Would you believe it, but television psychologist, Dr Nigel Latta, has given the thumbs ups to the anti-smacking law after undertaking a review of the law for the Government.
Oh well, that's ok then. Our fears as parents of being unfairly persecuted by the Government for disciplining our children are obviously groundless. Nigel Latta says so.
This morning, I was listening to Nigel Latta being interviewed on NewsTalk ZB. The angle taken was that Nigel Latta was respected by many parents in NZ who watch his show, and had been one of the prominent critics of the anti-smacking law, therefore was a great person to undertake the review and assure parents that all was well.
Having never heard of Nigel Latta, nor seen his show, this lead to some bemusement on my part.
At times while listening to him, it occurred to me that it sounded like he was channelling a mix of Sue Bradford and John Key, so similar were the words and phrases and ideas that he put forward.
I don't know how independent television personalities are, nor do I know how honest Nigel Latta is in putting forward his opinion that all is ok, that the law is not being persued in the way that it was written by Parliament, rather their intent is instead being honoured. But, my criticisms of the law have always extended beyond the immediate fear that most people have that the police are going to be banging on their door everytime someone hears a crying child.
Meanwhile, those of us who are never satisfied (apparently, according to two talkshow hosts that I've heard so far), are still going to complain. Can we just move on? I mean, Nigel Latta says so!
Related Link: Nigel Latta gives OK to anti-smacking law ~ Stuff
Oh well, that's ok then. Our fears as parents of being unfairly persecuted by the Government for disciplining our children are obviously groundless. Nigel Latta says so.
This morning, I was listening to Nigel Latta being interviewed on NewsTalk ZB. The angle taken was that Nigel Latta was respected by many parents in NZ who watch his show, and had been one of the prominent critics of the anti-smacking law, therefore was a great person to undertake the review and assure parents that all was well.
Having never heard of Nigel Latta, nor seen his show, this lead to some bemusement on my part.
At times while listening to him, it occurred to me that it sounded like he was channelling a mix of Sue Bradford and John Key, so similar were the words and phrases and ideas that he put forward.
I don't know how independent television personalities are, nor do I know how honest Nigel Latta is in putting forward his opinion that all is ok, that the law is not being persued in the way that it was written by Parliament, rather their intent is instead being honoured. But, my criticisms of the law have always extended beyond the immediate fear that most people have that the police are going to be banging on their door everytime someone hears a crying child.
Meanwhile, those of us who are never satisfied (apparently, according to two talkshow hosts that I've heard so far), are still going to complain. Can we just move on? I mean, Nigel Latta says so!
Related Link: Nigel Latta gives OK to anti-smacking law ~ Stuff
Whoever Nigel Latta is, he's probably cheap too!!
ReplyDeleteLOL!
ReplyDeleteVery cheap!
ReplyDeleteDont worry. Over the next few years we will gradually have more an more of these so called experts explaining how well the current law is working.
ReplyDeleteThe question is Who will be next??
Paul Henry would be my pick!!!
I've blogged on his show, and believe it to be very good.
ReplyDeleteBut his review is clearly questionable. The idea that "nothing has changed" doesn't actually sit next to "the law is working". Don't even get me started on the intent of the law, because you'd have to pick from among the various postions that Sue took (and still takes).
In short, if the law hasn't changed anything, it isn't working - changing something was the entire point.
The other problem is that things might be fine *now* but (as we've always said) it could easily be a few years down the track before the abuses really start. The problem *now* is that the law is going to encourage them.
But more amusingly, isn't it funny that the Family First stories were different once all the facts were on the table? Someone needs to point out that cuts both ways - i.e. the riding crop case appeared to be violent but on close examination was rightly regarded by a jury as reasonable, and not abuse.
Yes, the riding crop.... A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
ReplyDeleteIt irks me no end that the sheeple have no interest in exploring why 12 randomly selected individuals agreed that it was not abuse. It stinks of hypocrisy and perversion of democracy to me.
It amazes me that a judge can find the mother "not guilty" and yet CYFS can seize and abduct her child against his will, and not return him.
ReplyDeleteIt amazes me that this was not widely reported.