The Evil Bastards come out of hiding again

[RantyDave]

Apparently 300,000 evil bastards have signed a petition saying they want the legal protection afforded to adults to not be extended to children any more.

http://stuff.co.nz/4593757a11.html

They, presumably, believe they have the right to smack children around. This makes them evil bastards and, in many cases, the future parents of taggers, bike thieves, muggers, rapists and finance company directors.

With all the moaning about the ills of society I'm still astonished that attempts to undo them meet so much resistance. Still - "Nanny State" whingers, your thread starts here.

[oldrider]

No response, this argument has been done to death on KB and no one has changed their stance a bit. :oi-grr: John.

[Virago]

My name is Evil Bastard.

Pleased to meet you.

[Kickaha]

They, presumably, believe they have the right to smack children around.

Emotive bullshit, maybe they can tell the difference between a smack and abuse, which is something you're obviously unable to do going by your post

edit, a re read makes it look like a pisstake

[idb]

I'd like the law to be changed to let me smack other peoples' kids.

[JimO]

Apparently 300,000 evil bastards have signed a petition saying they want the legal protection afforded to adults to not be extended to children any more.

http://stuff.co.nz/4593757a11.html

They, presumably, believe they have the right to smack children around. This makes them evil bastards and, in many cases, the future parents of taggers, bike thieves, muggers, rapists and finance company directors.

With all the moaning about the ills of society I'm still astonished that attempts to undo them meet so much resistance. Still - "Nanny State" whingers, your thread starts here.

this from someone whos avatar has a baby smoking, my kids were smacked (not beaten) there is a difference you know and now at 16 they have represented otago in hockey, soccer, volleyball, athletics and are at the top of their classes in school....you disipline your kids your way i will do it mine

[Kickaha]

I'd like the law to be changed to let me smack other peoples' kids.

Top idea, really give the annoying little shits something to cry about

[Usarka]

my parents smacked me, you callin' them evil bastards?

[Hitcher]

My parents killed me. At least once. Made me the man I am today, it did.

[Bren]

Some of us are from the old skool of thought where a good smack can do wonders. My old man laid into me a few times when I was a kid. I got a few good hidings. Dad was never out of place as I deserved every smack that I got (I was a shit as a kid). My dad never went overboard, and in a day or two things were always back to normal. The cops back in the day were well known to give a kid a boot up the arse, and it was all just part of the job.
I admit those years were in the twilight of the days of a good hiding from the folks, but kids knew their place, and did ya ever hear of kids murdering people or shit like that?
Today with the PC BULLSHIT things have gone crazy. Ya have kids running riot. Fuck ya have kids trowing concrete off motorway overpasses. Is that demented and fucked up or what.
Bring back the good old days where a dad could hurl his boot up the asshole of a little brat!

[Big Dave]

My parents killed me. At least once. Made me the man I am today, it did.

I used to get up at night half an hour before I went to bed...

[Owl]

I used to get up at night half an hour before I went to bed...

And you try telling the young people today and they won't believe ya!:msn-wink:

[Nagash]

To make light of a serious subject.. The good ol' days.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

[Usarka]

I used to get up at night half an hour before I went to bed...

to gargle gravel no less.

[Sanx]

to gargle gravel no less.

Luxury ...

[CookMySock]

Apparently 300,000 evil bastards have signed a petition saying they want the legal protection afforded to adults to not be extended to children any more.That is NOT what they are saying at all. Taking the alarmist approach and stirring fuck out of it is a stupid way to proceed.

I think it is good idea to NOT smack children, but beginning a campaign here in this manner is absurd.


DB

[RantyDave]

That is NOT what they are saying at all.
Yes it is.

The repeal of section 59 meant that children had the same legal protection against violence as adults do. No more, no less. It wasn't a new law, and it wasn't an "anti-smacking" law. It just removed some retarded loophole. And now everybody's upset.

Whatever. I just like watching the child beaters defend their choice of lifestyle.

Now, excuse me, I have to go tie the slaves up.

Dave

[Trudes]

The bill amendment was never meant to be aimed at the average parent who gives their kid a smack on the bum for sticking a fork in a power socket, it was aimed at the parents who beat the living shit out of their kids who if they live, go on to beat the living shit out of their kids etc etc, it was designed to "break the cycle of violence" and to stop these parents who beat their kids to death from using "discipline" as an excuse for doing so.
Unfortunately it also stops parents from giving a smack on the arse to their little shits that just won't listen to them because they know that dad can't smack them.
The problem as I see it is that there has to be one law for all, you can't walk up to an adult and smack them without either getting one back or getting charged for it, so why should someone be allowed to smack a little kid who is a third their size and not expect some repercussion for it? But also, until that kid is 18, you as a parent is basically responsible for the things that kid does. Hey, I don't know what the answer is, but I think the idea was to stop some of the child abuse in NZ, and wouldn't we all like that to stop?

[flyingcrocodile46]

I only want what's best for the younguns.. and our society

Keep them well fed and happy

[Usarka]

I saw an albatross today.

[flyingcrocodile46]

I don't know what the answer is

Thank you for your whiny arsed opinion


The answer is to put the catholic church in charge of raising all the children... They are well intentioned and completely trustworthy

[P38]

I'd like the law to be changed to let me smack other peoples' kids.

I'm with you idb.

Except I'd like to be able to smack some of them twice!

Any normal balanced person knows that a smack is NOT Abuse.

Were breeding a generation of kids who know no boundries.

Kiwi's are becoming/have become Bloody PC lovin soft cocks.

[RantyDave]

Today with the PC BULLSHIT things have gone crazy. ... Fuck ya have kids trowing concrete off motorway overpasses. Is that demented and fucked up or what.
That is demented and fucked up. It's also quite possibly the result of a society that thinks violence is OK and actually kinda cool.

Oh, come on, someone blame Grand Theft Auto. Isn't it computer games' fault? What about fluoride in water? Declining moral standards? The breakdown of the nuclear family? A reduction in the number of pirates?

Dave

PS: I'm serious about the pirates. It's a big problem.

[Trudes]

Thank you for your shiny arsed opinion


You're welcome.

[RantyDave]

The answer is to put the catholic church in charge of raising all the children... They are well intentioned and completely trustworthy
Oh, this is my favourite. Bling coming!

Dave

[Edbear]

I used to get up at night half an hour before I went to bed...

You had a bed...!!!???


The bill amendment was never meant to be aimed at the average parent who gives their kid a smack on the bum for sticking a fork in a power socket, it was aimed at the parents who beat the living shit out of their kids ...(SNIP)... you as a parent is basically responsible for the things that kid does. Hey, I don't know what the answer is, but I think the idea was to stop some of the child abuse in NZ, and wouldn't we all like that to stop?

The law has always been able to deal with child abuse, and the change in the law hasn't made much difference. What has seemed to make some impression is the publicity about the horrendous cases that have come before the courts.

[awayatc]

I'd like the law to be changed to let me smack other peoples' kids.

Great idea, excellent, and remove age limit as far as defining kids goes as well please.....:niceone:

What about smacking some parents...?:bash:

[RantyDave]

What about smacking some parents...?:bash:
Now that *would* help. How about: retarded kid spraypaints neighbourhood -> Dad has to take a week off work to clean it up. Sure as shit wouldn't do it again.

Dave

[CookMySock]

Whatever. I just like watching the child beaters defend their choice of lifestyle.troll, ignore.



The bill [....] was aimed at the parents who beat the living shit out of their kids who if they live, go on to beat the living shit out of their kids etc etc, it was designed to "break the cycle of violence" and to stop these parents who beat their kids to death from using "discipline" as an excuse for doing so. Yes !


Unfortunately it also stops parents from giving a smack on the arse to their little shits that just won't listen to them because they know that dad can't smack them.Watchout! As far as the child is led to believe - there is very little difference! Physical interference of any type reminds them that they can be coerced by physical means, and as adults they will act that out.



you can't walk up to an adult and smack them without either getting one back or getting charged for it, so why should someone be allowed to smack a little kid who is a third their size and not expect some repercussion for it?Yes, but remember what is really important is what we teach the child - If we teach them "I can hit you to force you to do as I say" then they will grow up believing this, and then act it out.

It will take quite a few generations before this way of thinking is bred out, and for now there will a lot of feelings of inadequacy. We have no choice except to not smack.

I feel for the minority groups in society for which smacking is normal - they have light years to travel before their family begins to believe coercion of any type won't work, because unfortunately for them it does work well.

How long before PD ? Ten mins ? Who is betting ?


DB

[Hinny]

The problem as I see it is that there has to be one law for all, you can't walk up to an adult and smack them without either getting one back or getting charged for it, so why should someone be allowed to smack a little kid who is a third their size and not expect some repercussion for it?

The problem as I see it is that there has to be one law for all, you can't walk up to an adult and smack them without getting charged for it.
No matter how much they thoroughly deserve it.

If anything the law was arse about face.

Adults should know better and so be more responsible and accountable for their actions.
Kids are on L plates and yet people think it is OK for them to 'get the bash' if they do wrong.

That is plainly dopey.

[Hinny]

The law has always been able to deal with child abuse, and the change in the law hasn't made much difference.

Clearly the message that Sue Bradford consistently and repeatedly conveyed was not received, understood and accepted by all in our society.

[inlinefour]

Thank you for your whiny arsed opinion


The answer is to put the catholic church in charge of raising all the children... They are well intentioned and completely trustworthy

Is that a Tui advert? How do you make a nun pregnant? Dress her up as an alterboy! :whistle:

[Usarka]

Clearly the message that Sue Bradford consistently and repeatedly conveyed was not received, understood and accepted by all in our society.

What message?

[Trudes]

Yes, but remember what is really important is what we teach the child - If we teach them "I can hit you to force you to do as I say" then they will grow up believing this, and then act it out.

It will take quite a few generations before this way of thinking is bred out, and for now there will a lot of feelings of inadequacy. We have no choice except to not smack.

I feel for the minority groups in society for which smacking is normal - they have light years to travel before their family begins to believe coercion of any type won't work, because unfortunately for them it does work well.

DB
Too true. I was never beaten as a kid, but had a few smacks and I sure as shit had respect for the fact that neither of my parents wouldn't hesitate to give me a kick up the arse if it was coming to me.
And I would probably have done the same to my kids if I hadn't learned to exercise some self-control and figure out other ways to discipline from being a nanny. I am legally not allowed to smack the kids I look after (and fair enough too, even though there have been many times I wish I could've!), so I use other ways to discipline, and they have all worked.
Admittedly, kids are generally better behaved for other people than their parents, but then also parents should have unconditional love for their kids and not want to harm them. There are ways to discipline kids without having to resort to violence and fear, by acting like an adult and using a cool head because usually a smack is delivered to a child when the parent is angry and what does the kid learn from that? When you're angry you should hit who you're angry at?

[Edbear]

Is that a Tui advert? How do you make a nun pregnant? Dress her up as an alterboy! :whistle:

Based on the history of the priests, that wouldn't work... if you think about it... unless they missed what they were aiming for...

[rat biker 08]

Yes it is fucked up if a kid under 16 hits you what do thay get nothing.
Thay are under age and yes you cant smack them:spanking:
WE are to pc .

[inlinefour]

Based on the history of the priests, that wouldn't work... if you think about it... unless they missed what they were aiming for...

Your right although you'd think some must prefer a red mess to clean up than the brown type? Yell hail Mary three times and repeat the process the next night. Personally I think they should throw those types in with the general inmates, make sure they all know why, stick them all in the same room and give the guards the night off. I bet the reoffending drops after that.

[Usarka]

Yes it is fucked up if a kid under 16 hits you what do thay get nothing.
Thay are under age and yes you cant smack them:spanking:
WE are to pc .

The balance of power is with the kids?

The country will turn out just choice :niceone:

[MIXONE]

I saw an albatross today.

What flavour was it?

[Usarka]

What flavour was it?

You really wouldn't believe it.

It was strawberry! :gob:

[Trouser]

The country will turn out just choice :niceone:

Is that one of those maori acheivement badges?

[James Deuce]

I don't get it? For some reason this has ended up becoming an argument between hitting and not hitting. It isn't. How I discipline my children is no one's business unless I choose to ask for their support and help.

It does not need to be legislated. It is a "bad" law based on the premise that all NZers are violent criminals.

[Usarka]

I don't get it? For some reason this has ended up becoming an argument between hitting and not hitting. It isn't. How I discipline my children is no one's business unless I choose to ask for their support and help.

It does not need to be legislated. It is a "bad" law based on the premise that all NZers are violent criminals.

You are obviously a bad parent - the type this country does not want nor need.



(p/t).

[flyingcrocodile46]

You are obviously a bad parent - the type this country does not want nor need.
(p/t).

Oh Geeeeze... is he a bad egg or potato :eek5:

[alanzs]

Silly, silly people, never smack a child with your hands. A rubber hose never leaves bruises and, we all know, children lie. :gob:

[alanzs]

Oh Geeeeze... is he a bad egg or potato :eek5:
PotatO, pOtato, tomatO, tOmato... It's all in the pronunciation. :clap:

[flyingcrocodile46]

Silly, silly people, never smack a child with your hands. A rubber hose never leaves bruises and, we all know, children lie. :gob:

My father used a folded section of half inch thick 1 inch wide leather, his father used a razor strop, his father used barbed wire.. as you can see... things have gotten better rather than worse

[awayatc]

Surely you are allowed to smack kids in self defence...???:bash::wari:

[Swoop]

Good on the petition signees!
Creating criminals out of ordinary parents who give their sprog a tap on the bum is stupid, but nothing unsurprising from the retard Badford...
The "authorities" have enough power of prosecution, under other acts, of parents who beat their kids.


PS: I'm serious about the pirates. It's a big problem.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[alanzs]

My father used a folded section of half inch thick 1 inch wide leather, his father used a razor strop, his father used barbed wire.. as you can see... things have gotten better rather than worse

Progress in action. This could be called "the evolution of child discipline..." Bloody fucking hell, we all turned out alright. Riding motorcyles, doing dope, binge drinking, fucking ho's, gambling away the child support on the pokies, smacking our no good fucking illegitimate offspring and their slut mum's about, so what's the issue? :confused:

[1 Free Man]

Some of us are from the old skool of thought where a good smack can do wonders. My old man laid into me a few times when I was a kid. I got a few good hidings. Dad was never out of place as I deserved every smack that I got (I was a shit as a kid). My dad never went overboard, and in a day or two things were always back to normal. The cops back in the day were well known to give a kid a boot up the arse, and it was all just part of the job.
I admit those years were in the twilight of the days of a good hiding from the folks, but kids knew their place, and did ya ever hear of kids murdering people or shit like that?
Today with the PC BULLSHIT things have gone crazy. Ya have kids running riot. Fuck ya have kids trowing concrete off motorway overpasses. Is that demented and fucked up or what.
Bring back the good old days where a dad could hurl his boot up the asshole of a little brat!
HEAR HEAR!
Sounds like your old man was from the same school as my old man.
Dad used to give us all a good thrashing about every 6 months JUST IN CASE.
That was just in case there was something he never slapped our arses for and he was just catching up.
Hard as hell on us as kids but we were best mates when I grew up.
As for me. never lifted a finger to my own kids ever. Needed to break the cycle.
The best part is my kids have been best mates to me from the day they were born I didn't wait for them to grow up.

[Brett]

Sounds like the PC brigade making noise again....

I was raised with a smack if I was being a naughty brat...nothing wrong with me...(except for the nervous twitch).

I am vehemently opposed to having had the right of smacking my children emoved from me as a form of discipline. There is a SHIT load of difference between a smack on the arse for being a prat, and beating the shit out of a child.
Don't try and tell me I am another Kahui either. Those dickheads wouldn't care less about the law. They were perfect examples of neglect and abuse and no doubt, are the very product of parents who never knew how to discipline properly.

If being an evil bastard is what it takes to be a good, loving parent then where do I sign up.(only smacking when it is absolutely necessary...for some kids it is not a suitable form of discipline, and for others - such as myself - it is/was the only form that gets through.)

[Brett]

That is demented and fucked up. It's also quite possibly the result of a society that thinks violence is OK and actually kinda cool.

Oh, come on, someone blame Grand Theft Auto. Isn't it computer games' fault? What about fluoride in water? Declining moral standards? The breakdown of the nuclear family? A reduction in the number of pirates?

Dave

PS: I'm serious about the pirates. It's a big problem.

Or it could also be that we have a whole fucken generation being raised that have NO idea on what self discipline, self control or respect are. hey ve never been held accountable and probably come from a social back ground where they only knew ONE type of a 'smack'.
There is a big difference between a light smack on a childs hand if say they go to touch something hot or dangerous or a small smack on the bum if there are naughty.
Rather, their idea of a smack leaves their childrens' little bodies with fucken broken bones, bruises and the like. That is abhorent to me, and I would happily show those sorts of parents exactly what violence is by removing their still beating heart with my bare hands. (maybe I am violent because I was raised with a bit of a smack when I was bad??)
Of my extended family including over 30 cousins whom I see on a weekly basis not one of us who was raised with smacking has been in any major trouble. We have all had our spells where we were 'naughty', but none have any assault charges against us, none have been involved in criminal activity, none have drinking or drug problems. Most of us serve in the community in one capacity or another and ALL of us would do what it takes to help those who need it.

My point form this rant, is simply that smacking is vastly different to physical abuse. Also, to concede that not all children actually need to be smacked.

Yes, I signed the petition.

[James Deuce]

There's still the basic assumption hanging in the air that people who are against this particular bill are child beaters and those who aren't are angels with perfectly behaved children, that anyone who protests that Government interference in the private lives of its citizens is bad, is automatically pro-violence, and those who support the bill believe wholeheartedly in the phrase, "I'm from the Government. I'm here to help you."

There are no sides. There are very few who operate within the extremes that the proponents and opponents of this particularly poorly constructed law would have us all occupy.

[flyingcrocodile46]

There's still the basic assumption hanging in the air that people who are against this particular bill are child beaters and those who aren't are angels with perfectly behaved children.

That is because the typical active antismack campaigner is strongly influenced by emotion and less likely to consider a logical based debate without resorting to perverting it with emotionally charged twaddle such as the aforementioned baseless accusations of committing criminal acts... simply because in their little minds they figure that they are right and you are not... thereby allowing them to righteously commit otherwise criminal and morally inappropriate actions such as generating baseless slander and perpetrating character assassination that will likely result in damage to reputation and mental well being...

But that's ok.. because they are the good guys who are honorably motivated by a burning desire to see that bad things stop happening to people.

Perhaps if we kill all the strongly opinionated good guys, the world would be a better place... If I'm right then it would be ok to do it.. wouldn't it?

[flyingcrocodile46]

That is because the typical active antismack campaigner is strongly influenced by emotion and less likely to consider a logical based debate without resorting to perverting it with emotionally charged twaddle such as the aforementioned baseless accusations of committing criminal acts... simply because in their little minds they figure that they are right and you are not... thereby allowing them to righteously commit otherwise criminal and morally inappropriate actions such as generating baseless slander and perpetrating character assassination that will likely result in damage to reputation and mental well being...

But that's ok.. because they are the good guys who are honorably motivated by a burning desire to see that bad things stop happening to people.

Perhaps if we kill all the strongly opinionated good guys, the world would be a better place... If I'm right then it would be ok to do it.. wouldn't it?

Well!.. no objections and it's past midnight.. must be ok then.

Sleep tight :devil2:

[Forest]

To make light of a serious subject.. The good ol' days.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

I like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzKHQX59Wso

[Sanx]

Personally, I was against the bill before I'd read anything about it or heard anything about it. Why? It had Sue Bradford's name against it. Anything that spews forth from that harridan's mouth automatically gets placed in the "rantings of a deranged freak" category and gets treated with the scorn and ridicule it deserves. Pretty much anything said by any of the Green Party MPs can be guaranteed to be complete shite (although Stoner Nandor's announcements sometimes get quite amusing), but Bradford's simply beyond the pale.

And then my opinion of this Bill was re-inforced when Komrade Klerk decided to support it.

Green Party and Labour - fucking over New Zealand one day at a time!

[Toaster]

Emotive bullshit, maybe they can tell the difference between a smack and abuse, which is something you're obviously unable to do going by your post

edit, a re read makes it look like a pisstake

Well said mate well said.:beer:

[Toaster]

I'd like the law to be changed to let me smack other peoples' kids.

The other option is to take a hands off approach.

Have at least two kids... then when one is being a defiant little turd get the other one to smack em instead.

[Toaster]

From police website FYI:

Six Month Review of the s59 Amendment (Anti-smacking Bill)
5:05pm 23 June 2008

Police have undertaken a second review of the amendment of section 59 of the Crimes Act (the Smacking Bill) covering the period 29 September 2007 to 4 April 2008.

This review covers a period of just over six months.

In order to make comparisons with the initial three month review, it is helpful to break down this latest review into two three month periods.

Police will continue to carry out six monthly comparisons from the next review period.

See table below:

http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2008/section-59-activity-review/table-stats.html

During the first three months of the current review period, there was an increase in the number of smacking events attended by Police. The number decreased during the second three month period to levels similar to pre-enactment levels.

Deputy Commissioner, Rob Pope says even with the increase the numbers are still very small.

"A rise in smacking cases in the September to January phase will be driven by a number of factors including seasonal variation. This phase recorded the Christmas and New Year period, a traditionally stressful time for families and a time where incidents of violence increase across the board".

There was a larger increase in "minor acts of physical discipline" events attended by Police in both three month periods.

In total over the current six month review period, Police attended 288 child assault events, 13 of which involved "smacking" and 69 of which involved "minor acts of physical discipline".

All of the 13 cases involving "smacking" and 65 of the 69 "minor acts of physical discipline" were determined to be inconsequential and therefore not in the public interest to prosecute. Of the four cases prosecuted, one was withdrawn after successful completion of diversion and three are yet to be resolved through the Court.

The full review report can be accessed here:

http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2008/section-59-activity-review/

[BiK3RChiK]

Yes, but remember what is really important is what we teach the child - If we teach them "I can hit you to force you to do as I say" then they will grow up believing this, and then act it out.

It will take quite a few generations before this way of thinking is bred out, and for now there will a lot of feelings of inadequacy. We have no choice except to not smack.


Unfortunately, this type of behaviour very often isn't bred out, but, rather, becomes ingrained and entrenched, thus the cycle of violence becomes embedded in society. Just take a look at South Auckland and similar places around the country.

No amount of legislation will change how people will behave. It has to come from within.

[Clockwork]

Personally, I was against the bill before I'd read anything about it or heard anything about it. Why? It had Sue Bradford's name against it. Anything that spews forth from that harridan's mouth automatically gets placed in the "rantings of a deranged freak" category and gets treated with the scorn and ridicule it deserves. Pretty much anything said by any of the Green Party MPs can be guaranteed to be complete shite (although Stoner Nandor's announcements sometimes get quite amusing), but Bradford's simply beyond the pale.

And then my opinion of this Bill was re-inforced when Komrade Klerk decided to support it.

Green Party and Labour - fucking over New Zealand one day at a time!

Wouldn't want to burst your bubble but National supported the bill too.

[James Deuce]

They had no choice. I'm not supporting National necessarily, but it was made into a pro-violence against children, anti-violence against children issue. It isn't black & white, but those people what rule us and proposed da bill who fink we is fick presented it that way.

It was quite deliberate and designed to polarise views and make it unconscionable for anyone to oppose the Bill on its merits.

[RantyDave]

All of the 13 cases involving "smacking" and 65 of the 69 "minor acts of physical discipline" were determined to be inconsequential and therefore not in the public interest to prosecute.
In other words, the idea that ordinary parents would be turned into criminals is complete bollocks.

The bill was about removing an avenue of defence for people that like to hit kids. Did nobody actually read the damn thing or were you all busy buying the "oh noes!" hype and denouncing Sue Bradford as an ill educated slapper with a megaphone?

Dave

[RantyDave]

Unfortunately, this type of behaviour very often isn't bred out, but, rather, becomes ingrained and entrenched, thus the cycle of violence becomes embedded in society. Just take a look at South Auckland and similar places around the country.
Exactly.

No amount of legislation will change how people will behave. It has to come from within.
There's not a lot a government can do to effect change from within. But, yes, take a look at the last couple of weeks amusement in Auckland.

Dave

[MSTRS]

I would have signed that petition if one had been put in front of me. And I tried to find it online to no avail.
Say what you like, the intention of the bill was honourable, except insofaras it further erodes parent's right to raise their children in time-honoured fashion. The only way that bill would have been palatable to the majority, was if 'reasonable force' was actually clarified (ie: open hand on buttocks). This is what National tried to get in, but were bullied into accepting 'light and inconsequential'....which really changed nothing, where lawyers still get paid for defending cases brought under the interpretation of the law.

[Toaster]

In other words, the idea that ordinary parents would be turned into criminals is complete bollocks.

The bill was about removing an avenue of defence for people that like to hit kids.

Dave

I agree with you. There has been a lot of misinformed gossip and emotional ranting about it.

[Manxman]

...yeah, and all the kiddie bashing has stopped now that s59 has been removed...Tui.

Everyone's a winner - not.

[mstriumph]

.................
They, presumably, believe they have the right to smack children around. This makes them evil bastards and, in many cases, the future parents of taggers, bike thieves, muggers, rapists and finance company directors.
..............

an infant - ANY infant within my reach puts it's hand out towards a hot stove or whatever and i see it - i'll smack that hand away

if that makes me an evil bastard, so be it


psssssst.. will it really make my kids finance company directors??:shifty:

[RantyDave]

B]psssssst.. will it really make my kids finance company directors??:shifty:[/B]
No, not really. It's not that bad.

[awayatc]

Personally, I was against the bill before I'd read anything about it or heard anything about it. Why? It had Sue Bradford's name against it. Anything that spews forth from that harridan's mouth automatically gets placed in the "rantings of a deranged freak" category and gets treated with the scorn and ridicule it deserves. Pretty much anything said by any of the Green Party MPs can be guaranteed to be complete shite (although Stoner Nandor's announcements sometimes get quite amusing), but Bradford's simply beyond the pale.

And then my opinion of this Bill was re-inforced when Komrade Klerk decided to support it.

Green Party and Labour - fucking over New Zealand one day at a time!

Surely it would be ok to smack Sue Bradbox then....?<_<


Pleaaaaaase.......:wari:

[puppykicker]

so i take it everyone who considers this a bad law on the grounds the government should stay out of your business also supports overturning all anti-drug laws, permitting gay marriage, legalising child porn and prostitution, bringing back slavery, etc. etc. etc.

either that or you just think you should be allowed to hit kids...

[awayatc]

You must have gone to the same school as Sue Breadbox......

[puppykicker]

either you should legislate moral issues or you shouldnt, which is it going to be? or you can admit that you think they should only legislate things you consider to be immoral, in which case you need to sit down and shut up while the elected government goes about representing the people that voted for them. :)

[awayatc]

Judging by the amount of opposition to the anti smacking bill, the government is not doing such a good job at "representing the people that voted for them"

[puppykicker]

right, that explains why they failed to get 300,000 signatures on their petition even with "thousands of volunteers" if a majority of voters wanted the law overturned dont you think it would have been fairly easy to get less than 1/5th of them to actually say so?

just because a group is loud does not make them a majority ;)

[awayatc]

Tell Breadbox.....she was pretty loud, Mind you, I got no trouble hearing you either....:rolleyes:

[puppykicker]

proves my point that you have no justification other than your god given right to beat your kids ;) sad excuse for a man.

and how about we talk about the petition wording? "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" funny that they would have to be that disingenuous just to get people to sign. wanna take a stab at how many people would sign a petition that said "should reasonable force be reintroduced as a defense against charges of child abuse in new zealand"?

[Pwalo]

either you should legislate moral issues or you shouldnt, which is it going to be? or you can admit that you think they should only legislate things you consider to be immoral, in which case you need to sit down and shut up while the elected government goes about representing the people that voted for them. :)

I think you are discussing the law, in this case criminal law, rather than ethics or morality.

There has always been the ability to prosecute people for assault (of various degrees) under the law as it existed prior to the 'smacking' legislation. This applies to all cases including assaults on children.

The addition of an extra law specifically for children seems a marketing exercise, rather than anything else. Passing an amendment to a law does not make a problem go away, and is not a moral soultion to a problem.

I'm not too sure that a majority of NZ voters actually voted for Labour either, and the polling at the tiome showed that the majority of people at the time did not support the new law.

[Sanx]

so i take it everyone who considers this a bad law on the grounds the government should stay out of your business also supports overturning all anti-drug laws, permitting gay marriage, legalising child porn and prostitution, bringing back slavery, etc. etc. etc.

either that or you just think you should be allowed to hit kids...


right, that explains why they failed to get 300,000 signatures on their petition even with "thousands of volunteers" if a majority of voters wanted the law overturned dont you think it would have been fairly easy to get less than 1/5th of them to actually say so?,


proves my point that you have no justification other than your god given right to beat your kids sad excuse for a man.

and how about we talk about the petition wording? "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" funny that they would have to be that disingenuous just to get people to sign. wanna take a stab at how many people would sign a petition that said "should reasonable force be reintroduced as a defense against charges of child abuse in new zealand"?

Your arguments has two failings:

Firstly, trying to compare the legalising of slavery and child prostitution to what was contained in section 59 of the Crimes Act is simply ridiculous. Pimping out a five year old to be used as a sex toy hardly compares with giving the same five year old a swift slap on the bum for throwing a tantrum.

Society considers different crimes on a scale of 'badness'. Although this scale is not enshrined in law, the sentencing guidelines attached to different offences give some indication of this scale. The exemptions given to parents under section 59 of the Crimes Act essentially gave parents a defence against charges of, had the same act been carried out against an adult, common assault. You'd have been far more persuasive trying to make a comparison with this, rather than resorting to the sensationalising typical of the leftie / greenie brigade.

Secondly, there is absolutely nothing disingenuous about the wording of the petition at all. It is an extremely accurate description of what Sue Bradford's bill has criminalised. Section 59 did not give parents the right to inflict permanent physical harm on their children. Comparing a smack to child abuse is similar to comparing having a glass of wine with dinner to downing a bottle of scotch for breakfast; they both involve alcohol but they're worlds apart in seriousness. Your argument is disingenuous, therefore, for not only being incorrect - section 59 did not legalise child abuse - but for trying to distort a properly worded question to suit your own beliefs.

Just out of interest - given your handle of 'puppykicker', do you think animal abuse is acceptable? Aren't you promoting the torture of helpless animals? You must also be a poor excuse for a man if you take out your frustrations on animals, especially those animals not big enough to exact their revenge on you.

Thirdly, getting 300,000 signatures is quite an exercise if one doesn't have the apparatus of the State behind you. In the 2005 local body elections, voter turn-out was only just over 40%. If a nation-wide election process can only get 40% of the voters, with manned polling stations at very regular intervals and tonnes of publicity leading up to the event, getting over 10% of the voting public to sign a petition is pretty good work.

(And no, I don't really draw these conclusions from your handle, but it's the sort of sensationalist logic-defying argument you've used.)

[puppykicker]

I think you are discussing the law, in this case criminal law, rather than ethics or morality.

There has always been the ability to prosecute people for assault (of various degrees) under the law as it existed prior to the 'smacking' legislation. This applies to all cases including assaults on children.

The addition of an extra law specifically for children seems a marketing exercise, rather than anything else. Passing an amendment to a law does not make a problem go away, and is not a moral soultion to a problem.

I'm not too sure that a majority of NZ voters actually voted for Labour either, and the polling at the tiome showed that the majority of people at the time did not support the new law.

interesting, but about as technically correct as me saying smacking and child porn are comparable ;)

there was no addition of extra law, in fact the exact opposite, a law that was in place to protect everyone had a caveat allowing it to be ignored when dealing with an adult assaulting a child. there are examples of clearly abusive parents be let off because of this, one i recall where it was deemed reasonable to assault a child with a weapon, in that case i believe it was a jug cord.

and to say this is not a moral argument is insane, much of criminal law is simply enforced morals. some people think they should be allowed to hit their kids if they want to, others think they shouldnt. the fact is though that the opponents of this bill screamed bloody murder that ordinary parents would be imprisioned in droves and that simply has not happened.

im actually of the opinion that the government should stay the hell of everyones house, and stop playing nanny state, but treating this as if they wrote a bill that made discipline illegal is not just dishonest its actually quite sad.

polls at the time may have indicated all sorts of things, doesnt change the fact that these petitioners had to fabricate thousands of signatures to get over the threshhold, and that the main group protesting this at the time were destiny church, bastions of sanity that they are.

the fact that you would describe this as a new law specifically for children i think shows you as one of the people that probably gets most of their info from these loud opponents, and actually does not know anything much about the situation :)

[devnull]

Man, so much bullshit in this thread...

First off, S.59 was NEVER a defence against abuse or assault.
That's complete crap.
It WAS used successfully as a defence 8 times in the last 42 years i.e. a jury decided that the actions taken were reasonable in the circumstances.

Bradford's amendment was not just anti-smacking, it was anti anything involving "force".
Your kid won't go to their room? You can't make them. If you do, you're a criminal. The bill specifically bans any form of force "for the purposes of correction"

My kid gets smacked. Things like power-points are not toys.

I'm not going to bury my child because some mad commie dipshit thinks she's a model parent.

What they haven't taken into account is that for the majority of us who are parents, our kids mean everything to us.
Threaten them in any way, expect severe retribution.

Take them away - heads will roll. Quite literally.
I'm waiting for the first social worker to be killed by an angry parent because of this bullshit.

I note that the PC** brigade stick to pseudo-religious prattle concerning the anti-smacking debate, because the psych and developmental research clearly shows that they are wrong.
They also hold up Sweden as being a model that this laws works overseas. Did you know that 90% of females there are now afraid to go out after dark? That youth crime has increased 672%? That serious assaults of kids on kids (including rape) went up over 300%?

That's the sort of society the anti-smackers are really advocating - smacking itself is just being used as an excuse to get there....

** PC - "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

[puppykicker]

Your arguments has two failings:

Firstly, trying to compare the legalising of slavery and child prostitution to what was contained in section 59 of the Crimes Act is simply ridiculous. Pimping out a five year old to be used as a sex toy hardly compares with giving the same five year old a swift slap on the bum for throwing a tantrum.

Society considers different crimes on a scale of 'badness'. Although this scale is not enshrined in law, the sentencing guidelines attached to different offences give some indication of this scale. The exemptions given to parents under section 59 of the Crimes Act essentially gave parents a defence against charges of, had the same act been carried out against an adult, common assault. You'd have been far more persuasive trying to make a comparison with this, rather than resorting to the sensationalising typical of the leftie / greenie brigade.

ok lets address this first then:

you can scream "lefties" all you want, wont change the fact that you dont know my political leanings, and im not one ;)

now, as for the defense against common assault, the police have the discretion to decide whether or not the offence warrants action, just the same as they do for most other minor and even quite major offences. for example, possession of marijuana is a crime, but 95% of the time, it is confiscated and the owner is let off with a warning, in circumstances where someone has a large amount, or it is prepared for sale, or they also find other drugs or weapons, they police will charge that person. this is no different. the same is true of common assault on an adult, if i smack my partner on the bum in the same way and with the same force as someone would their child, would i be charged with assault? certainly not, because the offence was inconsequential. this is not a new concept. as per my previous post, this section was repealed to prevent things like assault with a weapon being deemed reasonable force under a vague and therefore ineffective law.


Secondly, there is absolutely nothing disingenuous about the wording of the petition at all. It is an extremely accurate description of what Sue Bradford's bill has criminalised. Section 59 did not give parents the right to inflict permanent physical harm on their children. Comparing a smack to child abuse is similar to comparing having a glass of wine with dinner to downing a bottle of scotch for breakfast; they both involve alcohol but they're worlds apart in seriousness. Your argument is disingenuous, therefore, for not only being incorrect - section 59 did not legalise child abuse - but for trying to distort a properly worded question to suit your own beliefs

you can spout this crap all you want, but the fact is the (mosly religous... suprise suprise...) nutters all yelled and jumped up and down that every parent in NZ would end up in jail, and their doom and gloom predictions simply have not come true, because the police are given discretion under this law, just the same as they are under almost every other, and they use it sensibly.


Just out of interest - given your handle of 'puppykicker', do you think animal abuse is acceptable? Aren't you promoting the torture of helpless animals? You must also be a poor excuse for a man if you take out your frustrations on animals, especially those animals not big enough to exact their revenge on you
...
(And no, I don't really draw these conclusions from your handle, but it's the sort of sensationalist logic-defying argument you've used.)

im glad we understand one another, LAW ABIDING PARENTS WILL END UP IN JAIL!!!!!!111!


Thirdly, getting 300,000 signatures is quite an exercise if one doesn't have the apparatus of the State behind you. In the 2005 local body elections, voter turn-out was only just over 40%. If a nation-wide election process can only get 40% of the voters, with manned polling stations at very regular intervals and tonnes of publicity leading up to the event, getting over 10% of the voting public to sign a petition is pretty good work.

but you say that a majority of people are against this law do you not? this is not underpublicised, i think you would struggle to find someone who was unaware of the petition, i personally have been asked to sign several times. but thats beside the point. if a majority of voters really thought this would be used to take their children away, dont you think they would be willing to go out and do something about it?

[puppykicker]

Man, so much bullshit in this thread...

First off, S.59 was NEVER a defence against abuse or assault.
That's complete crap.
It WAS used successfully as a defence 8 times in the last 42 years i.e. a jury decided that the actions taken were reasonable in the circumstances.

Bradford's amendment was not just anti-smacking, it was anti anything involving "force".
Your kid won't go to their room? You can't make them. If you do, you're a criminal. The bill specifically bans any form of force "for the purposes of correction"

My kid gets smacked. Things like power-points are not toys.

I'm not going to bury my child because some mad commie dipshit thinks she's a model parent.

What they haven't taken into account is that for the majority of us who are parents, our kids mean everything to us.
Threaten them in any way, expect severe retribution.

Take them away - heads will roll. Quite literally.
I'm waiting for the first social worker to be killed by an angry parent because of this bullshit.

I note that the PC** brigade stick to pseudo-religious prattle concerning the anti-smacking debate, because the psych and developmental research clearly shows that they are wrong.
They also hold up Sweden as being a model that this laws works overseas. Did you know that 90% of females there are now afraid to go out after dark? That youth crime has increased 672%? That serious assaults of kids on kids (including rape) went up over 300%?

That's the sort of society the anti-smackers are really advocating - smacking itself is just being used as an excuse to get there....

** PC - "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

yes, this will result in the downfall of society. uber-rolleyes. just like civil unions and the lower drinking age, and the hundreds of good law abiding parents that will end up in jail... which ended up being what? 3? about the same number as stats would say would be up on abuse charges anyway? one again, the loudest group is not the majority. to take this site as an example, if i were to look at it i could draw the conclusion that most people on here are middle aged, racist, and painfully ignorant of just about everything outside their very limited world view. does this mean the majority of NZers or bikers are like this? no, just you ;)

[devnull]

yes, this will result in the downfall of society. uber-rolleyes. just like civil unions and the lower drinking age, and the hundreds of good law abiding parents that will end up in jail... which ended up being what? 3? about the same number as stats would say would be up on abuse charges anyway? one again, the loudest group is not the majority. to take this site as an example, if i were to look at it i could draw the conclusion that most people on here are middle aged, racist, and painfully ignorant of just about everything outside their very limited world view. does this mean the majority of NZers or bikers are like this? no, just you ;)

Are you intentionally stupid?
Or could it be that at 21, you have absolutely no idea what it is to be a parent?

Despite mountains of psych research proving that the anti-smacking stance is nothing more than pseudo-religious nonsense, that Bradford was caught out lying about the Swedish statistics (because she took them straight from Joan Durrant's paper - a staunch anti-smacking advocate who got caught out manipulating statistics to support her pre-conceived conclusion), we still see the anti brigade clinging desperately to the opinion that only they know best and therefore have the right to dictate how others live their lives.

Well, I only have 2 words for that sort of attitude, and they involve sex and travel.

I think the alcohol-related crime statistics show just what a wonderful idea lowering the drinking age was. If you're not convinced, spend a week with an emergency service.

When shit like this happens, the Greenie vocal minority that gave rise to this problem need to be held accountable. I, like the vast majority of voters, have had a gutsfull of social engineering.




North Island
"My name is Steven and I am 11, this is what happened – I was late home and my dad was angry with me because I was out on the street when it was dark, he smacked me a couple of times on my bum but it did not hurt, the next day I told my neighbours what had happened and they rung CYF. CYF came to my school and talked to me and also my brother and sister without my mum and dad knowing. When I got home after school we were told that we could not see our dad, my brother and sisters and I were hurt by this. I wish CYF never got involved they hurt my family. dad was allowed home again because we told them it wasn’t abuse. The police also said it wasn’t."

"I am Steven’s older sister and I am 13 years old. I think what CYF did was wrong. they told my mum that my dad couldn't see us for two weeks. they didn't interview me even though steven told them he had an older sister. if they had've interviewed me i would have been outraged because my dad is hard working and watches us play sports and takes us to music lessons. our family was in tears even my dad. they had no right to make my dad look like a criminal."

This quote seems appropriate to NZ today:



In 1937, the dictator said, "The youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing."

[devnull]

Is this where we're headed?
time to return to a real democracy!!


Court overturns father's grounding of 12-year-old

June 19, 2008 - 6:03AM

A Canadian court has lifted a 12-year-old girl's grounding, overturning her father's punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the internet, his lawyer said.

The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself online using a friend's computer.

The father's lawyer Kim Beaudoin said the disciplinary measures were for the girl's "own protection" and is appealing the ruling.

"She's a child," Beaudoin said.

"At her age, children test their limits and it's up to their parents to set boundaries.

"I started an appeal of the decision today to reestablish parental authority, and to ensure that this case doesn't set a precedent," she said. Otherwise, said Beaudoin, "parents are going to be walking on egg shells from now on".

"I think most children respect their parents and would never go so far as to take them to court, but it's clear that some would and we have to ask ourselves how far this will go."

According to court documents, the girl's internet transgression was just the latest in a string of broken house rules. Even so, Justice Suzanne Tessier found her punishment too severe.

Beaudoin noted the girl used a court-appointed lawyer in her parents' 10-year custody dispute to launch her landmark case against her dad.

[puppykicker]

so basically you've addressed none of what i said, and instead just jumped up and down yelling "socialists!!!"

do you really think that the problem with all the hoodlums running around south auckland is that their parents didnt hit them enough? :rolleyes:

speaking of psuedo-religous, spare the rod spoil the child anyone?

if youve had a gutsful, better get onto voting labour, national and teh greens out of government then. thats the way a democracy works, we dont overturn government decisions because a vocal minority falsify thousands of signatures on a petition that is worded to bear no resemblance whatsoever to the actual intent of the legislation. but you wont, youll run off to the polling place and vote national back in, changing nothing but ensuring you wont have to think for yourself for the next 4 years or so ;)

ooh a godwinn, well played. you know who else was big into discipline?


the next day I told my neighbours what had happened and they rung CYF
so why did the kid tell his neighbors about it? do you think that maybe the neighbors thought the kid was asking for help? not to mention, the change in legislation affects only those who have charges of abuse brought against them, so once again your little argument is completely irrelevant

p.s. source for that story?

[Murray]

[QUOTE=devnull;1625004]Are you intentionally stupid?

I think the alcohol-related crime statistics show just what a wonderful idea lowering the drinking age was. If you're not convinced, spend a week with an emergency service.


Interesting topic itself this!!! It's not actually the dropping of age that has caused the alcohol related crime to increase, its legalising supermarkets to sell alcohol that has caused the increase in drinking. I know of a bar that was approached by the police for their beer price being too low (encouraging intoxication) and when it was pointed out that supermarkets sell at below cost to entice customers he said its not his problem?? If supermarkets were not allowed to sell alcohol the old bottleshops/taverns would put their prices up and as such make the excess drinking a pain in the wallet.

[puppykicker]

they tested that theory by hugely increasing the tax on low alcohol spirits like kristov and others, used to be able to buy a bottle of shitty vodka for a tenner, they got rid of that and what changed? nothing at all! ta-da

anyone who thinks the solutions to societal problems are that simple has something seriously wonky upstairs.

[Murray]

Actually the shitty vodka and similar sales dropped quite dramatically but the sales of shitty wine etc went up

[puppykicker]

exactly, the total number of drunk kids didnt change at all. pulling booze from supermarkets wont fix it either.

[devnull]

methinks ol' puppylicker needs to use the search facility...

I suggest starting with this:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1312843#post1312843

Obviously a fundy religious organisation publication (British Journal of Social Work)

Another religious nuthouse publication... Will it never end?
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/2006/27b-01-06_press_release.html

Plus, if you really believe the spin that crime has decreased, I have a bridge I can sell you with great harbour views...

[devnull]

Something to sum up this thread:



"Private Jenkins!" yelled the Captain. "Get over here
immediately, there's something you need to see!"

"Right away, sir!" Jenkins shouted back, crossing the open area
in the center of their camp at a double march.

"You see these tracks, Jenkins?" the Captain asked, neither
requesting nor expecting a reply. He continued, "And that smell?
Private Jenkins! Are you paying attention to me!?"

"Sir, I am positively brimming with attention, I assure you."

"Don't be a smart-ass, Jenkins."

"I blame my parents, sir."

"Don't we all, Jenkins. Don't we all." the Captain sighed. "Tell
me, Jenkins, in light of my on-going efforts to provide you with what
we in the army like to call An Edjukayshun, what creature leaves
tracks like these, accompanied by such a horrific stench?"

"A troll, sir?" Jenkins replied cautiously.

"Bang on, Private Jenkins. Nicely done. A troll. You must be on
your guard at all times. They are Very Very Nasty." the Captain
warned.

"But what shall I do if this creature attacks me? Shall I feign
death? Shall I hurl pomegranates, in the manner so effectively
demonstrated by you last week when we were assaulted by nuns in the
market?" asked Jenkins, noticably agitated.

"No no," the Captain replied, "pomegranates will just make
things worse, and feigning death is a bit extreme under the
circumstances. Mark my words, boy, if you are ever confronted by a
troll, there is only one thing you can do..."

"Tell me, tell me!" pleaded Jenkins, interrupting.

"You must ignore him. The troll feeds on attention, Jenkins.
Ignore him and he will die. It will not be pleasant. You will be
tempted to watch the squirming, the cries of agony will reach deep
down into your underpants and grab you by the ... well, you get the
idea, Jenkins. Trust me: ignore the troll, be strong, and perhaps you
will live to hurl pomegranates at nuns another day."

"Thank you, sir. It is truly an honour to serve with you."

"You're right about that, Private. Dismissed"

[puppykicker]

once again you failed to address any of my points. and i asked for a source on the annecdotal evidence you provided, not the statistics. i googled for it, but couldnt find anything, as for searching kiwibiker, i was unaware this was a reputable source of news...

as for claiming i think crime has decreased, your parents hit you too much as a child, they may have damaged your brain. A: the law has been in effect for such a short time that any conclusions on its effect would be impossible and B: i never said that, and neither did anyone else ;)

you've also failed to address the fact that the law change has not changed cyfs handling of potention abuse cases in any way, and that the only person who will see the business end of the change are those the police charge with abuse, who will no longer be able to claim beating a child with a stick or a jug cord is reasonable discipline. if you have anything at all to refute this then please by all means show it to us.

but you keep arguing your point without actually making one, it makes you look really smart.

[mstriumph]

..........while the elected government goes about representing the people that voted for them. :)

if ONLY........ *sigh* :(

[devnull]

once again you failed to address any of my points. and i asked for a source on the annecdotal evidence you provided, not the statistics. i googled for it, but couldnt find anything, as for searching kiwibiker, i was unaware this was a reputable source of news...

Google is your friend.
Or you could go have a read of selected cases on the FamilyFirst website. This forum also supports a wonderful thing called hyperlinks, that will connect you to other sites...



as for claiming i think crime has decreased, your parents hit you too much as a child, they may have damaged your brain. A: the law has been in effect for such a short time that any conclusions on its effect would be impossible and B: i never said that, and neither did anyone else ;)


Then don't imply it as you did in post #92



you've also failed to address the fact that the law change has not changed cyfs handling of potention abuse cases in any way, and that the only person who will see the business end of the change are those the police charge with abuse, who will no longer be able to claim beating a child with a stick or a jug cord is reasonable discipline. if you have anything at all to refute this then please by all means show it to us.

but you keep arguing your point without actually making one, it makes you look really smart.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00121.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00325.htm

I also remember the "stick / length of wood" spin, that turned out to be a 12" wooden ruler - the same ones you buy for your kids in primary school :jerry:

So, please state
a) How many times was the original S.59 used in court as a defence since 1961?
b) How many times did a jury agree?
c) What, if any, research has ever been undertaken that supports your view in any way whatsoever?
d) If the answer in c) is none, what makes you think that others should live their lives according to your opinions?



Bob McCroskie: "So you do not want to see smacking banned?" Helen Clark: "Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature."

[puppykicker]

well played sir, you just provided a quote that proved my entire point. thank you for playing.

p.s. family first is a religous org with a clear agenda, not the best place to point if you want to be taken seriously ;)

[puppykicker]

before i leave you to your manly whining, one more thing


Then don't imply it as you did in post #92


exactly, the total number of drunk kids didnt change at all. pulling booze from supermarkets wont fix it either.

...what?

[devnull]

well played sir, you just provided a quote that proved my entire point. thank you for playing.

p.s. family first is a religous org with a clear agenda, not the best place to point if you want to be taken seriously ;)

Typical bleeding heart liberalist bullshit. Attack the messenger because you can't attack the message. :girlfight:

Is Otago Uni a religious org as well?

BTW, how many children have you raised?

[RantyDave]

and how about we talk about the petition wording? "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" funny that they would have to be that disingenuous just to get people to sign.
Exactly. You can get gullible cun... most people to sign anything you want if you spin it right.

I wish I could stop being so revolted by the whole thing, but it's just not going away. I'd like to see how the referendum is going to be worded. I suspect the pro child beating lobby are going to be disappointed.

Dave

[RantyDave]

It WAS used successfully as a defence 8 times in the last 42 years i.e. a jury decided that the actions taken were reasonable in the circumstances.
And here lies one of the more amazing things about the whole debacle. This is not some huge sweeping change bought down by an oppressive government. This is a second tier MP in a second tier party mopping up a pathetically small avenue through which people had successfully been assaulting children. Not very many, but some. With any luck the law change means that the 'riding crop lady' doesn't become 'James Whakaruru's Mum' (link (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=142396), for the short of memory). Point is that had the conservative/Christian world (who could do other Christians a favour and kindly shut the fuck up) kept their mouths shut then it would have passed without a murmur and almost nobody would have any idea who Sue Bradford was. But noooooo.

Bradford's amendment was not just anti-smacking, it was anti anything involving "force". Your kid won't go to their room? You can't make them. If you do, you're a criminal.
Oh please. Come back to me when someone does time for picking a kid up and putting them in their room.

I'm not going to bury my child because some mad commie dipshit thinks she's a model parent.
My point exactly. You're not. We may, however, reduce the number of violent members of society your child is expected to hang out with on a daily basis for the rest of their lives. Which would be nice.

I note that the PC** brigade stick to pseudo-religious prattle concerning the anti-smacking debate
The pseudo religious prattle comes from the pro-violence side of the debate.

"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
And this, is the truth :)

Dave

[RantyDave]

This quote seems appropriate to NZ today:
AGHGHGHGH! Devnull godwinned the thread. Oh well, better go do something fun instead.

Dave

[RantyDave]

Oh OK, just one more.


do you really think that the problem with all the hoodlums running around south auckland is that their parents didnt hit them enough?

Nope. The problem is their parents didnn't do anything. Given a choice between parents hitting their kids and parents not doing anything at all, I'll go for the former any day.

Dave

[devnull]

Dave, you advocate child abuse with your avatar, you offer up nothing other than the fact that everybody needs to live their lives in accordance with your personal views...

You also appear to be woefully ignorant of the paw that you're talking about - I'd suggest you go and read it then come back. Pay particular attention to the third paragraph.

There has been nothing other than opinion, innuendo, emotive rhetoric devoid of any real content (e.g. post #101), from the lefty, kaftan-wearing, tofu-munching brigade. Yet on the other side, we have many non-religious scientific organisations producing data that clearly shows that the kaftan wearers need to stick to hugging trees.

The "slippery slope" theory of violence has been disproved ad nauseum. Those offering it up are a bit of a joke now. It's like saying that drinking coffee (a drug) leads to herion addiction. Or that riding a bike encourages gang activity - ban bikes and the gangs will disappear...

Ironically, it's not like there aren't examples of how damaging this legislation has been elsewhere. Look at how bad Sweden has become.
I guess for some, it's easier to pretend that such things don't really exist, so that they don't have to confront the reality that their ideals are destructive.

After all, the removal of corporal punishment in schools worked so well... unless you're a teacher, that is
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23387305-421,00.html

[puppykicker]

this is exactly like arguing with edbear in the religious thread. great fun i must say.

look, now the little man is advocating corporal punishment in schools!


BTW, how many children have you raised?

helped with 2, never beat them, got the odd smack here and there and no doubt will continue to, and noone will get arrested because the change DOESNT MAKE DISCIPLINE ILLEGAL YOU THICK SKULLED MORON

how come rantydave came in here and knew exactly what i was talking about, and yet you cant get it after this many posts? youre willfully ignorant, its actually a bit sad. this is why your generation has done so much damage to the world, you arent interested in the truth, just pushing your silly little OH NOES SOCIALISM!!1!ONE agenda

[devnull]

this is exactly like arguing with edbear in the religious thread. great fun i must say.

look, now the little man is advocating corporal punishment in schools!


Sorry kid, I was serving in the military when your idea of night life was the muppet show...
Corporal punishment isn't a bad idea... again that view is backed by scientific research, rather than a tofu overdose



helped with 2, never beat them, got the odd smack here and there and no doubt will continue to, and noone will get arrested because the change DOESNT MAKE DISCIPLINE ILLEGAL YOU THICK SKULLED MORON

how come rantydave came in here and knew exactly what i was talking about, and yet you cant get it after this many posts? youre willfully ignorant, its actually a bit sad. this is why your generation has done so much damage to the world, you arent interested in the truth, just pushing your silly little OH NOES SOCIALISM!!1!ONE agenda

That's illegal... But it also answers one question. You aren't a parent, have not raised a child, and have no idea what you're talking about.
You've never seen your child born, sat for weeks with them in an intensive care unit, fed them at odd hours, learned that sleep is a luxury...



Parental control

*

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

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
o

(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
o

(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
o

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

Subsection (1) was substituted, as from 23 July 1990, by section 28(2) Education Amendment Act 1990 (1990 No 60).

Subsection (3) was inserted, as from 23 July 1990, by section 28(3) Education Amendment Act 1990 (1990 No 60).

Section 59 was substituted, as from 21 June 2007, by section 5 Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (2007 No 18).


Looks pretty illegal, doesn't it?
Pay particular attention to subsection 2, then ask an adult to explain it to you

[howdamnhard]

[QUOTE=RantyDave;1619318]Apparently 300,000 evil bastards have signed a petition
Geee I must be an evil bastard.

[MisterD]

And here lies one of the more amazing things about the whole debacle. This is not some huge sweeping change bought down by an oppressive government. This is a second tier MP in a second tier party <snip>

Come off it Dave, this was a government bill - all part of the smoke and mirrors of the dog's breakfast that is MMP.

[MisterD]

this is exactly like arguing with edbear in the religious thread. great fun i must say.

Er, no.
1) I believe Devnull is presenting stuff usally referred to as evidence for his position.

2) I'm on the other side here.

[puppykicker]

Sorry kid, I was serving in the military when your idea of night life was the muppet show...
Corporal punishment isn't a bad idea... again that view is backed by scientific research, rather than a tofu overdose

OH NOES SOCIALISM!!1! no wonder you're such a big man




That's illegal... But it also answers one question. You aren't a parent, have not raised a child, and have no idea what you're talking about.
You've never seen your child born, sat for weeks with them in an intensive care unit, fed them at odd hours, learned that sleep is a luxury...

right, so once i know the love and devotion of having a child, ill want to beat them too :rolleyes:




Looks pretty illegal, doesn't it?
Pay particular attention to subsection 2, then ask an adult to explain it to you


(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

national got that added for idiots like you, to try and shut you up. it is technically illegal for me to slap my partner on the ass, its also technically illegal to jay walk, smoke inside at a business even when closed, swear or yell in public etc. etc. etc. all things people do every single day and noone really minds. the laws exist to prevent more serious crimes. like child abuse.

if you dont trust the police and the courts to get this right, then how can you possibly advocate corporal punishment?

[puppykicker]

Er, no.
1) I believe Devnull is presenting stuff usally referred to as evidence for his position.

2) I'm on the other side here.

so was edbear, his was bullshit, and devnulls is irrelevant. hes arguing a strawman, OH NOES SOCIALISM!!1!

[devnull]

Still waiting for answers to previous questions...



So, please state
a) How many times was the original S.59 used in court as a defence since 1961?
b) How many times did a jury agree?
c) What, if any, research has ever been undertaken that supports your view in any way whatsoever?
d) If the answer in c) is none, what makes you think that others should live their lives according to your opinions?


Plus another...

Name one case where Bradford's bill successfully prevented child abuse

Wish I was young again... then I'd know everything too :spanking:

[pzkpfw]

This kid with an L plate on an FXR150 (?) was being a dork in Tawa today.

I wanted to smack him.

[awayatc]

Something to sum up this thread:Quote:
"Private Jenkins!" yelled the Captain. "Get over here
immediately, there's something you need to see!"

"Right away, sir!" Jenkins shouted back, crossing the open area
in the center of their camp at a double march.

"You see these tracks, Jenkins?" the Captain asked, neither
requesting nor expecting a reply. He continued, "And that smell?
Private Jenkins! Are you paying attention to me!?"

"Sir, I am positively brimming with attention, I assure you."

"Don't be a smart-ass, Jenkins."

"I blame my parents, sir."

"Don't we all, Jenkins. Don't we all." the Captain sighed. "Tell
me, Jenkins, in light of my on-going efforts to provide you with what
we in the army like to call An Edjukayshun, what creature leaves
tracks like these, accompanied by such a horrific stench?"

"A troll, sir?" Jenkins replied cautiously.

"Bang on, Private Jenkins. Nicely done. A troll. You must be on
your guard at all times. They are Very Very Nasty." the Captain
warned.

"But what shall I do if this creature attacks me? Shall I feign
death? Shall I hurl pomegranates, in the manner so effectively
demonstrated by you last week when we were assaulted by nuns in the
market?" asked Jenkins, noticably agitated.

"No no," the Captain replied, "pomegranates will just make
things worse, and feigning death is a bit extreme under the
circumstances. Mark my words, boy, if you are ever confronted by a
troll, there is only one thing you can do..."

"Tell me, tell me!" pleaded Jenkins, interrupting.

"You must ignore him. The troll feeds on attention, Jenkins.
Ignore him and he will die. It will not be pleasant. You will be
tempted to watch the squirming, the cries of agony will reach deep
down into your underpants and grab you by the ... well, you get the
idea, Jenkins. Trust me: ignore the troll, be strong, and perhaps you
will live to hurl pomegranates at nuns another day."

"Thank you, sir. It is truly an honour to serve with you."

"You're right about that, Private. Dismissed"





You were spot on ....do yoursef a favour and Ignore all puppykickers....Don't dignify their insignificance with any sort of answer.
The computer keyboard is their only connection with humanity, take that away and "it" will retreat again to the obscurity where it belongs.

[devnull]

You were spot on ....do yoursef a favour and Ignore all puppykickers....Don't dignify their insignificance with any sort of answer.
The computer keyboard is their only connection with humanity, take that away and "it" will retreat again to the obscurity where it belongs.

So true... ;)

[Disco Dan]

My name is Evil Bastard.

Pleased to meet you.

Another fellow evil bastard :jerry:

[Hinny]

Another fellow evil bastard :jerry:
Is that 'cos you are a Pom?
I have noticed that violence is ingrained into English society almost as much as in US society.

Glad I don't live in either of those countries.
Maybe that is an option for those that don't like the society we have here or the society we will have.
Emigrate!

The country is overpopulated and we should employ the fifo principle to further societal harmony.

(fifo = fit in or fuck off)

[Disco Dan]

Is that 'cos you are a Pom?
I have noticed that violence is ingrained into English society almost as much as in US society.

Glad I don't live in either of those countries.
Maybe that is an option for those that don't like the society we have here or the society we will have.
Emigrate!

The country is overpopulated and we should employ the fifo principle to further societal harmony.

(fifo = fit in or fuck off)

So what about the (now) rubbish education system? The children no longer have any respect for the teaching staff now that corporal punishment is outlawed.

i firmly believe that children require discipline - the generation brought up with the cane are far better members of the community than those without.

[Hinny]

So what about the (now) rubbish education system? The children no longer have any respect for the teaching staff now that corporal punishment is outlawed.

i firmly believe that children require discipline - the generation brought up with the cane are far better members of the community than those without.

From my experience that is a popular misconception.
My kids are far more socially advanced than any of my peers were at the same age. The teachers with the more relaxed approach always got the best results.
Our teachers used to beat us with a ferocity that would probably see them locked up today. 6 of the best left 6 bleeding welts.Did that make me respect the perpetrator? :hug: The hell it did.
The kids I grew up with that the strictest discipline became the worst.:angry2:
The children I have seen grow up since reflect the same outcomes. Those with the toughest treatment became the worst. Maybe because of all that beating of their heads. I suspect that is because those parents were too lazy to bend down to smack their bums. Heads are at hand height.:bash:
You can't beat respect into kids. They may do as you want them to out of fear. :eek5: This is clearly a sub-optimal approach.
To try and get social harmony out of fear results in a fucked up society. There are plenty of examples to confirm this.

[jonbuoy]

Is that 'cos you are a Pom?
I have noticed that violence is ingrained into English society almost as much as in US society.

Glad I don't live in either of those countries.
Maybe that is an option for those that don't like the society we have here or the society we will have.
Emigrate!

The country is overpopulated and we should employ the fifo principle to further societal harmony.

(fifo = fit in or fuck off)

NZ Overpopulated?? Your having a laugh aren't you? NZ has a higher proportional rate of child deaths killed by family members than the UK, population in UK is around 61 million with an average of 79 children killed per year. Population of NZ is 4.5 million with an average of 10 children killed per year. Nearly a 30% increase proportionally. FWIW I don't agree with adults hitting kids full stop, there shouldn't need to be a law. Either way at least 89 people should be swung by their necks every year:yes:

[awayatc]

Only a certain ethic group here seems to be responsible for those inexcusable
monstrosities here.....U telling me that group is 8x as big in the UK?.....
You got to compare apples with apples and P.. with P...:msn-wink:

Neckswinging numbers should be way higher though.....or is this just a weekly estimate?....:laugh:

[devnull]

What a shame that the UN finally pressured Spain into adopting this silly law.

For those that don't know, Spain had no such foolishness, but rank best in the world for child abuse statistics, with an incidence rate of only 0.1 per 100,000

Perhaps if the lefty extremists didn't advocate all rights but no responsibilities, then we wouldn't be so deeply in the shit.
The UK is no better - I see Gordon Brown has now signed away a great chunk of their sovereignty to the EU....

[Hinny]

NZ Overpopulated?? Your having a laugh aren't you?


Only a certain ethic group here seems to be responsible for those inexcusable monstrosities here.....

Well there's a start.

Even though our terms of trade at the moment are the best they have been for thirty five years imagine what the terms of trade would be if we had half the population.
The major earners in this country are Tourism and Farming.
Tourism relies to a huge extent on the fact that we have very few people. The Mainland cheese ad. springs to mind here. I hate being time poor. I'd love to see our roads with half the number of vehicles on them.
Farming has been our major export earner for many many years. This comes from around 150,000 people. These people are largely responsible for our high dollar value; the reason we can buy stuff so cheaply today.
If we were to concentrate on those industries where we have a comparative advantage and shop for what we want on a world market this country would Boom! It is, perhaps, the philosophy that Roger Douglas followed. He just missed out on the lowering of the population part of the doctrine.
A good Right winger mate of mine (Son of a Policeman) reckons about 2,500 people need to be lined up against the wall for the first year and maybe 1,500 the next etc.
He was venting his frustration at having to deal with children of his partner and the offspring of those children. They and their mates have all been raised with a lot of discipline. (Their Dad was a soldier)
Does not seem to have done them any good.
A child psychologist client says that unless children are cradled, hugged and generally nurtured a lot in their first three years a part of their brain does not develop and they grow up with a lack of empathy. (Brain Waves Trust) They are unlikely to ever develop this. So instead of worrying about whether one is going to become a criminal for smacking away the hand of a child trying to put a fork into a power socket worry about getting fit enough to love and nurture your child.

[alanzs]

From my experience that is a popular misconception.
My kids are far more socially advanced than any of my peers were at the same age. The teachers with the more relaxed approach always got the best results.
Our teachers used to beat us with a ferocity that would probably see them locked up today. 6 of the best left 6 bleeding welts.Did that make me respect the perpetrator? :hug: The hell it did.
The kids I grew up with that the strictest discipline became the worst.:angry2:


Sorry to say it, and this is only anecdotal evidence at best, as a teacher of a year 5 class (9-10 year olds) the best behaved children generally are not the Kiwi kids. The immigrant children take school much more seriously, respect the teachers more and try a whole lot harder than the Kiwi kids. Frankly, the Kiwi parents are the ones who come up with the most excuses why their little precious darling didn't do their homework, can't do PE or can't get to school on time. They are usually the ones who don't come to parent interviews or have any interest in their kids education. This is a general statement, of course, but it is one I SEE EVERYDAY, and have for years. I work at a mid-low decile school. I also am the only male teacher there.

I have had kids tell me that they don't need school, as their parents didn't and McDonalds and KFC always have jobs available. I point out that they do need to read the job application though. :doh:

Carry on...

[jonbuoy]

What a shame that the UN finally pressured Spain into adopting this silly law.

For those that don't know, Spain had no such foolishness, but rank best in the world for child abuse statistics, with an incidence rate of only 0.1 per 100,000

Perhaps if the lefty extremists didn't advocate all rights but no responsibilities, then we wouldn't be so deeply in the shit.
The UK is no better - I see Gordon Brown has now signed away a great chunk of their sovereignty to the EU....

The family unit is still sacred in Spain and lot of the other catholic countries in the med', its not unusual to see families out on the town having a meal and few drinks WITH their kids - some only toddlers at midnight or later. And they seem all the more closer and well behaved for it. So much for kids needing early nights and hard disipline.

[MisterD]

A child psychologist client says that unless children are cradled, hugged and generally nurtured a lot in their first three years a part of their brain does not develop and they grow up with a lack of empathy. (Brain Waves Trust) They are unlikely to ever develop this. So instead of worrying about whether one is going to become a criminal for smacking away the hand of a child trying to put a fork into a power socket worry about getting fit enough to love and nurture your child.

That's a stupid argument - why should smacking your child and cuddling your child be mutually exclusive?

Kids need to know right from wrong, they need boundaries and there needs to be consequences for crossing those boundaries. Sometimes a swift smack to the bum is what's required to get the message across - this is not the same as as default reaction to a thrashing with a kettle power cord.

[Finn]

Probably been said but if it hasn't it needs to be. The anti smacking law has had no effect on child abuse. Beatings and murders still continue like it's our national past time.

Surely you didn't think such a law would make a difference.

[Hinny]

That's a stupid argument - why should smacking your child and cuddling your child be mutually exclusive?


Obvious, I would have thought.

[alanzs]

That's a stupid argument - why should smacking your child and cuddling your child be mutually exclusive?

Kids need to know right from wrong, they need boundaries and there needs to be consequences for crossing those boundaries. Sometimes a swift smack to the bum is what's required to get the message across - this is not the same as as default reaction to a thrashing with a kettle power cord.

Shhh, you're fucking up the thread with logic. :laugh:

[alanzs]

Probably been said but if it hasn't it needs to be. The anti smacking law has had no effect on child abuse. Beatings and murders still continue like it's our national past time.

Surely you didn't think such a law would make a difference.

+1
A knee jerk reaction law and more evidence of the ever encroaching nanny state trampling on our freedoms. Someone is really going to tell me how to raise my child? They can mind their own business.

My kid runs in the street, he gets a whack on his bottom so he'll remember never to do it again. Short, fast, simple and effective. :doh:

Carry on.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I think the Ramones said it best when they said:




Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
with a baseball bat
Oh yeah"



of course the literal meaning seems quite alarming, but its like reading Shakespeare: there is a lot of cultural context and meaning to the lyrics that might be lost on some readers. For example: the reference to "Brat" is obvious, its child. But whose child? your child, my child, our child: or child in some wider social context: perhaps child here is a reference to society, and how we as a society might think of some of its lesser empowered members: minorities perhaps, or the disabled (or "lesser abled" as I like to call them).

And "beat on" well again, obviously it doesnt literally mean "To beat, as in "to hit", some of us think that in this context it means "to take umbrage" or to "be outraged", or perhaps "to treat less well than they should be treated"

Similarly, the "baseball bat" referred to isn't an actual baseball bat: its the metephoric one, referring to all of the myriad social, political economic and other pressures on any given sector of society, including post colonialism and the angst associated with that.

and "oh yeah"? Well that signifies agreement from a like minded section of society.

So, in conclusion it is fairly obvious that the lyrics to "Beat on the Brat" are a protest song, about Pakeha oppression and the post colonial struggle being undertaken by the Maori in New Zealand in 2008. Thats obviously what Joey was thinking when he penned these lyrics in 1978: its obvious innit?

[awayatc]

ramones do kapa haka pretty good

[alanzs]

I think the Ramones said it best when they said:



of course the literal meaning seems quite alarming, but its like reading Shakespeare: there is a lot of cultural context and meaning to the lyrics that might be lost on some readers. For example: the reference to "Brat" is obvious, its child. But whose child? your child, my child, our child: or child in some wider social context: perhaps child here is a reference to society, and how we as a society might think of some of its lesser empowered members: minorities perhaps, or the disabled (or "lesser abled" as I like to call them).

And "beat on" well again, obviously it doesnt literally mean "To beat, as in "to hit", some of us think that in this context it means "to take umbrage" or to "be outraged", or perhaps "to treat less well than they should be treated"

Similarly, the "baseball bat" referred to isn't an actual baseball bat: its the metephoric one, referring to all of the myriad social, political economic and other pressures on any given sector of society, including post colonialism and the angst associated with that.

and "oh yeah"? Well that signifies agreement from a like minded section of society.

So, in conclusion it is fairly obvious that the lyrics to "Beat on the Brat" are a protest song, about Pakeha oppression and the post colonial struggle being undertaken by the Maori in New Zealand in 2008. Thats obviously what Joey was thinking when he penned these lyrics in 1978: its obvious innit?

WOW! And to think, I always liked that song. That and "I don't like Monday's." Great tune to go shooting with...
:2thumbsup

[Manxman]

Probably been said but if it hasn't it needs to be. The anti smacking law has had no effect on child abuse. Beatings and murders still continue like it's our national past time.

Surely you didn't think such a law would make a difference.

Wot he said.

Anyone who thinks anything different, is living in La-La land, or smokin some really good shti.:wacko:

[Sanx]

...
of course the literal meaning seems quite alarming, but its like reading Shakespeare: there is a lot of cultural context and meaning to the lyrics that might be lost on some readers. For example: the reference to "Brat" is obvious, its child. But whose child? your child, my child, our child: or child in some wider social context: perhaps child here is a reference to society, and how we as a society might think of some of its lesser empowered members: minorities perhaps, or the disabled (or "lesser abled" as I like to call them).

And "beat on" well again, obviously it doesnt literally mean "To beat, as in "to hit", some of us think that in this context it means "to take umbrage" or to "be outraged", or perhaps "to treat less well than they should be treated"

Similarly, the "baseball bat" referred to isn't an actual baseball bat: its the metephoric one, referring to all of the myriad social, political economic and other pressures on any given sector of society, including post colonialism and the angst associated with that.

and "oh yeah"? Well that signifies agreement from a like minded section of society.

So, in conclusion it is fairly obvious that the lyrics to "Beat on the Brat" are a protest song, about Pakeha oppression and the post colonial struggle being undertaken by the Maori in New Zealand in 2008. Thats obviously what Joey was thinking when he penned these lyrics in 1978: its obvious innit?

Oh nice one genius. Some people just don't think before opening their mouths, do they...

You've just committed all Ramones fans to never being able to enjoy their music again. That's right - some enterprising Iwi will tomorrow claim the rights to the entire Ramones back catalogue as being taonga; a treasure of the Maori culture.

It even satisfies all the pre-claim requirements:

Not owned by Maori - tick!
Never had anything to do with Maori - tick!
No possible connection with anything Maori - tick!
Completely implausible story made up on the spot which we'll claim has been part of our oral tradition for hundreds of years without any proof at all, and then pretend to get really insulted when someone questions out story and misinterpret that question as an attack on our culture, race, beliefs and habits - tick!

[MisterD]

Have you never heard of Rangi Ramone?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Have you never heard of Rangi Ramone?

wasn't he one of the drummers between Tommy and Marky?

My love of the Ramones is undiminished, in spite of its new status.

Good luck to them going head to head with Linda (Johnny's widow) over the royalties and T shirt sales: It would be a cage deathmatch and I know who I would pick........

[Hinny]

Now here's a real referendum.

I wonder how many posters have altered their opinions with the benefit of a bit of age and hopefully maturity.

[Max Preload]

...it wasn't an "anti-smacking" law.

Really? You might want to tell the architect of the law change (http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844)... sure looks like that was the intention... or is their very own website a media beat up?