See my post above, I'll chip in my $3...go see the Liarbore and Watermelon parties about the balance.Originally Posted by RantyDave
Psyclepath
See my post above, I'll chip in my $3...go see the Liarbore and Watermelon parties about the balance.
Only a homo puts an engine back together WITHOUT making it go faster.
Deus ex ukulele
Even if the outcome of the referendum was 100% in favour, no Government is going to put the Crimes Act back the way it was. And that's not what the referendum is seeking to do anyway. Indeed I am not sure what purpose this referendum serves at all, other than siphoning off some millions of taxpayers' money, providing a topic for inane discussion on talkback radio and aggravating RD's ulcer.
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
Psyclepath
I tend to agree Hitch - the referendum question should have been:
Should Helen Clark and Sue Bradford be dragged on a hurdle to Auckland airport and given a one-way ticket to North Korea for foisting this unwanted law change on us. Yes/No.
Only a homo puts an engine back together WITHOUT making it go faster.
Hardcore Biker
Bring back the biff!
I am therefore I do
Hahaha...wouldve been alot easier for the "dumb fucks" to understand....
The Heart is the drum keeping time for everyone....
One, two free, floor!
What's the legal definition of "smack"... I expect that's relevant here as opposed to the dictionary definition.
And in the example I gave I'm open to suggestions - how do you keep that extremely curious 2 year old away from the fire? What's the best way?
I agree it's a last ditch measure in terms of choice of punishment, I'm simply requesting that it doesn't get taken away altogether, or at least make the guidelines of it's acceptable use very very very clear. The trouble I see is that raising children, rauising every child, presents situations where firm correction is needed, and correction that is allowed under the law.
My problem is understanding exactly when I can (and more importantly can NOT) smack legally. As mentioned before - the legal definition of what constitutes a smack is also open to confirmation.
$2,000 cash if you find a buyer for my house, kumeuhouseforsale@straightshooters.co.nz for details
Deus ex ukulele
Goff To Boycott Smacking Referendum
By Political Correspondent Marie McNicholas at 1:11 pm, 16 Jun 2009
Labour leader Phil Goff says he won't take part in the referendum on the two-year-old child discipline law and predicts others will boycott it too because the question is loaded.
The referendum asks people to cast a simple "yes" or "no" vote in response to the question: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
Mr Goff says it is a thoroughly bad question because it implies that people who answer "yes" support criminalising good parents who lightly smack their children and those who say "no" think the law isn't working.
No parents were being taken to court for lightly smacking their children which meant the law was working, he said today.
"I think that many New Zealanders including myself will probably look at that question and say there is no way we can answer that [in a way] that expresses our feelings, and probably won't vote at all on the referendum," he said.
"It's a loaded wording. I can neither answer "yes" nor "no" without feeling that I'm compromising what I actually think."
The question should be whether the law was working, and he believed it was.
Prime Minister John Key also believes the law is working.
Yesterday he expressed concern about the ambiguity of the referendum's wording, and indicated the outcome of the poll will not alter his thinking on the matter.
The citizens initiated referendum was forced by opponents of the so-called anti-smacking law after they collected the required 300,000 signatures. The law repealed Section 59 of the Crime Act, which provided a defence of reasonable force for someone charged with assaulting a child.
In 2007 Mr Key turned the near unanimous opposition of his caucus colleagues to the law change sponsored by Green MP Sue Bradford into support after forging a compromise amendment with then Prime Minister Helen Clark designed to protect parents dishing out "inconsequential" physical discipline from prosecution.
The postal ballot to be held over three weeks from July 31 will cost nearly $9 million.
Mr Goff said he would prefer the money was spent on child abuse prevention.
© Newsroom 2009
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
Hardcore Biker
Clear as mud
As if the point wasn't argued enough .. besides the fact that our bullshit government instead of asking NZ's opinion or to vote on whether or not this law should be passed in the first place, and just passed it, and is now asking us whether or not it should stay in place, is the other fact that this law has not from what I, or many others I have discussed this with, prevented ASSAULT on children ... which as far as I was aware was already AGINST THE LAW!
I personally have never 'smacked' my child, even on the bum, but I have nothing against it as was previousl stated, as a deterrent to hurting themselves, or to get them to snap out of a tantrum.
And as was stated earlier, a lot of kids including myself got smacked bums or hands throughout their childhood, but were never 'BEATEN' by their parents.
This problem is not quite as simple as this law wants it to be, unfortunately of course, if it was this black and white we wouldn't be talking about it, and maybe this law would actually work.
I think what is required, which again, is not a quick fix or easy solution, but is to educate children more about what is a smack and what is assault, as they are the only ones either way (unless you've got witnesses, which I would think most child assaulters would not) that can let someone know. And try to get them to establish someone in there life who is A - outside their immediate family (perhaps a school councillor) who they can talk to in regards to this and B - they feel comfortable approaching and talking to.
Again, I know it is not that simple ... but it's a start
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs. - Alexei Sayle
Fame was like a drug, but what was even more like a drug were the drugs. - Homer Simpson
Hardcore Biker
I dont see how john Keys can say its working. yet another child beaten to death in NZ a week ago. This law will never stop the parents that do this, and thats what it was intended to do. Some kiwi kids would be better taking their chances in the deserts of Dafur than the homes they get born into.
It's OK...I've got a spare!
Why can't these people write a sensible question for these referenda?
To go to all that effort and expense and come up with some pointless question like that is such a huge waste - of a rare opportunity as well as money.
I recall a similarly poorly worded from the Sensible Sentencing Trust a few years ago;
"Should there be a reform of the justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?"
...she took the KT, and left me the Buell to ride....(Blues Brothers)
needs to work harder
No, THIRTY. As in: Three hundred K in fuel; One and a half cellphone top-ups; The cost of owning a MacBook Pro for two weeks; A dozen beers; One and a half hours work at average wage (or for Kerry Prendergast to sit on her arse for 24 minutes) etc. etc.
Each. From three hundred thousand people.
Personally I think we should turn all our democratic processes over to facebook. It would certainly be a lot cheaper; would probably be significantly more accurate and has only the slightest chance of making any less difference to the way the country is run.
Dave
Signature needed. Apply within.
needs to work harder
No, it wasn't. So it was made illegal. Now a bunch of people are upset because they want their legal right to assault children back again. In the process Sue Bradford went from "Who?" to household name - one of the finer backfires of recent times.
That's really all there is to it.
Dave
Signature needed. Apply within.
Homo Sapiens Vulgaris
The whole issue is apparent in just the wording of the referendum...
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
It implies that if you don't smack you kids you aren't a good parent. And by extension, that the bill makes being a good parent a criminal offence. Insidious fact-twisting if I ever saw it.
Maybe there should be a pre-poll asking Should smacking be part of good parental correction in New Zealand? It would probably come back as a yes, and if nothing else that would more clearly illustrate where the real problem is hiding!
It's not the kids that are the problem. Raise them properly and you won't ever feel a need to smack them in the first place.
It is preferential to refrain from the utilisation of grandiose verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualisation can be expressed using comparatively simplistic lexicological entities. (...such as the word fuck.)
Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. - Joseph Rotblat
The instructions are simple...
Oh yes it was.
The sticking point was that little word - reasonable. Too open to individual interpretation.
Yep. By giving the odd (parentally-concerned) smack/tap/clip when they are little to guide them in the ways of cause/effect. Done right, most will not need booster shots - at least not on a regular basis.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
Moped rider
I've had a gutsful of socialist dogma parading this failed social experiment as the next wonderful step to an NZ utopia
They can kiss my arse
How well has the socialist dream worked?
http://www.socialistutopia.org
Very disturbing stuff.
Anyone who read the Otago Uni study by Millichamp in 2006 knows what bull the antismacking brigade are spouting - the rehtoric never stood up to investigation.
With the whole "nanny state knows best - the govt will seize your kids if you don't comply" attitude, it's amazing that there aren't a few dead CYFS workers yet.
The offender could always claim a defence under S.48 I suppose
If you don't want to enforce discipline (Bradford removed ALL force, not just smacking - e.g. time out too), then don't.
Your kids will learn all about it in prison.
But don't tell me how to raise my kids, or what a wonderful role model to parents Bradford is... I'm not buying it
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks