Nigel Latta parenting show TV1 tonight.

[Ms Piggy]

Seriously, what's the point? I'm a fine one for insisting that people vote but the question is a false dichotomy.

What precisely are you voting for and what kind of sane reason could you give for ticking either yes or no to that question?

Yeah I know what you're saying Jim - I did consider not voting at all but then I decided to vote because feel so strongly about this particular topic. I guess for me (just me, not saying this applies to anyone else before someone has a conniption) not voting would equate to me not caring about the issues and I care deeply about the issues around his topic.

Personally I would have preferred if the question had been clear cut - there is a very good article written in the June newsletter for Wellington Community Law Centre that explains why on several different levels the question is poorly worded (can email it to ya if you like).

It's a pity actually because the referendum won't really be conclusive, in my opinion.

So Jim - why aren't you voting?

[James Deuce]

So Jim - why aren't you voting?

Simply because the question poses a false dichotomy.

[Ms Piggy]

Simply because the question poses a false dichotomy.

Could you expand please? Sorry I been studying all day and the brain is full of fuzz I think I know what ya mean though.

[James Deuce]

The question posed has, to put it mildly, more than two possible answers, most of them neither "yes" nor "no".

If you don't believe in smacking, then neither available answer illustrates your point of view.

[The Stranger:Me]

The question posed has, to put it mildly, more than two possible answers, most of them neither "yes" nor "no".

If you don't believe in smacking, then neither available answer illustrates your point of view.

I'm a simple man Jim, give us an example will ya please?

[The Stranger:Me]

Personally I would have preferred if the question had been clear cut - there is a very good article written in the June newsletter for Wellington Community Law Centre that explains why on several different levels the question is poorly worded (can email it to ya if you like).

I wouldn't mind that please if I may.
Shall Pm you my email address.

[Trudes]

In the same boat as you here Jim. I'm all for "vote or shut up" but this one had me stumped, and yep due to the shit wording of the question I will not be voting. I believe there are better ways of disciplining your kids than smacking them, however I don't believe that those who do use this form of discipline should be prosecuted for it, however I also don't think the section 59 repeal should be scraped as I don't believe beating the crap out of your kids to be a justifiable form of punishment/use of force. So I can't vote yes because I don't think parents should be prosecuted for using reasonable force (a smack) to discipline their kids, however I wouldn't vote no either as I worry that if this referendum gets enough no votes the people who are pushing this thing will then start petitioning to have the section 59 repeal changed/scraped so that people can go back to beating the crap out of their kids and using reasonable force as an excuse (which is actually what the section 59 repeal is about, not anti-smacking at all....). I'm sure none of that made any sense.

[James Deuce]

I'm a simple man Jim, give us an example will ya please?

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Define "good parental correction". You can't.

Define "smack". You can't.

Well, you can define both of those but the definitions will probably amount to about 3.1 million in number for each.

The question is couched in terms of "belief" and insinuates a point of law without naming it or specifically objecting to or supporting that unnamed regulation.

The question does not provide an outcome if people favour yes or no.

[cowboyz]

ok.. truth be known i only got throught the first couple of pages but the general concenous is that what this guy is preaching is very very easy stuff and all about common sense.

Righto- how did we get here then? If it is *that* simple and that *common* why is this guy making a crapload of money out of telling people it?

[Trudes]

Because many parents have gotten soft, try to be their kids friends instead of a role model and disciplinarian, can't say NO to their kids just in case it makes them sad and try to wrap them in cotton wool. Or something like that.

[The Stranger:Me]

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Define "good parental correction". You can't.

Define "smack". You can't.

Well, you can define both of those but the definitions will probably amount to about 3.1 million in number for each.

The question is couched in terms of "belief" and insinuates a point of law without naming it or specifically objecting to or supporting that unnamed regulation.

The question does not provide an outcome if people favour yes or no.

Of course one can't define "good parental correction" surely that must turn on the circumstances must it not? Is there any other way to skin the cat?

Similarly a smack might, however could they not clarify this in leglislation. I always assumed we were voting on intent, not a proposed law and that there would be normal processes involved - including drafting and objections etc for the law, hence is the law or it's punishment relavent?

Assuming you can interpret the intent ok, how do you believe it should have been worded?

[Ms Piggy]

I wouldn't mind that please if I may.
Shall Pm you my email address.

Done and done.

[James Deuce]

Assuming you can interpret the intent ok, how do you believe it should have been worded?

There is no intent to interpret. The question says nothing and the outcome is nothing.

I'm with Trudes. The referendum is unnecessary.

[The Stranger:Me]

Done and done.

Well I must say, the last paragraph was certainly the most pertinent - and it shows the whole way through. To infer "good" in the context of the question is akin to a "good hiding" and therefore inappropriate shows some pretty desperate bias.

His proposed "clear and neutral" question of
"Should children be entitled to the same protection from physical assaults as everyone else enjoys?"
Absolutely reeks of bias. It doesn't allow for a "yes, but" position.

People should stop reading into it what is not there. There is NO rationale for NOT taking it at face value. Just answer the simple question before you - or not, your choice, but stop looking for reds under the beds.

[Trudes]

Oh why not? There are a huge number of people who have read whatever they like into the legislation that this stupid thing refers to. Most of the good folks who are dead against it have probably not read it. It isn't and never was an anti-smacking bill, the point of it is not to prosecute parents who give their kids a smack to discipline or remove them from harm by force, but to remove people using it as an excuse after they have beaten the snot out if their kid with a hunk of wood for instance.