreted as the wish of the society. Democracy is nothing but a periodic dictatorship where every few years new dictators are voted by the apathetic subjects that are simply paid just enough not to complain.

RantyDave

18th June 2009, 09:03

Can we have some sort of referendum to get rid of Sue Bradford before the next election?
Oh, that's easily done. It's called ... an election. If few enough people vote green she's on the DPB "by lunchtime".

Dave

MSTRS

18th June 2009, 09:29

I must admit I had assumed the word "good" was used to distinguish between good and bad parental correction and that the law would (ambiguously no doubt as is the latest craze made popular by the last government) be structured around this approach. That is, a smack may be acceptable as part of good parental correction, but you may not use that defence for bad parental correction.You think too much. Unlike so many who may respond in this referendum with a 'Yes' - because they misread the question by glossing over the 'be a criminal offense' - thinking that they are good parents.

Is it ok for an adult to hit an adult? Apparently not, but Police have truncheons, tazers and handcuffs to "correct" Adult behaviour...

About time someone drew that analogy. Police as parents...criminals as unruly children. Works for me.

Marmoot

18th June 2009, 10:02

About time someone drew that analogy. Police as parents...criminals as unruly children. Works for me.

It's not OK to punch an adult as it is not OK to punch a child.

But the main issue is not the slap or the smack or the punch or the drop roundhouse kick that Chuck Norris can do. It is Government needlessly going into family's life.
Yesterday it's smacking, today it's car exhaust, and tomorrow will be showerheads and lightbulbs. What's next? Are we into Chinese Democracy now?

The Pastor

18th June 2009, 10:22

agree with her views or not, shes one of the best MP's we have (in terms of getting her bills into law)

MSTRS

18th June 2009, 10:29

It's not OK to punch an adult as it is not OK to punch a child.

But the main issue is not the slap or the smack or the punch or the drop roundhouse kick that Chuck Norris can do. It is Government needlessly going into family's life.
Yesterday it's smacking, today it's car exhaust, and tomorrow will be showerheads and lightbulbs. What's next? Are we into Chinese Democracy now?

So you are saying that Police never use a punch in their pursuit of controlling a criminal in the act of being apprehended?
Now, I'm not suggesting that to punch a child is ok. Just using the analogy of police powers in place of parents

Swoop

18th June 2009, 11:04

The wording seems quite clear. Obviously written by a citizen, rather than a pen-pushing Wellington-Circular-Wind-Tunnel inbred.

Sue Badford. Fuck off and die. You are part of the problem, NOT part of the solution.

Marmoot

18th June 2009, 11:12

So you are saying that Police never use a punch in their pursuit of controlling a criminal in the act of being apprehended?

Actually, I think in this nanny state if you can prove you've been punched by Police then an enquiry can be conducted to see if it falls into Police brutality.

Hey mate I am with you 100%. I don't have anything against Police punching criminals. In fact, I'd recommend it. I'd want to join it.
But yes the law most definitely says it's technically illegal.

Skyryder

18th June 2009, 13:29

agree with her views or not, shes one of the best MP's we have (in terms of getting her bills into law)

Yes she is. I suspect that this may well have been..............for want of a better word .........prearranged.

Love her her hate history may well assign Sue Bradford in the same ranks as Mabel Howard, Kate Shepard etc.

Skyryder

MSTRS

18th June 2009, 13:56

Love her her hate history may well assign Sue Bradford in the same ranks as Mabel Howard, Kate Shepard etc.

That's a new low, even for you.

Robert Taylor

18th June 2009, 14:04

Sue Bradford is just an amazing political machine that never tires. Maybe all our MPs should follow her example of dedication.

Another bill from Sue Bradford (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10579036)? The last one triggered this referendum and now she wants to have another bill to respond to this referendum, which was originally caused by her? All these debacle wouldn't have happened had she thought before opening her mouth in the beginning. MPs who waste our time and tax money on such things need to be expelled.

The only good Bradford that was in Parliament was Max Bradford, defence minister in the Shipley administration. He organised that amazing deal on F16s for our RNZAF, then the incoming communists promptly cancelled it.
Sue Bradford, nothing a piece of lead wouldnt fix.

Skyryder

18th June 2009, 14:07

That's a new low, even for you.

Take a look at some of the woman who were reviled in their time Emily Pankhurst, and closer to home Sonja Davies....two that just spring to mind .......and how history has assigned them a new role in society.

There may come a day when in your time you may well see the truth of my statement..................I'm too old....................but history does have a designated path for female icons............general revulsion by the population is one of them.................grass roots as a background is another..............Two of which Bradford has.

Only a fool judges those that history has not finished with.

Skyryder

cave weta

18th June 2009, 19:43

132361

Available by depositing $29.95 in my account:innocent:

Marmoot

18th June 2009, 19:49

132361

Available by depositing $29.95 in my account:innocent:

Print 100 of them. You might have a market. I might buy one.

oldrider

21st June 2009, 10:39

132361

Available by depositing $29.95 in my account:innocent:

Ha ha, good one! :lol:

Personally I believe you should be able to mind your own business but as soon as your behaviour encroaches on someone else's business or rights, you should be slammed for it!

Personal responsibility and all that jazz! :yeah:

NDORFN

21st June 2009, 11:11

Take a look at some of the woman who were reviled in their time Emily Pankhurst, and closer to home Sonja Davies....two that just spring to mind .......and how history has assigned them a new role in society.

There may come a day when in your time you may well see the truth of my statement..................I'm too old....................but history does have a designated path for female icons............general revulsion by the population is one of them.................grass roots as a background is another..............Two of which Bradford has.

Only a fool judges those that history has not finished with.

Skyryder

Emily Pankhurst and Sonja Davies weren't ultra-feminist, power-mongering, control freaks in need of a bit of regular sex with the opposite sex.