Smacking kids?

**Indiana_Jones** · 1st May 2007, 17:53

" A jury in the North Shore District Court acquitted an Auckland man of assault after he took a belt to his stepchild, who suffers from severe Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) as punishment for continually running on to the road[48]. The father claimed it was the only way of preventing this behaviour. "

Where's the problem here?

The dumb kid shouldn't be going out onto the road, tell you what I bet he didn't do it much after that.

-Indy

Originally Posted by MisterD

In a nutshell, StR. What gets me is this idiotic mantra she spouts about "giving children the same rights as adults" WTF? Kids don't have rights, their parents have them on their behalf, that's why they're called "minors"....what's next, ask the kid, not the parent for consent for medical treatment?

Agreed.

They want to give kids "rights" but kids can't be charged with murder etc.....that sounds fair ?/?

-Indy

**Flatcap** · 1st May 2007, 18:21

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

Timaru mother two months ago, who was charged with hitting her 13-year-old son with a cane and horse riding whip, is proof enough an urgent law change is needed.

How will a law change alter the fact that the jury at that particular trial were retards?

**peasea** · 1st May 2007, 20:14

Originally Posted by MisterD

In a nutshell, StR. What gets me is this idiotic mantra she spouts about "giving children the same rights as adults" WTF? Kids don't have rights, their parents have them on their behalf, that's why they're called "minors"....what's next, ask the kid, not the parent for consent for medical treatment?

I can see the headline now:
"Child demands machine turned off to gain father's bike"

**Skyryder** · 1st May 2007, 21:24

Originally Posted by Fairlie

How will a law change alter the fact that the jury at that particular trial were retards?

Dumb fucking question needs a dumb fucking answer.

It won't...............unless you have a time machine that can go back in the past.

Skyryder

**kro** · 2nd May 2007, 06:29

I think it's a valid question. If it's happened once, it will happen again Sky.
All that aside, the bill gets another hearing in Parliament today. We shall see if Politicians are like that Jury I guess. The level of opposition from the public seems to be very very high.

**Finn** · 2nd May 2007, 10:03

I see John Key is supporting the bill. Very dangerous move.

**Squeak the Rat** · 2nd May 2007, 10:11

Originally Posted by Finn

I see John Key is supporting the bill. Very dangerous move.

Time to dust off the passport.....

**ManDownUnder** · 2nd May 2007, 10:13

Originally Posted by MisterD

....what's next, ask the kid, not the parent for consent for medical treatment?

Kids sueing parents for various misdemeanors... improper upbringing etc. A la the US model.

My personal problem with the whole thing is the simple fact it's not going to stop abuse. The abusers are breaking the law now, so when a revised version of that same law comes along... they'll... still be breaking it!

So what's changed?

...fuck off....

**Finn** · 2nd May 2007, 10:17

Originally Posted by Squeak the Rat

Time to dust off the passport.....

I've been keeping it polished for quite a while.

**Squeak the Rat** · 2nd May 2007, 11:55

Dear John,

I am deeply disappointed that you are now backing a law that you then intend to not be policed. I sincerely hope that the same instructions are given to Child Youth and Family as the damage done to a family through these channels can be equally as traumatic and damaging.

Myself and my partner are currently considering having children. At best this will make us delay our decision for a few years to see what happens. At worst we will either not have kids or move overseas.

Either way, I feel more strongly about this bill than anything else that is affecting our country. I am deeply disappointed that National has backed down on this. If we couldn't trust your support on this fundamental issue I don't believe there is any point of giving National my (until now) guaranteed vote next election.

Put simply, you have lost my vote.

Regards,

**oldrider** · 2nd May 2007, 13:03

As I have said before, we have the choice of a "Red" Labour vote, or a "Blue" Labour vote!

Or any colour you like as long as it is "Socialist", welcome to the new "Freedom".

The Politicians are invading our very own homes, soon all our real freedoms will be lost and even bowel movements will be by legislative rule.

John.

**jrandom** · 2nd May 2007, 13:08

Originally Posted by oldrider

... soon all our real freedoms will be lost and even bowel movements will be by legislative rule.

"No shit without a chit!"

Indeed.

**Phurrball** · 2nd May 2007, 14:35

Originally Posted by oldrider

As I have said before, we have the choice of a "Red" Labour vote, or a "Blue" Labour vote!

Or any colour you like as long as it is "Socialist", welcome to the new "Freedom".

The Politicians are invading our very own homes, soon all our real freedoms will be lost and even bowel movements will be by legislative rule.

John.

What planet are you on?

Neither the 'blue' or the 'red' strike me as remotely socialist - both have embraced the free market and there seems to be no going back now...only the Greens or maybe the Alliance seem anywhere close to socialist.

Surely you're not trying to tell me that things were LESS socialist in the old days? Rob Muldoon and think big, universal superannuation anyone?

The ammendment proposed today with the agreement of the Nats represents a specific statutory enshrinement of the de minimis principle (that I referred to somewhere else in this thread - I think)

'Inconsequential' is a handy word. At least the legal defence of physical discipline is being repealed - the ammendment will give society time to adjust and move towards a less violent society where striking children for discipline is not acceptable. Surprised this thread isn't a bit more active.

Ross.

**Skyryder** · 2nd May 2007, 14:56

Originally Posted by kro

I think it's a valid question. If it's happened once, it will happen again Sky.
All that aside, the bill gets another hearing in Parliament today. We shall see if Politicians are like that Jury I guess. The level of opposition from the public seems to be very very high.

Read the question Kro. It asks How will a law change alter the fact that the jury at that particular trial were retards? The question refers to a specific event in the past. Of course it's not a valid question. There's no valid answer to it.

That 'it' may happen in the future??? Without Bradford's bill most certainly. Bradford's bill if passed will ensure that it will not. It will not stop serious abuse as I have mentioned earlier but her bill will stop those parents who inflict injury on their children from hiding behind the now current legislation of reasonable force.

Skyryder

**Skyryder** · 2nd May 2007, 15:14

Originally Posted by oldrider

As I have said before, we have the choice of a "Red" Labour vote, or a "Blue" Labour vote!

Or any colour you like as long as it is "Socialist", welcome to the new "Freedom".

The Politicians are invading our very own homes, soon all our real freedoms will be lost and even bowel movements will be by legislative rule.

John.

Wrong OR. See Finns post. It's Red/Green vote or Blue/Green vote.

Key is well aware that no matter what he does he will still get the majority of the so called family values and christian votes. NZ are not traditionaly one issue voters so he has nothing to lose politiclay by supporting Bradford. He is 'mucking up to both the Maori Party who support Bradford and of course the Greens.' His true agenda is in line with ACT. It's just that Kiwi's take so little notice of politics that they listen to the first opposition that they hear and take it to be the gospel truth. Bradford's bill is but one example.

In short OR Key is hedging his bets. Maori or the Greens.

Skyryder