Get ready to hit your kids...

[devnull]

What is wrong here?

Read it carefully - take particular note of subsection 2

[Skyryder]

What is wrong?

You are.

Both of (a) (b) (c) and (d) refer too children, I did not think I would have to state the obvouse.

2 gives children the same protection as our selves. e.g. you may want to 'correct' my behavour, or for that matter any one elses, whatever the reason, but the law prohibits you from doing so. Or more to the point there are legal repercussions if you chose to do so. The same applies in respect of children. Bradford's bill gives them that protection.


Skyryder

[avgas]

Yeah it funny aint it.
I recently talked to someone about the anti-smacking bill in NZ. There were supprised but happy - stating they were beat when they were kids, and because of that they only do time out for their kids.
However they fell it is pefectly acceptable to lock their kids in a cupboard, no light. For long periods of time.
They state that it was better than yelling at them. Until the kids broke.
I believe that it is all regardless - but making a special law to stop kids getting beaten is pointless. We all know the laws in NZ. But how many of us exceed 100kph? That is the speed LIMIT - you must NEVER exceed that limit, that is why you have a LIMIT and not a GUIDE.
So i ask again - those kids that were beat badly before the law, are they saved now?

[devnull]

Both of (a) (b) (c) and (d) refer too children, I did not think I would have to state the obvouse.

2 gives children the same protection as our selves. e.g. you may want to 'correct' my behavour, or for that matter any one elses, whatever the reason, but the law prohibits you from doing so. Or more to the point there are legal repercussions if you chose to do so. The same applies in respect of children. Bradford's bill gives them that protection.


Skyryder

And yet I refuse to allow any of my kids to be harmed or killed in the name of socialism.
Doing things likely to harm themselves will still be rewarded with a smack.

Our kids must be so terrified - my little boy has just been sitting with me giving dad kisses and hugs...

While the rabid lefties want to play at social engineering, there are parents like myself that will protect our kids from all comers - you lot especially.

The "law" is meant to protect my kids from the monsters you'll no doubt breed as well - the ones that have no sense of personal responsibility or respect.

Yet the police have the role of the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff - because lazy individuals refuse to teach boundaries and such old fashioned things like respect and morals. Truly, this socialism / communism is a disease - some form of mental illness

[Grahameeboy]

Read it carefully - take particular note of subsection 2

I did the first time...still don't see the problem

[MSTRS:Me]

2 gives children the same protection as our selves. e.g. you may want to 'correct' my behavour, or for that matter any one elses, whatever the reason, but the law prohibits you from doing so. Or more to the point there are legal repercussions if you chose to do so. The same applies in respect of children. Bradford's bill gives them that protection.
Skyryder

The big difference in this scenario is that none of us parents are responsible for you, since you are neither a child, and specifically, our child.
With responsibility goes certain rights.
Now, the parent still has the responsibility, but a certain part of their rights have been taken away by a failed parent and a load of spineless gits who wouldn't stand up to the cow in a place that matters.

[Skyryder]

The big difference in this scenario is that none of us parents are responsible for you, since you are neither a child, and specifically, our child.
With responsibility goes certain rights.
Now, the parent still has the responsibility, but a certain part of their rights have been taken away by a failed parent and a load of spineless gits who wouldn't stand up to the cow in a place that matters.

I'd like to think that the child has gained: that if a parent bruises their child in an act of smacking such people can not hide behind section 59 of the crimes act. If you see that as a loss for your self then so be it. Not much more I can say otherwise.

Skyryder

[MSTRS:Me]

I'd like to think that the child has gained: that if a parent bruises their child in an act of smacking such people can not hide behind section 59 of the crimes act.

The problem is that the child has not gained. A smack that may or may not leave a red mark for a few minutes (not talking about bruises) is a very effective parental tool in some cases, and without the right to resort to this meaningful correction those parents may in fact be failing in their duty to instill a sense of consequence in their child. Who then grows up with a lack of boundaries, as an earlier poster alluded to.

[devnull]

I'd like to think that the child has gained: that if a parent bruises their child in an act of smacking such people can not hide behind section 59 of the crimes act. If you see that as a loss for your self then so be it. Not much more I can say otherwise.

Skyryder

How many times, IN TOTAL, was S.59 ever use successfully as a defense in court?

Hint: it's less than 10...

People could ALWAYS be charged with assault.

As it stands now, if you discipline your child in a shopping mall and a tofu muncher objects, the best course of action is to proclaim in a loud voice that said tofu muncher is a kiddie fiddler, and let the mob that forms have them

[awayatc]

Awe inspiring style.....

[Skyryder]

[QUOTE=devnull;1700675]How many times, IN TOTAL, was S.59 ever use successfully as a defense in court?

Hint: it's less than 10...

People could ALWAYS be charged with assault.

As it stands now, if you discipline your child in a shopping mall and a tofu muncher objects, the best course of action is to proclaim in a loud voice that said tofu muncher is a kiddie fiddler, and let the mob that forms have them [/QUOT


The problem was that prosecutions would not take place because juries would not convict when there was clear evidence of injury.

We can talk, disagree on this untill the cow comes home but neither the Nats or Labour will change the legtislation. The sooner the Christian Right come to realise this the sooner they may be able to put their talents to better use.

Skyryder

[devnull]

The problem was that prosecutions would not take place because juries would not convict when there was clear evidence of injury.

We can talk, disagree on this untill the cow comes home but neither the Nats or Labour will change the legtislation. The sooner the Christian Right come to realise this the sooner they may be able to put their talents to better use.

Skyryder

There were many convictions, a fact that the left tries very hard to ignore

The lies Bradford told while quoting Swedish stats were appalling, and so easy to spot it was disgusting

This issue has nothing to do with religion
It's about a corrupt regime extending their social engineering experiments to include children, and responsible parents are outraged.

Sweden clearly shows that this doesn't work, and leads to disaster.
Makes you wonder what Bradford's real aim is - it certainly has nothing to do with children.
If it did, they would've taken notice of the over 600% rise in youth crime in Sweden after they went down this road

[Clockwork]

The problem is that section 1 allows you to "assult" persumably by way of restraint or phisical removal for the purpose of ...
a.) protecting them from harming themselves or others
b.) preventing them from committing a crime
c.) preventing them from being diruptive or offensive
d.) you are allowed to assult them in order to wipe their arse or clean them up.

If however you subsequently smack then to disuade them from future attempts to engage in acts a through d, then uder section 2 you ARE guilty of criminal assult.

Now you may feel that this law simply provides the same protection to children that you as an adult enjoy. Perhaps then we shoiuld also ...
a.) remove the age of consent laws
b.) remove the age limt exemptions from the crimes act
c.) build smaller cars and allow them to drive
d.) let them vote in the next election

Oh and while we are at it, who the hell are we to force children to attend school?

[MSTRS:Me]

Now you may feel that this law simply provides the same protection to children that you as an adult enjoy. Perhaps then we shoiuld also ...
a.) remove the age of consent laws
b.) remove the age limt exemptions from the crimes act
c.) build smaller cars and allow them to drive
d.) let them vote in the next election

Oh and while we are at it, who the hell are we to force children to attend school?

Quite right, too. They are merely 'little' adults, with all the higher reasoning that goes with years of experience. After all, as I said earlier, with rights goes responsibility.

[awayatc]

So i don't have to pay for all their needs anymore....?
washing/feeding etc...?
Great!