Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Smack to the Future

358 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 15 Newer→ Last

  • Russell Brown,

    Go ...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22848 posts Report Reply

  • Ian MacKay,

    As I guess everyone knows, the NO voters seemed to be voting for something quite different from my understanding. Even an interview with the successful petitioners last night on late TV 1 News, seemed to be talking about a different issues. When asked in what way was the Repeal failing to work properly, they talked instead about serious crime against kids still going on.
    What it all says to me is that any Government better watch out. Once the population get a taste for "rebellion" it might be hard to deal with. When even us ordinary folk realise we can collectively have effective voice,(as we should have), then get your act together. The dragon is stirring!

    Bleheim • Since Nov 2006 • 498 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Well, I've just e-mailed John Key and Phil Goff encouraging them to tell Larry Baldock to look up the words "non-binding" then go lovingly correct himself. (Yes, I put it marginally more politely than that.)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Ian MacKay,

    A Bill has been prepared saying "Smacking may be used for the purpose of correction."

    Bleheim • Since Nov 2006 • 498 posts Report Reply

  • Andy Fraser,

    A great victory for propaganda.
    I fear we'll see Chester Burrow's amendment resurrected. This will be spun as 'not a change to the law' and will make it a very difficult proposition to change back to the law as it is now.
    I am heartened by the 'low' turnout.

    Invercargill • Since Jun 2009 • 33 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Martin,

    The Herald today :

    Police say they have taken only one prosecution for "smacking" in the first 21 months since the law was changed, and it was withdrawn when the main witness declined to give evidence.

    If it ain't broke...why 'fix' it?

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 187 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    then go lovingly correct himself.

    Friendly fellow that his image portrays (not). If I was 3 and he came at me with that glee and stance I would run away. And somewhere else in NZ another child suffers.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Like I said on another thread. I wonder how many people voted no because they think smacking is wrong and, subconciously, couldn't help but say no. Know what I mean?
    The picture of Larry Baldcock brandishing clenched fists is rather telling, "Comonnn, let me bash those damned kids now"
    Somewhere , a child waits, for a damned good thrashing.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Danyl Mclauchlan,

    So what next?

    If Key's smart he'll kick this for touch until the election year and let Labour doom themselves to electoral oblivion over some trivial rewrite of the amendment.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Friendly fellow that his image portrays (not).

    Oy and vey... I found myself getting all Miss J. over that picture (viewers of ANTM will get what I'm talking about): "Girlfriend, what was that? I said make love to the camera not date rape it."

    And I say this out of a spirit of (Tory) tough love: Dear John (Key): Grow a pair or borrow mine.

    Another quibble with the linked story: I've known Simon Collins for a long time, have enormous respect for the man and he's smart enough to know a majority of a bare plurality of registered voters is NOT "88 percent" of "New Zealanders". I'll be generous and assume he screwed that up hard on deadline.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Andy Fraser,

    If there is any backsliding, the only 'good' that will come of it is that Baldock et all will then 'own' any abuse cases that occur. Just run that picture of the man celebratng his obscene belief in his right to violence to children alongside any abuse story.

    Invercargill • Since Jun 2009 • 33 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    If Key's smart he'll kick this for touch

    Poor choice of words there Danyl, especially after this week, but then again, smart?:)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Ethan Tucker,

    Isn't the most efficient response the Government could take to the referendum result simply to issue a press statement saying, "It isn't. Move on"?

    Wellington • Since Apr 2008 • 119 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Gracewood,

    I'm conflicted. The discussions I've had with friends have actually changed my opinion a bit. No matter how much I disagree with their parenting choices, I support the law as it stands allowing for instantaneous physical force for to intervene (more detail here)

    But I do not want a law that allows for premeditated physical force, which is what Baldock thinks he has a mandate for.

    Orkland • Since Nov 2006 • 168 posts Report Reply

  • Ian MacKay,

    Ben. I am a bit conflicted as to what you now believe? If you consider that "instantaneous physical force for to intervene" means smacking, consider this. Pysical force could mean grabbibing a kid from running out on the road, holding his hand to stop her from running into danger, picking her up and removing her from the supermarket, taking him to time out. On reflection the smacks that I gave my kids years ago were because of MY frustration not to protect them at all. When cooled down the crime seems unimportant. In an ideal world we would simply say no hitting kids at all.

    Bleheim • Since Nov 2006 • 498 posts Report Reply

  • David Haywood,

    It's interesting to compare this with Proposition 8 in California -- another case where the majority were voting to take away the human rights of a minority.

    On the one hand, this case seems worse, as the minority in question (i.e. children) don't even have the right to vote at all. On the other hand, happily, the majority wasn't actually a majority of registered voters -- and the referendum here was non-binding.

    I guess you've got to take your good news where you can find it.

    Dunsandel • Since Nov 2006 • 1156 posts Report Reply

  • Danyl Mclauchlan,

    I guess you've got to take your good news where you can find it.

    The way I see it, the good news is that the amendment was originally designed to close a loophole in the crimes act that a small number of people were using after seriously assaulting their kids; that points been lost in all the screaming and hysteria over 'child abuse' and 'nanny states' but the loophole is closed and all the signs indicate that Key has no intention of opening it.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Gracewood,

    Ian, to clarify: I have friends that I love and respect, who have wonderful children that they happen to smack (usually in direct response to an incident).

    Personally, I abhor smacking in all cases. Perhaps this is because my son is naturally well behaved (I prefer to think we raised him well). Or my wife was never smacked. Perhaps I would have smacked if the time and place were different Who knows?

    Hence my conflict. I don't want my friends prosecuted (which they won't be unless they smack for "correction" under current law). BUT, I'd prefer if the law banned physical force against children altogether, just like adult assault.

    In my experience, conflict over parenting choices is a surefire way to well and truly screw up a friendship.

    Orkland • Since Nov 2006 • 168 posts Report Reply

  • tim kong,

    I trust Larry will now be putting together a referendum on the suitability of bringing back corporal punishment to schools.

    As an adult in a position of scholarly responsibility - entrusted by you the great unwashed masses with your child from the hours of 9am until 3pm, for approximately 40 weeks of the year - it's only fair that I be entitled to the same rights of correction and discipline as I attempt to shape the minds and bodies that will carry the future of our fair nation into the future.

    It's merely a natural progression I feel.

    Suggestions for the question: "Should decent thrashing as a part of good teaching and learning, be a criminal act?"

    /sarcasm

    I'm also assuming that Larry and co. will be punching their fists in the air with these sorts of headlines appearing around the world.

    NZ Referendum Backs Smacking of Children

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 153 posts Report Reply

  • David Haywood,

    Danyl Mclauchlan wrote:

    The way I see it, the good news is that the amendment was originally designed to close a loophole in the crimes act that a small number of people were using after seriously assaulting their kids...

    Well, yes -- ahem -- there is that...

    Dunsandel • Since Nov 2006 • 1156 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    So maybe we're going to get a law .... those of us against smacking may be fighting a bit of a rear-guard action - so just what is "smacking a child" as opposed to "beating the crap out out of a child"? it could all get wonderfully muddied, we could define a smack as "something done at a force of less than N newtons" - probably pretty impossible to prove either way in court - better might be a test that defines smacking as "does not break or redden the skin or raise welts of bruises".

    Equally we could also follow the referendum to the letter and state that an affirmative defense require the parent to prove that it was part of "good parenting" ... and then let the courts (and not the police) judge them ....

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2622 posts Report Reply

  • tim kong,

    It's not exactly light reading, but these are the police guidelines on s59.

    http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 153 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    Go ...

    Don't tempt me.

    The DomPost described the referendum result as "thumping". It also suggested that Key wouldn't change the law to appease the thumpers, which is the opposite of what the Herald implied in its headline.

    So when can we start correcting our journalists, is what I'm asking.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    One thing that really disturbed me was that Baldock wants to bring back hitting with instruments, not just using open hands. It's bad enough that a not insignificant number of voters think it's acceptable to use violence to correct your child's misbehaviour, but that they're being lead by the nose by a man who thinks that assault with a weapon is OK is just too much to stomach.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    From the quote it sounds like he's done some thorough experimentation. The fucker.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 15 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.