Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Lucia What is wrong with John Key?

National is not going to support a private member's bill that in effect, gave John Key a face-saving way out of further infuriating the nation over the smacking issue. Either he's mad, totally stark raving bonkers, or something else is going on in the background, something that John Key doesn't want to tell us about. My guess is the latter, given the extreme discomfort in his voice when interviewed a couple of days ago.

Related Link: National will not support Boscawen bill ~ NewsTalkZB

60 comment(s):

Unknown said...

Kudos to JK
He has gone up in my estimation
Would never vote for him though

Lucia Maria said...


Tom, you've just articulated why this stance is political suicide. Simultaneously impressing those who would never vote for him, with pissing off those who did is complete and utter stupidity.

Andrei said...

DPF commented that this Bill presented J Key with an opportunity

An opportunity to show that he is a PC wimp and out of touch with middle New Zealand

Lucia Maria said...


Yep. Our leader is a wimp. Something Helen Clark said to him before he voted on the smacking bill last year has had him on a leash since.

Makes a mockery of the whole idea of voting out a government, doesn't it?

I'm guessing that those that have been defending him to this point are going to start falling off soon.

Unknown said...

I have always thought that Key could also have just have easily been leader of the Lab Party.
He only ever wanted the T shirt

I know what it is like to strongly believe in something and be thwarted.
You have my sympathies, but I'm pleased as punch (if you excuse the expression )

What now for you guys Act or NZF ?

Bogusnews said...

Well that's it then. I voted National last time as I thought they were the best of a bad bunch.

Clearly I was wrong. I just hope that NZ'ers show this arrogant government just what they think of it.

Madeleine said...

Call me cynical but I think that Key opposes smacking but is aware the public are not there yet so he is happy to leave smacking illegal, not prosecute for the time being and wait for public opinion on smacking to shift, as it always will, in favour of the law.

Madeleine said...

Like the Dim Post said (but without the colourful language) who else are we going to vote for?

I.M Fletcher said...

Also, I just watched Sue Bradford give a statement on TV about the bill being drawn, and she says she doesn’t think those who voted No would want the State coming in and telling them how much force they should be allowed to use to correct their children.

I was stuck for words..

I.M Fletcher said...

Madeline, I don't know..
I mean, with 87% of the country behind you (even taking into account the percentage that voted) why would he not change it now? I just don't get it. Someone must have something on him.

Unknown said...

One word: "astounded"

I can't believe that John Key is so foolish as to think that this won't hurt his chances of getting reelected.

Thanks to Key, Winston Peters has just been handed the golden goose that will lay him plenty of eggs at the next election.

Shem Banbury said...

Like the rest of you have said I cant believe this situation. With such a large majority this is the perfect chance to get rid of a the Bill that sunk Labour.

Key must be hiding something.

Unknown said...

Has John Key just become a political dead man walking?:

Unknown said...

You could always vote for a selection of Christian parties and completely split the right/conservative vote as they will all get probably under 5%

The only church that Act worships at is the God of money (did they not get kicked out of the temple?) So they are out
I reckon NZF is the way to go
The kiwi party are nutters
Yes its got to be Winston

Gooner said...

Lucyna, I have been reliably informed that National's caucus is quite split on this. Hekia Parata is leading the split apparently followed by some of the other female mothers in the caucus.

Unknown said...

As opposed to the non female mothers

Lucia Maria said...

Go the mothers!

mickmac said...

I voted my party vote to ACT last time and will next time as they are the only party to have acted with integrity towards us on this.

I still voted for my local candidate.

I suspect what you said madelaine about Jk's motivations is correct however it need not come to pass.

I would ask you do you reward bad behaviour by your kids?
Do you ignore repeated bad behaviour?
No you sanction them.

So give John Key and National a smack on the election day.
They are the one's who have broken the social compact.

Party Vote ACT like I did.
It's fair, right and they were warned.
We don't have a time out place in this.
ACT but don't moan.

Murray said...

Vote for me, I only have one policy at the moment.

Repeal Bradfords law that does nothing.

Others as they come to mind.

Ciaron said...

How are those rose tinted glasses working out for ya, Tom?.

Unknown said...

Well the Leaders of all the major political parties in Nz
All the child welfare agencies
Paediatrics' society
All seem to agree with me
Now why do you think that would be ?
certainly not rose tinted glasses I would think
Larry et el lost, the moment they used a flawed question in the referendum.
Why on eath didn't they just ask

Due you support the repeal of sect59?

if they had asked that question then the result would have had some validity
As it is, it doesn't
I am afraid the referendum has helped you lose the argument
Because lost it certainly is.
Now no amount of wailing and knashing of teeth is going to change that
Perhaps now both sides can meet and use our energies to do something useful ,like trying to stop child abuse in New Zealand
instead of revisiting an old tired argument that is going nowhere

Unknown said...

“Should parents have the right to hit their kids without fear of prosecution?

Would you support that for a question?

Ciaron said...

Please stop using the word "hit". A hit is not the same as a "smack".

And the referendum question was written with respect to the way the law is currently written.

"Perhaps now both sides can meet and use our energies to do something useful ,like trying to stop child abuse in New Zealand
instead of revisiting an old tired argument that is going nowhere"

- Didn't Soo say this law would stop all that?. If Soo is so concerned about the children, what has she done a bout the 14 children who have been brutally murdered since her law was introduced?.

I don't have a solution for this problem (well, not a pc one) but its clear as day; banning corporal punishment will not stop scum from killing their partners offspring.

KG said...

Tom said:
"Well the Leaders of all the major political parties in Nz
All the child welfare agencies
Paediatrics' society
All seem to agree with me'

There's just one tiny problem there Tom.
The majority of parents in NZ don't!
And when you quote organisations and occupations as 'agreeing' with you then you begin to look like an utter prat.
An organisation may have an official position on any given issue, but that doesn't mean every member of that organisation agrees with it.
As for doctors and nurses, the ones I work with appear to be overwhelmingly in favour of a parent's right to smack their children. To suggest that people in those two occupations speak as one is either idiotic or dishonest.
You choose.

Unknown said...

Major Parties=
Nats Lab
Defined as all those polling over 2%
nurses docs ?
Their professional bodies agree with me

Stopping child abuse isn't going to happen overnight with a change in legislation we all know that its a false hood to claim otherwise
It is going to take a lot of hard work and education.
It seems unfortunately we obviously have to start with the basics
And even have to educate even simple things like that a smack IS the same as a hit

A smack is defined as to hit someone, especially a child, with your open hand in order to punish them

From following the debate and reading copious amounts of comments
It would seem that most people rarely smack and then only lightly
Good on them. However if one fails to draw a line in the sand re smacking.
People who have not got the same amount degree of of control as you fine people will hit harder and some harder still.
The drawing the line in the sand therefore is a first small step on the road to help stopping child abuse.

If you were to consider this as contributing to the greater good rather the your perceived self interest
and make that small and step to supporting this legislation then maybe just maybe we can all start to make a difference

Also I passionately believe that we have far to much child abuse in this country.I'm sure you do to.
I don't think taking our cues from organisations who's leaders hit their kids with kitchen implements is the way to go.
In fact in our effort to cut down on child abuse the LAST person we should be listening to is a guy who encourages
hits with wooden spoons. in my humble opinion that is not a good look.

To get back to my original point child welfare agencies et al people on the coal face of dealing with child abuse,
A huge majority of parliament
all agree the repeal of sect 59 was a good step.
One thing I am sure of is that we all ultimately want the same thing for the children of NZ

Ciaron said...

Look mate, I have spent several years practicing and teaching marial arts. I would be more than happy to demonstrate the difference between hitting and smacking if you so wish, because this is the line in the sand, and you can't see it. you repeatedly blur the line between correction and abuse, and of coures child welfare agencys are going to agree with you, they only see the abuse.

the real causes of child abuse have been identified time and again here, and on other blogs, and yet nothing is done to combat these real causes.

Unknown said...


The biggest flaw in your argument is the idea that making smacking illegal will actually do anything substantial to reduce violence against children.

The simple fact is that the research shows us that LESS parents today use physical discipline than parents of 20 years ago did.

BUT at the same time, the rates of child abuse and child death are far, far higher than what they were 20 years ago.

This clearly shows that there is no causation, let alone correlation, between the use of mild physical discipline and child abuse.

Now when you consider this alongside the fact that light smacking is actually an effective parenting tool, you quickly realise that there is no rational grounds for the Bradford anti-smacking law.

Unknown said...

Look we have the PM, Goff et el
the Paediatrics' Society et al on one side of the debate

and the main cheerleader on the other....
wants to hit kids with kitchen implements
I'm sorry I am with the professionals and parliament on this one

smacking is on a continuum
a light smack at one end, a good bashing at the other
we all draw the line we will not cross at a different place.
one man's smack is anthers Biff

Please read this article on the Canadian example the contortions of defining ‘acceptable’ levels and methods of hitting children
it gives real examples of the law in action

Scott said...

I think smacking is good and should be used to correct children. I think Tom (and others) are completely misguided on this issue.

My main reason is the bible says it is good and I hold that up as a reference point of truth. Otherwise it is all opinion isn't it really?

However reason also shows us that children can become wild and undisciplined and need correction. The law needs changing otherwise we will continue to raise a generation of wild and unruly young people.

Indeed the referendum shows that 88% of NZers agree on this and so John Key needs to act straight away and change the law in my opinion.

Unknown said...

Is there anybody left who takes the bible literally?... moving on

My Question is

How do we change the culture of acceptance of violence towards kids.?

Wanting to hit them with kitchen utensils is probably not a good place to start

Lucia Maria said...

How do we change the culture of acceptance of violence towards kids?

A good place to start would to stop mothers from killing their babies because they are inconvenient. That sets up a subconscious thoughtform throughout society that children are not valued, and therefore worthy of protection.

Unknown said...

A good place to start would to stop mothers from killing their babies because they are inconvenient

What ?
care to be more specific?

Lucia Maria said...

Oh come now, Tom. Don't be so coy. Surely you remember those babies whose lives are taken every year by abortion. 18,000 or so, in NZ, every year. Paid for by the taxpayer, I believe.

Unknown said...

Which is a tragic figure I completely agree We need more feely available contraception. sex education, better parenting more restrictions on the sale of alcohol for a start

However when the ones that don't get aborted are are born having a kitchen implement ready to whack them as soon as "one" considers them able to take pain, is not so hot an idea either

Ciaron said...

Bloody Nora, Tom. Now you're just talking complete shite.

Shem Banbury said...

Dearest Thomas (Tom)

Our young people are the most educated on sex and they have contraception more accessible than candy, but has that helped. NO. Unless you mean count an increase in teenage pregnancy and abortions as a good thing.

I suppose your idea of 'sex education' is what Family Planning currently do in our schools at the moment. Condoms on banana's etc. Have you been to a current sex education lesson in our schools??? They are a glorified 'how to' sex lessons.

Next up on your list of how to reduce abortions is 'better parenting'. That is a little ironic considering the issue we are talking about.
"Hello we are the state - we will raise your kids, tell you how to educate them, tell you how you have to raise them and then when everything hits the fan it is the parents fault due to lack of knowledge."
You should be a politician Thomas.

God bless you Tommy

Unknown said...

It's also worth pointing out that according to a 2006 report from the Guttmacher Institute (the pro-contraceptive, pro-abortion research arm of Planned Parenthood), the claim that more readily available contraception will lead to less abortion is simply not correct.

Unknown said...

Family life" what the betting i can find a report which completely contradicts your report.
The discussion is however worth having
We probably agree that teenage pregnancies and in turn abortions are too high
kids certainly seem to be maturing earlier and are sexualised (if that is a word) from a very early age.
I looked at a teenage magazine a friend of my daughter was reading and was simply appalled
Maybe teaching self esteem would be good start
the whole consumerist society thing where sex is used to sell anything to anyone probably has a lot to do with it

Thanks for the God blessing by the way
But the whole trinity thing. God, Jesus and a biscuit ... seems just, well , wierd

Ciaron said...

"kids certainly seem to be maturing earlier and are sexualised (if that is a word) from a very early age."

do you think that might have something to do with "education"?

come on Tom, answer ONE of my questions.

Unknown said...

I wasn't aware that I wasn't answering your questions
do you think that might have something to do with "education"?

Yes most definitely education from school parents and society
your point?

Ciaron said...

The point is thus, and do try to keep up.

the very same brains that decided that teaching 12-13 year old's about sex, and lowering the drinking age to 18 in the belief that the would reduce teenage pregnancy and underage binge drinking (working really, no?)are the same brains proclaiming the abolition of corporal punishment will end child abuse.

forgive me if I seem skeptical.

need any more dots?.

fatty said...

If we stop teaching youths how to practice safe sex teenage pregnancies will drop?
Is this what you really believe?
Spend an evening watching MTV/C4 to find out where youth's desires come from, its not from putting a condom on a banana in class.

Maybe you've stumbled upon an idea for car accident deaths involving young people?
We can stop teaching them the road rules and how to drive before they get behind the wheel.

Unknown said...

Or maybe Noddy, we could teach our kids about road safety the same way we teach them sex education - we could tell them to make sure that if they're going to drink and drive they should always practice safe drinking and driving by never exceeding 50kph, and always using the back roads.

We could also teach them safe-speeding, by telling them that they should always wear a seat belt and a crash helmet if their going to drive at excessive speeds.

After all, their going to do these things anyway right?

So surely we should be teaching how to reduce the harm, just like we do when it comes to sex education?

In fact, perhaps we could teach our kids safe obesity classes, where we tell them that if they're going to eat far too much without exercising, then they should practice safe obesity and always make sure they're wearing a pacemaker - less risk of heart attack death that way.

I.M Fletcher said...

Well Noddy, that is all part of the problem isn't it? Sex is being used to promote music videos and sell everything from deodorant to pizza.

Let me try and use an example: suppose we use violence to sell stuff everywhere - on music videos, on TV ads, in movies - saturate kids lives with it. Now let's take loaded guns into schools to show kids how to be SAFE with them; let them handle them, load the magazine, give them free bullets to take home, show them videos about how to kill, where to shoot someone to do the most damage - but all with the stratagem of NOT getting them to use guns.

Now what do you think is going to happen? Kids which would not have had the slightest interest in weaponry will begin to be very interested in it all - might get hold of dad's gun and shoot someone accidently.

It's the same with sex - only thick, PC liberals don't seem to be able to get it. If you show a kid something, they'll want to try it; no question.

What society has to do is desexualize kids. STOP letting through the sexy videos and ads and movies; produce entertainment with morals; promote chastity; have parents teach their kids about sex when they think they're ready; stop giving them free contraception and - when they screw that up - free abortions.

Society has become inured to sex all around it; has lost the ability to be embarrassed when they should be.

We seem to think it weak now to have to blush about anything.

I.M Fletcher said...

FamilyLife - snap!

fatty said...

Oh? teaching the correct use of a condom is like teaching them to drink and drive sensibly.

Seems like someone is scared of sex? Don't be scared of sex, be scared of the negative effects.

Ciaron said...

Yeah Noddy,Because sex-ed in schools has had SUCH a positive effect on teen pregnancy & abortion numbers.

Tui ad here.

I.M Fletcher said...

Noddy, pretty much. The purpose of a condom is so that people can enjoy all the sex they want with none of the responsibility, commitment or consequences.

Lucia Maria said...


In answer to your question of kitchen implements - I decided a long time ago, that if I was going to smack, it would only be with the flat of my hand and only on the backside or the hand. My reasoning was that if I was to inflict pain, then I wanted to feel the level on myself so that I knew the force was not excessive.

So no to kitchen implements, but not because I don't think there is anything wrong with a wooden spoon, I just wouldn't use one myself.

Back at school, a ruler was the weapon of choice for the nuns. The noise and the crack of it was certainly pretty damn scary. Certainly got a child's attention.


The problem with analogies is that while they can give you an idea of where the person is coming from, the analogy is inadequate.

No one here is scared of sex. We just don't treat it as a recreational activity that has no long term emotional effects or physical outcomes.

When sex is taught as just a recreational activity, it seriously messes up the relationship dynamics between men and women, and creates a society where those that have "failures" are left paying the price for everyone's hedonism.

We would not have the high numbers of women and children subsisting on the DPB today if society's view on the proper place for sex (between a man and his wife only) changed. Because sex is so special, it ought to be reserved only to the person you promise to love forever. While as sex ed at school teaches it as something you do for fun.

See the difference?

Shem Banbury said...

Noddy. Have you been to a sex ed class run by Family Planning??? They basically promote sex to our young people and then we wonder why we have such a high preg and abortion rate in NZ.

Firstly, I dont believe that sex ed should be taght in schools. However, if it is to be taught it needs to be taught much differently than it currently is. Sure their are good programmes out there but there actually needs to be balance to what is taught. Will this stop the teenage pregnancy rate and high abortions? Maybe not But currently the information most of our young people get is so one sided it is not funny.
For me the fact that SO many young people in New Zealand are sexually active is troubling. I am sure better/balanced education would achieve a drop in this number.

Ciaron said...

Ozy, I remember a (native)classmate of mine asking the teacher what would happen if he "took a piss up her". it was all a big joke to them.

Unknown said...

Family life.. and always using the back roads.
well that would sure bring down the unwanted pregnancy rate

Ciaron said...

Now that is totally un-called for.

fatty said...

"Because sex is so special, it ought to be reserved only to the person you promise to love forever."

Sorry LM , kids aren't going to listen to that.
People under 16 are having too much sex, we can all agree on that, but how do we stop it?
I think the issue is the media, read a magazine for teenage girls. Ozy may be right that sex ed classes are promoting sex. But is teaching someone how to use a condom promoting sex? Taking away sex ed in an attempt to have less 'promotion' of sex is a very dangerous option. Do you really think youths will stop having sex if these classes stop? With everything else influencing them? And if it doesn't stop or reduce the amount of sex, what will be the consequence of having uneducated (unprotected) sex?

Leonidas, give me some evidence that sex education classes are increasing sex? Real evidence, if you are going to give me some figures and make a casual link, don't bother.
(And next time you try to make a point I wouldn't put the word 'native' into a sentence in a negative context. Some people might think that's racist).

Unknown said...


You have fallen into a false dichotomy by suggesting that it's either the current flawed sex ed or nothing.

What we need is a completely revised sex education which places greater emphasis on the full implications of sexuality (rather than just reducing sexuality to the level of mere physical mechanics).

It also needs to be revised to provide students with full and frank disclosures about actual condom failure rates and limitations, chemical contraceptive risks to women, and full information about sexual diseases.

At the moment students are given woefully inadequate information in all of these areas, and as a result they are making sexual health decisions without full possession of all the relevant facts - basically you have a whole generation of people who completely overestimate condom effectiveness because of the faulty information they have been supplied.

Coupled with this, there also needs to be a societal change which rejects the media sexualization of our young people - that's something that we, the older generations, are ultimately responsible for allowing, or encouraging, to happen.

Unknown said...

"...give me some evidence that sex education classes are increasing sex?"


I can provide you with reliable research from Uganda which shows a massive reduction in adolescent sexual activity AFTER condom based sex education programs were dropped and replaced with abstinence based programs instead.

It's basic risk replacement theory - people will expose themselves to greater risk if they wrongly believe that the previous level of risk has been removed.

So it is with condom based sex education - our kids are led to believe that condom use removes all risk, and so they take greater risks with their sexuality because they wrongly believe that condoms provide an immunity to sexual disease.

Ciaron said...

Noddy, give me some hard evidence that they are a blinding success. But point taken on my rampant racism, I retract it fully, no-one said "Au Miss, wot happins if piss [when I am] up her" and none of the other Tangata Whenua and Polynesian kids were in fits of laughter and none of the NZ European kids were totally disgusted. You were there, tell us what happened.

ZenTiger said...

Leonidas, give me some evidence that sex education classes are increasing sex?

I did a post on this a while back. The UK sex education program, a massive spend of money and resource, resulted in an increase of pregnancies and abortions in the under 16s.

So they said "we just need to spend more money, that will do it"

Shem Banbury said...

how do I link to this post?? You have one link and I would like to add another. I am with wordpress??

ZenTiger said...

We have "backlinks" switched on, so when the Blog Search tool indexes your site, a backlink should appear on this site.

That's the theory.

Sometimes we get totally incorrect links back to a post, and sometimes we don't get any links when there are some.

As it happens, I've just created a post linking back to yours, because I thought the issue worth promoting.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.