The Evil Bastards come out of hiding again

[awayatc]

Judging by the amount of opposition to the anti smacking bill, the government is not doing such a good job at "representing the people that voted for them"

[puppykicker]

right, that explains why they failed to get 300,000 signatures on their petition even with "thousands of volunteers" if a majority of voters wanted the law overturned dont you think it would have been fairly easy to get less than 1/5th of them to actually say so?

just because a group is loud does not make them a majority

[awayatc]

Tell Breadbox.....she was pretty loud, Mind you, I got no trouble hearing you either....

[puppykicker]

proves my point that you have no justification other than your god given right to beat your kids sad excuse for a man.

and how about we talk about the petition wording? "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" funny that they would have to be that disingenuous just to get people to sign. wanna take a stab at how many people would sign a petition that said "should reasonable force be reintroduced as a defense against charges of child abuse in new zealand"?

[Pwalo]

either you should legislate moral issues or you shouldnt, which is it going to be? or you can admit that you think they should only legislate things you consider to be immoral, in which case you need to sit down and shut up while the elected government goes about representing the people that voted for them.

I think you are discussing the law, in this case criminal law, rather than ethics or morality.

There has always been the ability to prosecute people for assault (of various degrees) under the law as it existed prior to the 'smacking' legislation. This applies to all cases including assaults on children.

The addition of an extra law specifically for children seems a marketing exercise, rather than anything else. Passing an amendment to a law does not make a problem go away, and is not a moral soultion to a problem.

I'm not too sure that a majority of NZ voters actually voted for Labour either, and the polling at the tiome showed that the majority of people at the time did not support the new law.

[Sanx]

so i take it everyone who considers this a bad law on the grounds the government should stay out of your business also supports overturning all anti-drug laws, permitting gay marriage, legalising child porn and prostitution, bringing back slavery, etc. etc. etc.

either that or you just think you should be allowed to hit kids...

right, that explains why they failed to get 300,000 signatures on their petition even with "thousands of volunteers" if a majority of voters wanted the law overturned dont you think it would have been fairly easy to get less than 1/5th of them to actually say so?,

proves my point that you have no justification other than your god given right to beat your kids sad excuse for a man.

and how about we talk about the petition wording? "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" funny that they would have to be that disingenuous just to get people to sign. wanna take a stab at how many people would sign a petition that said "should reasonable force be reintroduced as a defense against charges of child abuse in new zealand"?

Your arguments has two failings:

Firstly, trying to compare the legalising of slavery and child prostitution to what was contained in section 59 of the Crimes Act is simply ridiculous. Pimping out a five year old to be used as a sex toy hardly compares with giving the same five year old a swift slap on the bum for throwing a tantrum.

Society considers different crimes on a scale of 'badness'. Although this scale is not enshrined in law, the sentencing guidelines attached to different offences give some indication of this scale. The exemptions given to parents under section 59 of the Crimes Act essentially gave parents a defence against charges of, had the same act been carried out against an adult, common assault. You'd have been far more persuasive trying to make a comparison with this, rather than resorting to the sensationalising typical of the leftie / greenie brigade.

Secondly, there is absolutely nothing disingenuous about the wording of the petition at all. It is an extremely accurate description of what Sue Bradford's bill has criminalised. Section 59 did not give parents the right to inflict permanent physical harm on their children. Comparing a smack to child abuse is similar to comparing having a glass of wine with dinner to downing a bottle of scotch for breakfast; they both involve alcohol but they're worlds apart in seriousness. Your argument is disingenuous, therefore, for not only being incorrect - section 59 did not legalise child abuse - but for trying to distort a properly worded question to suit your own beliefs.

Just out of interest - given your handle of 'puppykicker', do you think animal abuse is acceptable? Aren't you promoting the torture of helpless animals? You must also be a poor excuse for a man if you take out your frustrations on animals, especially those animals not big enough to exact their revenge on you.

Thirdly, getting 300,000 signatures is quite an exercise if one doesn't have the apparatus of the State behind you. In the 2005 local body elections, voter turn-out was only just over 40%. If a nation-wide election process can only get 40% of the voters, with manned polling stations at very regular intervals and tonnes of publicity leading up to the event, getting over 10% of the voting public to sign a petition is pretty good work.

(And no, I don't really draw these conclusions from your handle, but it's the sort of sensationalist logic-defying argument you've used.)

[puppykicker]

I think you are discussing the law, in this case criminal law, rather than ethics or morality.

There has always been the ability to prosecute people for assault (of various degrees) under the law as it existed prior to the 'smacking' legislation. This applies to all cases including assaults on children.

The addition of an extra law specifically for children seems a marketing exercise, rather than anything else. Passing an amendment to a law does not make a problem go away, and is not a moral soultion to a problem.

I'm not too sure that a majority of NZ voters actually voted for Labour either, and the polling at the tiome showed that the majority of people at the time did not support the new law.

interesting, but about as technically correct as me saying smacking and child porn are comparable

there was no addition of extra law, in fact the exact opposite, a law that was in place to protect everyone had a caveat allowing it to be ignored when dealing with an adult assaulting a child. there are examples of clearly abusive parents be let off because of this, one i recall where it was deemed reasonable to assault a child with a weapon, in that case i believe it was a jug cord.

and to say this is not a moral argument is insane, much of criminal law is simply enforced morals. some people think they should be allowed to hit their kids if they want to, others think they shouldnt. the fact is though that the opponents of this bill screamed bloody murder that ordinary parents would be imprisioned in droves and that simply has not happened.

im actually of the opinion that the government should stay the hell of everyones house, and stop playing nanny state, but treating this as if they wrote a bill that made discipline illegal is not just dishonest its actually quite sad.

polls at the time may have indicated all sorts of things, doesnt change the fact that these petitioners had to fabricate thousands of signatures to get over the threshhold, and that the main group protesting this at the time were destiny church, bastions of sanity that they are.

the fact that you would describe this as a new law specifically for children i think shows you as one of the people that probably gets most of their info from these loud opponents, and actually does not know anything much about the situation

[devnull]

Man, so much bullshit in this thread...

First off, S.59 was NEVER a defence against abuse or assault.
That's complete crap.
It WAS used successfully as a defence 8 times in the last 42 years i.e. a jury decided that the actions taken were reasonable in the circumstances.

Bradford's amendment was not just anti-smacking, it was anti anything involving "force".
Your kid won't go to their room? You can't make them. If you do, you're a criminal. The bill specifically bans any form of force "for the purposes of correction"

My kid gets smacked. Things like power-points are not toys.

I'm not going to bury my child because some mad commie dipshit thinks she's a model parent.

What they haven't taken into account is that for the majority of us who are parents, our kids mean everything to us.
Threaten them in any way, expect severe retribution.

Take them away - heads will roll. Quite literally.
I'm waiting for the first social worker to be killed by an angry parent because of this bullshit.

I note that the PC** brigade stick to pseudo-religious prattle concerning the anti-smacking debate, because the psych and developmental research clearly shows that they are wrong.
They also hold up Sweden as being a model that this laws works overseas. Did you know that 90% of females there are now afraid to go out after dark? That youth crime has increased 672%? That serious assaults of kids on kids (including rape) went up over 300%?

That's the sort of society the anti-smackers are really advocating - smacking itself is just being used as an excuse to get there....

** PC - "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

[puppykicker]

Your arguments has two failings:

Firstly, trying to compare the legalising of slavery and child prostitution to what was contained in section 59 of the Crimes Act is simply ridiculous. Pimping out a five year old to be used as a sex toy hardly compares with giving the same five year old a swift slap on the bum for throwing a tantrum.

Society considers different crimes on a scale of 'badness'. Although this scale is not enshrined in law, the sentencing guidelines attached to different offences give some indication of this scale. The exemptions given to parents under section 59 of the Crimes Act essentially gave parents a defence against charges of, had the same act been carried out against an adult, common assault. You'd have been far more persuasive trying to make a comparison with this, rather than resorting to the sensationalising typical of the leftie / greenie brigade.

ok lets address this first then:

you can scream "lefties" all you want, wont change the fact that you dont know my political leanings, and im not one

now, as for the defense against common assault, the police have the discretion to decide whether or not the offence warrants action, just the same as they do for most other minor and even quite major offences. for example, possession of marijuana is a crime, but 95% of the time, it is confiscated and the owner is let off with a warning, in circumstances where someone has a large amount, or it is prepared for sale, or they also find other drugs or weapons, they police will charge that person. this is no different. the same is true of common assault on an adult, if i smack my partner on the bum in the same way and with the same force as someone would their child, would i be charged with assault? certainly not, because the offence was inconsequential. this is not a new concept. as per my previous post, this section was repealed to prevent things like assault with a weapon being deemed reasonable force under a vague and therefore ineffective law.

Secondly, there is absolutely nothing disingenuous about the wording of the petition at all. It is an extremely accurate description of what Sue Bradford's bill has criminalised. Section 59 did not give parents the right to inflict permanent physical harm on their children. Comparing a smack to child abuse is similar to comparing having a glass of wine with dinner to downing a bottle of scotch for breakfast; they both involve alcohol but they're worlds apart in seriousness. Your argument is disingenuous, therefore, for not only being incorrect - section 59 did not legalise child abuse - but for trying to distort a properly worded question to suit your own beliefs

you can spout this crap all you want, but the fact is the (mosly religous... suprise suprise...) nutters all yelled and jumped up and down that every parent in NZ would end up in jail, and their doom and gloom predictions simply have not come true, because the police are given discretion under this law, just the same as they are under almost every other, and they use it sensibly.

Just out of interest - given your handle of 'puppykicker', do you think animal abuse is acceptable? Aren't you promoting the torture of helpless animals? You must also be a poor excuse for a man if you take out your frustrations on animals, especially those animals not big enough to exact their revenge on you
...
(And no, I don't really draw these conclusions from your handle, but it's the sort of sensationalist logic-defying argument you've used.)

im glad we understand one another, LAW ABIDING PARENTS WILL END UP IN JAIL!!!!!!111!

Thirdly, getting 300,000 signatures is quite an exercise if one doesn't have the apparatus of the State behind you. In the 2005 local body elections, voter turn-out was only just over 40%. If a nation-wide election process can only get 40% of the voters, with manned polling stations at very regular intervals and tonnes of publicity leading up to the event, getting over 10% of the voting public to sign a petition is pretty good work.

but you say that a majority of people are against this law do you not? this is not underpublicised, i think you would struggle to find someone who was unaware of the petition, i personally have been asked to sign several times. but thats beside the point. if a majority of voters really thought this would be used to take their children away, dont you think they would be willing to go out and do something about it?

[puppykicker]

Man, so much bullshit in this thread...

First off, S.59 was NEVER a defence against abuse or assault.
That's complete crap.
It WAS used successfully as a defence 8 times in the last 42 years i.e. a jury decided that the actions taken were reasonable in the circumstances.

Bradford's amendment was not just anti-smacking, it was anti anything involving "force".
Your kid won't go to their room? You can't make them. If you do, you're a criminal. The bill specifically bans any form of force "for the purposes of correction"

My kid gets smacked. Things like power-points are not toys.

I'm not going to bury my child because some mad commie dipshit thinks she's a model parent.

What they haven't taken into account is that for the majority of us who are parents, our kids mean everything to us.
Threaten them in any way, expect severe retribution.

Take them away - heads will roll. Quite literally.
I'm waiting for the first social worker to be killed by an angry parent because of this bullshit.

I note that the PC** brigade stick to pseudo-religious prattle concerning the anti-smacking debate, because the psych and developmental research clearly shows that they are wrong.
They also hold up Sweden as being a model that this laws works overseas. Did you know that 90% of females there are now afraid to go out after dark? That youth crime has increased 672%? That serious assaults of kids on kids (including rape) went up over 300%?

That's the sort of society the anti-smackers are really advocating - smacking itself is just being used as an excuse to get there....

** PC - "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

yes, this will result in the downfall of society. uber-rolleyes. just like civil unions and the lower drinking age, and the hundreds of good law abiding parents that will end up in jail... which ended up being what? 3? about the same number as stats would say would be up on abuse charges anyway? one again, the loudest group is not the majority. to take this site as an example, if i were to look at it i could draw the conclusion that most people on here are middle aged, racist, and painfully ignorant of just about everything outside their very limited world view. does this mean the majority of NZers or bikers are like this? no, just you

[devnull]

yes, this will result in the downfall of society. uber-rolleyes. just like civil unions and the lower drinking age, and the hundreds of good law abiding parents that will end up in jail... which ended up being what? 3? about the same number as stats would say would be up on abuse charges anyway? one again, the loudest group is not the majority. to take this site as an example, if i were to look at it i could draw the conclusion that most people on here are middle aged, racist, and painfully ignorant of just about everything outside their very limited world view. does this mean the majority of NZers or bikers are like this? no, just you

Are you intentionally stupid?
Or could it be that at 21, you have absolutely no idea what it is to be a parent?

Despite mountains of psych research proving that the anti-smacking stance is nothing more than pseudo-religious nonsense, that Bradford was caught out lying about the Swedish statistics (because she took them straight from Joan Durrant's paper - a staunch anti-smacking advocate who got caught out manipulating statistics to support her pre-conceived conclusion), we still see the anti brigade clinging desperately to the opinion that only they know best and therefore have the right to dictate how others live their lives.

Well, I only have 2 words for that sort of attitude, and they involve sex and travel.

I think the alcohol-related crime statistics show just what a wonderful idea lowering the drinking age was. If you're not convinced, spend a week with an emergency service.

When shit like this happens, the Greenie vocal minority that gave rise to this problem need to be held accountable. I, like the vast majority of voters, have had a gutsfull of social engineering.

North Island
"My name is Steven and I am 11, this is what happened – I was late home and my dad was angry with me because I was out on the street when it was dark, he smacked me a couple of times on my bum but it did not hurt, the next day I told my neighbours what had happened and they rung CYF. CYF came to my school and talked to me and also my brother and sister without my mum and dad knowing. When I got home after school we were told that we could not see our dad, my brother and sisters and I were hurt by this. I wish CYF never got involved they hurt my family. dad was allowed home again because we told them it wasn’t abuse. The police also said it wasn’t."

"I am Steven’s older sister and I am 13 years old. I think what CYF did was wrong. they told my mum that my dad couldn't see us for two weeks. they didn't interview me even though steven told them he had an older sister. if they had've interviewed me i would have been outraged because my dad is hard working and watches us play sports and takes us to music lessons. our family was in tears even my dad. they had no right to make my dad look like a criminal."

This quote seems appropriate to NZ today:

In 1937, the dictator said, "The youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing."

[devnull]

Is this where we're headed?
time to return to a real democracy!!

Court overturns father's grounding of 12-year-old

June 19, 2008 - 6:03AM

A Canadian court has lifted a 12-year-old girl's grounding, overturning her father's punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the internet, his lawyer said.

The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself online using a friend's computer.

The father's lawyer Kim Beaudoin said the disciplinary measures were for the girl's "own protection" and is appealing the ruling.

"She's a child," Beaudoin said.

"At her age, children test their limits and it's up to their parents to set boundaries.

"I started an appeal of the decision today to reestablish parental authority, and to ensure that this case doesn't set a precedent," she said. Otherwise, said Beaudoin, "parents are going to be walking on egg shells from now on".

"I think most children respect their parents and would never go so far as to take them to court, but it's clear that some would and we have to ask ourselves how far this will go."

According to court documents, the girl's internet transgression was just the latest in a string of broken house rules. Even so, Justice Suzanne Tessier found her punishment too severe.

Beaudoin noted the girl used a court-appointed lawyer in her parents' 10-year custody dispute to launch her landmark case against her dad.

[puppykicker]

so basically you've addressed none of what i said, and instead just jumped up and down yelling "socialists!!!"

do you really think that the problem with all the hoodlums running around south auckland is that their parents didnt hit them enough?

speaking of psuedo-religous, spare the rod spoil the child anyone?

if youve had a gutsful, better get onto voting labour, national and teh greens out of government then. thats the way a democracy works, we dont overturn government decisions because a vocal minority falsify thousands of signatures on a petition that is worded to bear no resemblance whatsoever to the actual intent of the legislation. but you wont, youll run off to the polling place and vote national back in, changing nothing but ensuring you wont have to think for yourself for the next 4 years or so

ooh a godwinn, well played. you know who else was big into discipline?

the next day I told my neighbours what had happened and they rung CYF

so why did the kid tell his neighbors about it? do you think that maybe the neighbors thought the kid was asking for help? not to mention, the change in legislation affects only those who have charges of abuse brought against them, so once again your little argument is completely irrelevant

p.s. source for that story?

[Murray]

[QUOTE=devnull;1625004]Are you intentionally stupid?

I think the alcohol-related crime statistics show just what a wonderful idea lowering the drinking age was. If you're not convinced, spend a week with an emergency service.


Interesting topic itself this!!! It's not actually the dropping of age that has caused the alcohol related crime to increase, its legalising supermarkets to sell alcohol that has caused the increase in drinking. I know of a bar that was approached by the police for their beer price being too low (encouraging intoxication) and when it was pointed out that supermarkets sell at below cost to entice customers he said its not his problem?? If supermarkets were not allowed to sell alcohol the old bottleshops/taverns would put their prices up and as such make the excess drinking a pain in the wallet.

[puppykicker]

they tested that theory by hugely increasing the tax on low alcohol spirits like kristov and others, used to be able to buy a bottle of shitty vodka for a tenner, they got rid of that and what changed? nothing at all! ta-da

anyone who thinks the solutions to societal problems are that simple has something seriously wonky upstairs.