Ever since National was elected last year (and I voted for them too), I've taken a wait and see approach. Yes, there have been a few criticisms. But those have been tempered criticisms. Until now.
John Key, after first saying that the upcoming referendum question was ambiguous (huh?), is now indicating that the Government may support Sue Bradford's quest to make it impossible for non-politically correct questions to make it as referenda.
Sue Bradford absolutely hates the referendum question with a passion because of it's complete clarity.
Because New Zealand's current law recently changed by Sue Bradford and all the useful idiots who supported her, a smack given by a parent for the purposes of correction is now a criminal offence. Just one that is not currently being vehemently pursued and prosecuted. Yet.
However, the answer of NO will send a clear message to Parliament that New Zealanders do not think that the law should criminalise smacking, therefore it would be wise of Parliament to change the law to reflect the will of the people.
For some reason, incomprehensible to this blogger, there is no political will to right the previous wrong that has been done by the last Government of this land.
But to go from not wanting to deal with the issue, to saying there's no problem with the law and the referendum is confusing, to potentially endorsing legislation that will limit the types of questions asked in referenda is politically chilling.
Every one should be worried.
That Sue Bradford, a person on the hard left vanguard of political thought in NZ is wanting to suppress freedom of speech in this country is one thing, but, to have the Prime Minister say that the Government may support such suppression is another.
The hundreds of thousands of citizens that have signed the petition for the referendum have endorsed it's wording. They knew what it meant.
If Sue Bradford gets her way, it will mean that if any issue that the Government doesn't to acknowledge or deal with can be safely ignored without recourse to referendum because all the Government has to do is say that the question is confusing or silly. And the last means of getting the Government's complete attention that the average person has right now will be gone.
Related Link: Smacking vote prompts rethink ~ Stuff
The Government will consider adopting a Green MP's bill to prevent confusing and ambiguous referendum questions, Prime Minister John Key said today.
John Key, after first saying that the upcoming referendum question was ambiguous (huh?), is now indicating that the Government may support Sue Bradford's quest to make it impossible for non-politically correct questions to make it as referenda.
Sue Bradford absolutely hates the referendum question with a passion because of it's complete clarity.
"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"Most people will of course answer NO. And therein lies the political problem.
Because New Zealand's current law recently changed by Sue Bradford and all the useful idiots who supported her, a smack given by a parent for the purposes of correction is now a criminal offence. Just one that is not currently being vehemently pursued and prosecuted. Yet.
However, the answer of NO will send a clear message to Parliament that New Zealanders do not think that the law should criminalise smacking, therefore it would be wise of Parliament to change the law to reflect the will of the people.
For some reason, incomprehensible to this blogger, there is no political will to right the previous wrong that has been done by the last Government of this land.
But to go from not wanting to deal with the issue, to saying there's no problem with the law and the referendum is confusing, to potentially endorsing legislation that will limit the types of questions asked in referenda is politically chilling.
Every one should be worried.
That Sue Bradford, a person on the hard left vanguard of political thought in NZ is wanting to suppress freedom of speech in this country is one thing, but, to have the Prime Minister say that the Government may support such suppression is another.
The hundreds of thousands of citizens that have signed the petition for the referendum have endorsed it's wording. They knew what it meant.
If Sue Bradford gets her way, it will mean that if any issue that the Government doesn't to acknowledge or deal with can be safely ignored without recourse to referendum because all the Government has to do is say that the question is confusing or silly. And the last means of getting the Government's complete attention that the average person has right now will be gone.
Related Link: Smacking vote prompts rethink ~ Stuff
I posted on the matter yesterday, and the day before.
ReplyDeleteJohn Key certainly seems to be betraying the very people that elected him.
He is playing a dangerous game.
I know he has to appeal to the left to secure his re-election but after the poll this is no longer necessary.
You bet the gloves are off!
ReplyDeleteFirtly, Key climbs into bed with the Maori Party, something he failed to mention intending to do during the election campaign and now he's made it a threesome with the odious Bradford. I'd suggest that nobody who voted National would support Bradford or Maori separatism.
Key is a duplicitous, hypocritical opportunist--the 'smiler with the knife beneath the cloak'.
War.
This question is a great question.
ReplyDeleteIt is a foundation question to the entire debate. It talks about a smack, not beatings, not child abuse. It asks if it should be a criminal offense.
Sue Bradford and her camp are saying "yes, it should be, but we promise not to prosecute"
That's not good enough. Let's at least clear this hurdle and then go on to the next part of the discussion.
The only reason it has got to a referendum is that the politicians have forced people to this point.
That Sue Bradford thinks democracy is best served by Politicians deciding who they will listen to (and 300,000 signatures can be dismissed) is disgusting.
I remember the Greens demanding action on one of their pet projects when they accumulated a mere 30,000 signatures. How disgusting they seek to write off 10 times that amount (or was it 400,000?)
"That Sue Bradford, a person on the hard left vanguard of political thought in NZ is wanting to suppress freedom of speech in this country is one thing, but, to have the Prime Minister say that the Government may support such suppression is another."
ReplyDeleteGoes to show doesn't it, that they're all elitist, totalitarian scum, some are just more open about it or are just smaller ones. It seems to be a problem across the western world, the politicians that are supposed to be conservative are in reality, not all that conservative.
I've put up a short post over at CR with a link back to here.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, Bradford is correct on this (in the same sense that even a stopped clock etc). This question is badly worded, and previous referenda have offered even worse questions. It does make sense to require people who want us to spend millions on a referendum to make their question a simple and clear one. Key may be a prick for avoiding taking a stand on the subject matter of this referendum, but I can't really blame him for wanting the questions made legible.
ReplyDeleteWell, PM at the very least he's guilty of poor timing and bad, bad judgement in immediately endorsing what Bradford says.
ReplyDeleteA smart operator would at least have waited a few months and brought in his own version of the move to make questions clearer--if that's really what's needed.
Right now it looks as though he's endorsing the views of the very person responsible for this debacle in the first place.
The fact is, Key hasn't shown himself at all to be the opponent of anything the right detests. Quite the opposite.
The question is not worded as precisely as I would word it but ambiguous? That's a stretch.
ReplyDeleteIt is also rich blahing on about how much this referendum is costing. They could have attached it to the election but they chose not to. The new bill and all the costs that go around new bills also cost truckloads. It smacks of desperation.
PM - You'll have to explain to me why the question is illegible.
ReplyDeleteSpeak clearly man :-)
I never said it was illegible, merely badly written. It's leading, in that it leaves no option for the view that smacking is by definition not "good parental correction," and it's ambiguous in that it invites idiots on lefty blogs to take the piss about smacks being used to correct parents.
ReplyDeleteThat said: its meaning is clear enough despite the authors best efforts, and I'll be voting no.
Well, you said "but I can't really blame him for wanting the questions made legible" which is what I was talking about.
ReplyDeleteFair point about saying smacking is "good", but the intent is still clear. A smack is not the capital crime that Sue makes it out to be.
It seems to me that, the thing that has upsets you the most.isn't that you can't hit your kids.
ReplyDeleteits the fact that you perceive that someone is telling you what to do.
And that someone is that "commie" Sue B
Its all rather silly.
You' can't hit adults or dogs
or anybody else's kids but you want the right to hit your own
And now we have to spend 9,000,000 dollars on this stupid poorly worded referendum
The group that proposed it would be better of withdrawing it and asking for the money to be spent on positive parenting courses.
We could all support that
Shush tom, grown-ups are talking.
ReplyDelete"Shush tom, grown-ups are talking."
ReplyDeletelol!
And Tom, are you suggesting Bradford isn't a communist? What happened, she saw the light? I must have missed the memo.
Tom, you need to be careful. A law was recently passed that forbade anyone with the name of Tom commenting on blogs.
ReplyDeleteYou'll be interviewed and assessed for psychological problems. If you have nothing to hide, this shouldn't be a problem. We'll remove any children you have from your home and relocate them to some volunteer pedophile whilst we process your test results and all going well, this will look good on your record should you make another comment on a blog at a future point in time.
Don't feel too alarmed, only one Tom in 10 are selected in this way, so it's not as if it's persecution or anything.
Anyway, there was no need to spend this kind of money on a referendum, it could have been included at the ballot box for a fraction of the cost. Blame the politicians.
And it seems to me they are resisting the notion of the referendum because they perceive the voters are telling them what to do. Aren't they silly?
Don't address what I said then
ReplyDeleteHey tom If you cant hit Adults, What is that Cops do with Batons/Tassers/& Guns?.Are they just for show.?
ReplyDeleteThe need for them is triggered by defiance.The force used must be reasonable under the circumstances
The sametrigger and restriction applies to the use of force on children,obviouisly significantly more mild , but the principles remain the same.
If you cant "hit" dogs what are those electronic Dog control training devices do Tom? Are they just for decoration? Must be alot of dumb farmers out there. They think that when they activate the control panel it sends an electric/sound wave, shock (reasonable and for the purposes of correction)thru the dogs collar. Funny how it has 100 different settings of varying intensity,silly me ,I guess they're just for decoration as well
Whitaker! well done I think you have the answer, fit all those naughty children with those collars and give them a little zap if they are "naughty"
ReplyDeleteSame principle as a smack but so much easier you don't even have to bend down
Don't address what I said then
ReplyDeleteJust so. You see tom, it's pretty much 4 years since Bradford's bill was pulled from the ballot and during those 4 years, while you were struggling with NCEA and wondering whether Kaylee will let you feel her tits if you put more effort into being nice, people with blogs were arguing this very issue and dealing with exactly the superficial and unconvincing points you've raised here, among many others. I'm sorry you missed it, but we can't really be arsed revisiting it for you. If you do some Googling you'll turn it all up.
You know then,I am sure then, If you have been following this debate for four years There are alternatives to hitting your children.
ReplyDeleteYou do not need to do it
It causes them pain and is ineffective therefore
my original point was that the main objection seems to be "the fact that you perceive that someone is telling you what to do."
And that person being Sue B makes it worse.
So you huff and puff and defend the indefensible namely
IT IS WRONG TO HIT CHILDREN
no ifs not buts no maybe
s
Would you like the address of your local positive parenting course?
(I wouldn't mention Kaylee's tits though if I were you though)
Tom,
ReplyDeletehow old are your children and are you the primary stay at home parent?
Or is PM correct, and you're a just out of high-school, wet behind the ears uni student, full of ideas and opinions but no actual experience.
For you are arguing with experienced parents that are much older than you. At least twice your age.
Myself, I have two boys aged 12 and 8. I parent very positively and have helped other parents to do so. Most of the time it is enough. However, sometimes, it is not enough.
I used to believe absolutely in the non-smacking way of raising children. That is until my first child turned about 3. Age 3 to 4 is generally revelation time for non-smackers.
And if you don't even have children, you have some nerve telling us how to parent.
It seems to me that, the thing that has upsets you the most.isn't that you can't hit your kids.
ReplyDeleteits the fact that you perceive that someone is telling you what to do.
It's not a perception. It's a law. A law saying the state can intervene in the life of a family for the most trivial of reasons, and ultimately provide a disproportionate response.
Although, you and your ilk might believe you are justified to remove children from a good family because a parent may have smacked a child. this is the thrust of your comments. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. Just 100% judgment that this is wrong, and a law that in 5 or 10 years time will be increasingly enforced for all the wrong reasons on the wrong groups of people.
And that someone is that "commie" Sue B
Well, it does explain the poor reasoning behind the law change.
Its all rather silly.
Until you lose your children to some CYFS zealot.
You' can't hit adults or dogs
or anybody else's kids but you want the right to hit your own
A rather stupid argument. I'm not responsible for raising you and making you eat your greens and brush your teeth. I also do not have the same emotional attachment as I do to my children, who I love above all else, even my life. I'm not seeking the right to beat my kids, I'm trying to ensure the state does not interfere with my right to raise my family, and for them to misinterpret something trivial and over-react.
And now we have to spend 9,000,000 dollars on this stupid poorly worded referendum
If you cared so much about tax payer dollars, I'd be impressed. Yet you probably vote Labour or Green and are prepared to ignore the billions they've wasted because the ideology suits. We could have saved the 9 million by adding it to the election. Send the bill to Helen or Goff.
The group that proposed it would be better of withdrawing it and asking for the money to be spent on positive parenting courses.
Let's close down the Family Commission and use their $30 million on this instead. Three times more effective.
You know then,I am sure then, If you have been following this debate for four years There are alternatives to hitting your children.
And you'll probably find that the parents commenting here know about such techniques and use them. I may have smacked my children a couple of times in the last 12 years.
You do not need to do it
It causes them pain and is ineffective
Prove that it is ineffective. In the right circumstances, when not over-used it is very effective.
therefore my original point was that the main objection seems to be "the fact that you perceive that someone is telling you what to do."
Wrong. We are talking making a law that good parents become criminal by default, and have to rely on the police to decide not to prosecute. You clearly want to make smacking illegal, the natural next step is to enforce that, with all of you "no ifs, buts and maybes" that it is never justified, ever. So what penalty do you want to inflict on parents and children for this? And why should laws be made that make people criminals if its supposed to be ok to give a "light smack"?
That's why this question is good. It forces the issue down the line of smacking being illegal or not. No "it's illegal but we might let you off if we feel like it"
And that person being Sue B makes it worse. So you huff and puff and defend the indefensible namely
IT IS WRONG TO HIT CHILDREN
no ifs not buts no maybes
A smack is not the beating you imagine it to be. If it's wrong to discipline a child physically, it's also wrong to do it mentally. No time out, no hurting their feelings, just trying to make a two year old see reason before they are equipped to evaluate such concepts.
Would you like the address of your local positive parenting course?
My family are doing just fine without your long distance judgments and false assumptions, thank you very much.
I have 3
ReplyDelete20 21 23
Never smacked any of them
took 7 years off paid work to parent as I took/take is seriously
They are all working two have degrees
one with masters with honours
All great kids.
Even betwixt the ages of 3 and 4
I never encountered any problems that had to be dealt with by smacking them.
I did however spend a great deal of time on the floor playing and communicating. This is I feel the key. My career options suffered really badly for having all that time from the workforce. But my kids are have grown up healthily with a good sense of right and wrong.and participate in a constructive way to NZ society.
So far be it from me to tell you how to parent, BuT i have done it successfully and never struck a blow at all.
SO from my extensive experience NO you do not have to hit your kids just need to put some time and effort into it
Cheers
AH, the other end of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteThe know it all, aged hippie who no longer has to concern himself with state intrusion into his family, but is happy for it do so to others.
Funny how you and 20 year olds sound the same online.
"The know it all, aged hippie who no longer has to concern himself with state intrusion into his family, but is happy for it do so to other "
ReplyDeleteoh that is just stupid
i have just related to you a really positive story of raising children without recourse to hitting them. a story with really positive outcomes
And that is your reply Ye gods
The state tells me my kids have to wear a helmet on their bikes , the state tells the have to go to school,The state tells I can't rape my wife etc etc
Surely there have to be other things to fight for other then the right to hit your kids?
PS My children also have the ability think for themselves and make their own decsions
One votes National
One Green
The other is not interested in politics but is flirting with xtianity {maybe I should have hit at least two of them :-)]
"They are all working two have degrees
ReplyDeleteone with masters with honours"
There are degrees...and there are degrees.
eg a master's degree with honours in say--socioligy is worth about as much as a cake decorating certificate from the local night classes.
"There are degrees...and there are degrees.
ReplyDeleteeg a master's degree with honours in say--socioligy is worth about as much as a cake decorating certificate from the local night classes."
Well its a master in finance with honours actually
The other has a science degree
That good enough for you?
With all due respect Tom, I'd say the success you have had with your children is not because you smacked or didn't smack. If you had of smacked them once or twice, do you really think it would have changed the outcome?
ReplyDeleteI'm very happy with my upbringing, and I got the occasional smack. I don't feel damaged, are you trying to tell me I am? Are you trying to tell me my parents were bad?
A smack might be unnecessary, there may be alternatives, but as far as I can tell, my children have had more "pain" at having to eat some vegetables or miss a TV program than they got from an occasional smack when the continued to exceed acceptable boundaries of behaviour.
And like you, our family has parents who have made sacrifices over career and income to ensure more time with our children.
We are not unusual though, and it's not the smacking or not smacking that makes the difference.
It's just a story, Tom.
ReplyDeleteI don't know you from a bar of soap.
I also don't know your children.
Nor do you know mine.
At no point have I said that you should have smacked your children while they were growing up.
Maybe you are right and you have done a fine job of raising them, setting boundaries and ensuring that morally they are the best they could be.
Even if you didn't, they are your children and no one should have the ability to tell you should do this or that, or not do this or that.
Did you vaccinate your children, exposing them to pain for their own good? Many parents do, and they consider the harm from the injection to outweigh the good from the vaccination. Yet, it is possible to raise children without vaccinating them, and they don't die of terrible diseases.
Yet, to mandate vaccination would be immoral, to mandate smacking would be immoral, to mandate non-smacking is immoral.
Smacking does no harm, and if you think it does, you are an idiot.
Rape, on the other hand is harmful, and to equate smacking to rape indicates some sort of intellectual incapacity on your part.
I do know children that are being raised right now without any physical discipline what-so-ever.
One of them, I had a major problem with a number of years ago, because it turned out the little shit was beating my child (his best friend) when he didn't do what this kid wanted him to. It was such a common occurrence, and my kid is such a stoic little guy, he didn't tell me for a whole year. Fortunately, the beater suffered from broken arms during that year (first one and then the other and then the first one again), so that the number of months where he was able to use them to punch my son was limited.
This kid is also exceptionally rude (though he's growing out of it), and does everything that an adult tells him to really slowly.
He may grow up to be just fine, however, I think because of lack of consequences in his life to some of his actions, he will have problems in some areas.
I also know a parent (a Dad) who, when his daughter refused to put her seatbeat on, sat outside our house for nearly an hour waiting for her to do so, so they could leave. If it were me, I would have just made her put it on (smacking IF necessary), and saved myself, the other child and the person waiting with dinner at home a lot of time. This way, the daughter knows she can manipulate her father, if she is willing to put the time into it. Not a good thing, in my opinion.
So, while I certainly believe it is very possible to raise children without smacking, it's even possible to raise children without much discipline at all, the measure of success is not just whether or not that child can get a university degree. The measure of success has to be in how they get on in society (without being addicted to anything), whether that person can form a long term commitment to a job and to a relationship, and ultimately, can that person raise a good family themselves.
So many questions
ReplyDeleteZen The refrain from smacking reinforced the teaching that hitting people is wrong.i can hardly say don't hit little Jonny from Playcentre and then hit them beacuse s/he didn't do their seat belt up.
And Lucia I think it goes without saying that I agree whole heartedly that the measure of success is how well they get on in society
I am just trying to my bit help form a society that is free from violence, and to that end my conscience is clear
cheers all
time to eat my tofu
Saturday, June 20, 2009 4:26:00 PM NZST
ReplyDeletetom said...
So many questions
Zen The refrain from smacking reinforced the teaching that hitting people is wrong.i can hardly say don't hit little Jonny from Playcentre and then hit them beacuse s/he didn't do their seat belt up.
Why not TOM?
Not a callow yoof activist? Just writes like one? OK then. Must have been hard work maintaining that burning sense of self-righteousness into middle age, but if Bradford can do it I suppose anyone can.
ReplyDeleteDidn't smack your kids, tom? Good on you. You're a true hero. Here's a medal - you'll have to imagine it as it's an imaginary medal. Now, while we're imagining, let's imagine Larry Baldock persuades the govt that you not smacking your kids was a criminal act likely to prejudice their sense of self-discipline, and the govt passes a law accordingly. You're now a criminal because Baldock doesn't like you not parenting the way he does, but don't worry - the Police will exercise discretion and most likely not prosecute you for it, although CYF may well be paying you a visit if any of your kids mentions they've never been smacked. Question: would you be chuffed?