Bradfordism: Bill for referendum due to bill

**Marmoot** · 17th June 2009, 19:53

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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

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

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

**xwhatsit** · 17th June 2009, 19:54

Originally Posted by Oakie

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

That's the main issue in my eyes. I don't have an opinion either way on the matter (not having children yet and I don't remember being young enough to be smacked -- although my father does have big hands and a temper

). However I feel the question is pretty unbalanced. Regardless, NZers are going to vote in favour of `it should not be a criminal offence' but there's no point asking a question if it's prone to question bias.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

This referendum question constitutes a loaded question which is a kind of logical fallacy and has drawn criticism for this. Murray Edridge, Chief Executive of Barnardos, noted that the question "presupposes that smacking is part of good parental correction" which he described as "a debatable issue".^[4]

The question has also drawn criticism from the leaders of New Zealand's two main political parties, neither of whom intend to vote in the referendum. Prime Minister John Key described the question as "ambiguous" and pointed out that it "could be read a number of different ways". Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff expressed concern that the question "implies that if you vote `yes' that you're in favour of criminal sanctions being taken against reasonable parents — actually nobody believes that."^[5]

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

**The Stranger:Me** · 17th June 2009, 20:07

Originally Posted by xwhatsit

That's the main issue in my eyes. I don't have an opinion either way on the matter (not having children yet and I don't remember being young enough to be smacked -- although my father does have big hands and a temper

). However I feel the question is pretty unbalanced. Regardless, NZers are going to vote in favour of `it should not be a criminal offence' but there's no point asking a question if it's prone to question bias.

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

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

**u4ea** · 17th June 2009, 20:22

9 million dollars for a seriuosly bad perm

**MisterD** · 17th June 2009, 20:56

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

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

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

**Manxman** · 17th June 2009, 20:58

Originally Posted by HenryDorsetCase

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

She is the antichrist.

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

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

MUPPET.

**Genestho** · 17th June 2009, 21:12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Manxman** · 17th June 2009, 21:21

Originally Posted by HenryDorsetCase

the problem is democracy.

It just doesnt work.

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

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

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

Who's with me??

I'm in...provided you supply plenty of them *ahem* 'nubiles'.

**oldrider** · 17th June 2009, 21:31

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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

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

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

From

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...ing-poll-words

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

Watch them support this

Skyryder

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Winston001** · 17th June 2009, 21:44

Originally Posted by Marmoot

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

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

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

**Winston001** · 17th June 2009, 21:53

Originally Posted by xwhatsit

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

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

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

**Marmoot** · 17th June 2009, 23:39

Originally Posted by Winston001

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

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

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

**Winston001** · 17th June 2009, 23:57

Originally Posted by Marmoot

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

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

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

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

Why?