Smacking kids?

[crack]

[QUOTE=slowpoke;986949]

I agree , remove the warning labels:

What about removing the politicians, and coming up with a national constitution, agreeing on our values, and the way we want to be governed, and rules against the abuse of RUSHING through legislation as they now want to.

F--k it I want another beer,( have to wait another week)

[crack]

Those young ones will be lost with the Claytons terminology:

Read on:

Also worth a read is Sir Kenneth Keith, google it and have a read.

New Zealand has a constitution, but it is not set out in one all-inclusive document – it consists of a series of formal legal documents, decisions of the courts and the practices we describe as conventions. It increasingly reflects the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi is regarded as a founding document of government in New Zealand.
The Constitution Act 1986 is the principal formal statement of the constitution.
This Act recognises that the Queen, the Sovereign in right of New Zealand, is the Head of State of New Zealand and that the Governor-General appointed by her is her representative. Each can, in general, exercise all the powers of the other. The powers of the Governor-General are described in the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor-General of New Zealand, most recently revised in 1983. Other relevant statutes are the State Sector Act 1988, the Electoral Act 1993 and the Judicature Act 1908, relating in turn to the three branches of government (the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary), as well as the Ombudsmen Act 1975, the Official Information Act 1982, the Public Finance Act 1989 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
New Zealand is an independent sovereign nation. Because we are a monarchy, our country is styled a “Realm”. The Realm of New Zealand comprises New Zealand, Tokelau and the Ross Dependency, and the self-governing states of the Cook Islands and Niue.
As Head of State, Queen Elizabeth’s formal New Zealand title is “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”.
The Queen’s personal representative in New Zealand is formally styled “The Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over New Zealand”. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the New Zealand Government, usually for a term of five years
The Sovereign and the House of Representatives together make up the Parliament of New Zealand. The Governor-General signs into law (gives Royal Assent to) bills that have been passed by the House of Representatives. The Constitution Act empowers the Governor-General to summon and dissolve Parliament. The Governor-General also presides at meetings of the Executive Council (Council members are Ministers of the Crown) and signs regulations (as Orders in Council).
By convention, the Governor-General is, in general, bound to act on the advice of Ministers who have the support of the House of Representatives. It is the duty of Ministers to keep the Governor-General informed about government business. As well as having the right to be informed, the Governor-General may also encourage, warn and offer suggestions to Ministers.
In addition, and again on the advice of Ministers, the Governor-General appoints members of the judiciary and Justices of the Peace; may exercise the royal prerogative of mercy; and signs the commissions of officers in the New Zealand Defence Force and the warrants for Royal Commissions.

According to this, we can be dictated to, a government can do what ever they want, it stops with the intervention of the Gov Gen, but he is appointed by the Queen, on Recommendation of Aunty Helen.

[Phurrball]

According to this, we can be dictated to, a government can do what ever they want, it stops with the intervention of the Gov Gen, but he is appointed by the Queen, on Recommendation of Aunty Helen.

The LEGISLATURE is sovereign ie all the members in parliament. The executive (~cabinet) does have some limits on its power - see Fitzgerald v Muldoon where an ordinary citizen took Muldoon to court based on his actions being at odds with parliamentary sovereignty - Mr Fitzgerald won too as Muldoon was improperly exercising prerogative power. In theory all three arms of government are supposed to keep each other in check (The third arm being the judiciary).

We have an interesting constitution made up of many narrow threads, start diddling with any of them and the whole thing might unravel.

Whether we'd be better with a written constitution as supreme law is a moot point. Sir Geoffrey Palmer has a lot to say about that - he wanted the NZ Bill of rights act to be supreme law, but had to settle for a "Clayton's" entrenchment.

Mine will have to be a "Clayton's" when I get home, sadly I have school work to do...Mmmmm Dammit! Dammit!

[candor]

I'm thinking. We cringe as the law is passed to appease misguided well intended nutters led by feminists with all their feet way off the ground.

They feel good and victorious and like they have taken a giant step for mankind and kahui families everywhere.

Meanwhile life carries on exactly the same as the day before. And any cop who shares in Bradfords philosphy and becomes a bounty hunter of smackers will not be able to hold their head up as excitedly they throw the latest smacker in the cells.

They will get taken some dark place (the cop) that is and given a good tune up, after which they will chose to leave the force. Also their membership of the Sensible Sentencing Trust will be revoked for not being fit or proper.

Let Bradford spend a day in uniform PLEASE.

[Quartermile]

I'd rather see her Tazered they could sell it on Sky box office

[kro]

What is the common factor among a huge percentage of troubled children, especially young males, who also end up criminals?. No father in the family. Single parent families consisting of Mum and children are an escalating demographic, which incidentally, have been on a sharp increase since the 1970's, when our government took on a welfare system, known globally, to breed a rise in criminal activity.

Coupled with the adoption of this welfare system, the government was taking a huge part of the responsibility of parenthood off the male parent, making the act of getting a woman pregnant, something that the state would then "take care of". As the social sciences have shown us, the children raised with little discipline, and no father figure, have spawned generations of troubled children, a large portion of who, ended up criminals.

So, what we will see with this bill coming into force is, fathers who are present, letting their children get away with "murder", for fear of getting a criminal record, whilst the fatherless children, stay the underlying foundation statistic for criminal activity.

Family violence, and smacking, are NOT synonymous Sue Bradford. By all means, add yet another law to our system, which then has police racing all over the show, dealing with "smacked children", whilst they get bad press for unsolved murders, and escaped criminals. If some doped up gang member, high as a kite, is beating the crap out of a 10 year old, that spilled milk, what has that got to do with smacking?. Deal with the underlying issue head on you spineless politicians. I've done it before, and I am just one man.

[jetboy]

anyone watch the news last night? they had a poll similar to this one, and only 23 percent said they agree with the legislation.

you'd think that, as a public servant, they would listen to this aye.

[SPman]

I think it's horrifying that the TV news continually refer to the Bill as "the anti-smacking Bill". when its clear intention is to prevent "parents" getting away with beating and abusing their children - with fists, steel capped boots, hosepipes and most firmly in my memory a 4x2 - all of which the law in its current form allows as "discipline". It would be more rightly called the anti-child abuse Bill. But I guess that would be too boring for the media.

And thats my opinion as well!

More media inspired mass hysteria!

Why would anyone think the police are going to spend all their time prosecuting responsible parents who SMACK their child occasionally,when they can't handle the massive load of real violence thats going on out there, as it is! If you BEAT your kid and get arrested - I've got no sympathy! You deserve everything you get.

Of course there will be the usual initial episodes, which the media will emblazon the heavens with, of little Jonny trying to take his parents to the police and unscrupulous lawyers and politicians trying to use the legislation to their own advantage and self agrandisement, but I think the basic thrust behind the bill is GOOD.
All this hand wringing, wailing and gnashing of death, quite frankly, makes me wonder where most peoples heads are at!

[Fub@r]

In saying that though how can someone actually claim reasonable force in disciplining their child when using an object etc? WTF are the judges doing to accept that in the first place as a defense.

Why is there a need to change the law when as far as I'm concerned a slap in the bum is reasonable force, using a crowbar is not. Why do we need the Poly's to remove the word "reasonable" when it seems pretty simple to me.

Yes there will be a quite a few cases coming up if this law passes where average joe bloggs has to spend thousands defending themselves because someone witnessed them smacking their kid until the incompetent judges that allowed beatings with a crowbar which they somehiow ruled was "reasonable" set a precident in law to what is allowed.

The only people that will benefit out of this is once again the lawyers, meanwhile the "kahui" cases will still happen

[candor]

yep that sums it up Fubar.

If the Judges weren't such losers who have a problem understanding what IS reasonable force all of this could be avoided. Rant to follow - so disengage now if you are sympathetic to the upper echelons of the legal profession - which is the only group I can say I deeply despise (based on much experience).

I think if we looked at the harm and consequences wrought on the population by Judges we would have to rank them as (in general) the most dangerous psychopaths on the State payrole. Paid abundantly to destroy society.

They make dangerous decisions, issue dangerous trial summarys and directions to juries, exert excessive control over important trials, make heinous common laws based solely on their whims and sit on the Parole Board. These are extremely guilty c***suckers who should never have been allowed to cut free from Privy Council supervision.

The first thing they did was make filing fees exorbitant putting civil case Justice out of the reach of anyone not on such a good wicket as themselves.

If there is a devil he'll take them first I hope and extinguish for ever their eternal essence so they can not even hope to return even as maggots.

No law - anti-smacking, anti-abuse or whatever can sort them out if they have done such idiot judgments as Bradford et al are saying. They will simply allow other defenses than reasonable force - wait and see, nothing is as devious as Judicial scum.

Even today I had to threaten to sue the parole board headed up by some jerk off judge as it wrote me a letter to tell me (without first consulting me per my victim rights) that it was releasing my Mums still dangerous killer on Monday 2nd one year into a 3 year sentence 'per his rights'!

Well I put a stop to that as they had excluded as from their secret parole hearing so now they are having to have another one in 2 weeks. See how sneaky and untrusty these slime are, but luckily due to Burton they feared our threats to go public etc and did a quick backtrack today.

Without common sense on the bench (it's absent) we're all screwed - never trust a Judge (lips moving = lying) and do assume everything they touch is perverted because power corrupts and most are divorced from normality.

I can tell you as a previous psych nurse that a few very senior barristers were involved in paedophile rings / criminal connected in the 1980s - as we nursed the messed up adults that resulted. And we wonder why those now at the top may be unconcerned about abuse!!!

I just hope the children that got bashed and had a Judge decide a 4x2 was reasonable force to use on them, track down these Judges... much later... when they are frail and defenseless in rest homes. And give them a dose of their own medicine - of reasonable force.

We have too many freaks on the bench. They divorced their brains in some ivory tower long ago. If they truly are letting child bashers off as they stand accused they deserve to be exposed. Thats kinda worse even than being a uniformed rapist. Why hasn't the media outed these unnatural freaks?

The Police corruption is nothing against the Judiciaries. I hope to live to see the day it is exposed.

[Quartermile]

Ooops double post.

How does that happen cos you gotta wait 30sec to post again?

Anyway you can always delete posts rather than just editing them

[Skyryder]

I just hope the children that got bashed and had a Judge decide a 4x2 was reasonable force to use on them, track down these Judges... much later... when they are frail and defenseless in rest homes. And give them a dose of their own medicine - of reasonable force.

We have too many freaks on the bench. They divorced their brains in some ivory tower long ago. If they truly are letting child bashers off as they stand accused they deserve to be exposed. Thats kinda worse even than being a uniformed rapist. Why hasn't the media outed these unnatural freaks?

The Police corruption is nothing against the Judiciaries. I hope to live to see the day it is exposed.

It is not the Judge who decided what was reasonable force but the Jury. If you can not understand the fundamental differences between the roles of judge and jury it is not surprising that you have such a bad attitude towards them.

And incidently it is precisely because 'socieity' can not protect children from abusive parents that Bradford's bill is necessary. She has never claimed that her bill will stop violence but at least the perpertrators of violence agaist their children will not get away with it so easily as they have in the past.


Skyryder

[The Pastor]

anyone watch the news last night? they had a poll similar to this one, and only 23 percent said they agree with the legislation.

you'd think that, as a public servant, they would listen to this aye.

Whats that a new tui billbord? Very funny.

I'm thinking. We cringe as the law is passed to appease misguided well intended nutters led by feminists with all their feet way off the ground.

They feel good and victorious and like they have taken a giant step for mankind and kahui families everywhere.

Meanwhile life carries on exactly the same as the day before. And any cop who shares in Bradfords philosphy and becomes a bounty hunter of smackers will not be able to hold their head up as excitedly they throw the latest smacker in the cells.

They will get taken some dark place (the cop) that is and given a good tune up, after which they will chose to leave the force. Also their membership of the Sensible Sentencing Trust will be revoked for not being fit or proper.

Let Bradford spend a day in uniform PLEASE.

I remember reading on some website (so unsure if its true or not) that countrys that have the anti smacking law, most of the people pros-i-cuted (sp) are of the situation where the kid is angry at his parents for disapling them (no kid wants to be smacked) and rings up the cops saying his dad hit him or when the wife wants to get back at her husband or somthing unrealising that if a complaint is made they will get arrested.


The thing I don't understand is what has smacking got to do with child abuse?

The people who are going to beat kids arnt the law abiding type are they? whats one more law for them to break?

Isnt it illgal to assult somone in nz anyways?

WHERE IS MY TV REMOTE!

[NotaGoth]

like most of us were spanked without destroying us psyhcologically or emotionally

I dunnooooooooooo..... I'm pretty fucked in the head.... lol Then again maybe the punishment of being made sit in the firewood shed being munched by sandflies is what did it.. *twitch* Thats what ended up happening when smacking my arse stopped working...



All I can see that its gonna do is make criminals out of those who "smack" while those who "beat" their children still get away with it... There is a HUGE difference between smacking and beating....

[oldrider]

And incidently it is precisely because 'socieity' can not protect children from abusive parents that Bradford's bill is necessary. She has never claimed that her bill will stop violence but at least the perpertrators of violence agaist their children will not get away with it so easily as they have in the past.
Skyryder

Yeah right!

Like their "Dangerous Dog" legislation stops dangerous dogs from doing their business! What a load of bullshit!

Non of the real child beaters could hide behind the current legislation, its just the grey areas that get all emotionally f**ked up by do gooder wankers.

That will always be the case in marginal situations.

The proposed new legislation will just make things even worse the other way!

Bradford's bill is just a waste of time, energy and money. John.