• Login:
Welcome, Register Here
follow PropertyTalk on facebook follow PropertyTalk on twitter Newsletter follow PropertyTalk on LinkedIn follow PropertyTalk on facebook
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1

    Default The Anti-Smacking 'Law' Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by drelly View Post
    Do you still beat your children Damap? Just asking... (not a serious question... obviously)
    Beat his children? That sounds pretty serious to me unless you're, with the Sue Bradford anti smacking law crusaders?

    87% of those polled didn't want the bill yet our governing "democracy" rail roaded it through even though PM John Key said "Its a complete & utter dogs breakfast". Backflips from Helen Clark along the way too.Minority vocalists at work at the beehive.. yes lol, sadly.
    Last edited by mrsaneperson; 01-06-2013 at 05:50 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Auckland, NZ.
    Posts
    619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrsaneperson View Post
    Beat his children? That sounds pretty serious to me unless you're, with the Sue Bradford anti smacking law crusaders?

    87% of those polled didn't want the bill yet our governing "democracy" rail roaded it through even though PM John Key said "Its a complete & utter dogs breakfast". Backflips from Helen Clark along the way too.Minority vocalists at work at the beehive.. yes lol, sadly.
    87% of those polled don't mind violence against children?

    But violence against adults is bad and = assault?

    Oh dear NZ.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    191

    Default

    lol @ violence

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Whangarei
    Posts
    5,867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SwissKiwi View Post
    87% of those polled don't mind violence against children?
    But violence against adults is bad and = assault?
    Oh dear NZ.
    That's how I felt about it too. The opposition to that legislation was an embarrassment. And I don't even like Sue Bradford!

  5. #5

    Default

    Not meaning to railroad the thread .I side with Larry Baldock organiser of that referendum against the anti smacking bill .Once again it was legislation that Sue Bradford rammed through and it was undemocratic no matter what your view on it was.It went against the majority of New Zealanders opinion. So many of those who sided with it certainly had no respect for those opposing it in terms of democracy .That was more important than the bill itself.So we all sit back & let our democracy crash.Here is an open letter Larry Baldock he wrote to Sue Bradford back in 2009:


    Open letter to Sue Bradford from Larry Baldock Referendum Petition Organiser
    9 August, 2009

    Sue, I watched the forum on Maori Television Friday night with you, Dr Hone Kaa and Bob McCoskrie. How I wished I was there to respond to the drivel you continue to repeat in defence of your anti-smacking law. “Adults can’t hit each other so adults shouldn’t be able to hit children,” is probably the main argument you and your supporters use to justify your law that is now criminalising good parents all over this country.
    Let me tell you why you are wrong and why your argument is flawed from the very beginning.
    Firstly, some adults can hit others without breaking the law. They are called police and we give them this authority because we know that in some circumstances someone must use reasonable force to correct the unacceptable behaviour of some adults in our society. If I were to throw a wobbly and begin to refuse to submit to the laws of this country, and act in a threatening manner to persons or property, the police could hit me with a baton, taser me with 50,000 volts of electricity, handcuff me, and backed by the justice system, even enforce my timeout in a correctional institution if necessary for a number of years.
    It is probably widely known in NZ that you have disliked this authority that is entrusted to our police ever since your early protesting days when you sought to assault some of our good men in uniform. Truth be known you probably would like this authority to use reasonable force for the purpose of correction to be taken away from the police as well as from parents, but most of us in this country are comfortable leaving such power in their hands.
    So let me say it again, it is not true that it is always against the law for an adult to use force against another adult if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. Sounds very much like the old sec 59 doesn’t it!
    Your second error is made when you constantly bleat on about how children should be treated the same as adults in law because this neglects that fact that sec 21 & 22 of the crimes Act has always treated children differently by giving them specific exemptions from prosecution for any criminal activity they may commit.
    We do this for two reasons. Firstly, because they are not mature enough mentally and emotionally to be held accountable to adult laws. Your line of argument for equality would demand that when a two year old at Preschool lashes out and hits another two year old the police should be called to arrest them for assault, then prosecute and jail them like adults. That of course would be ridiculous.
    And secondly this exemption was given for children because it was widely accepted by society that they should not have their behaviour corrected by the police, but rather by their parents who would be in a much better position to do so.

    Now, as a consequence of your ill-considered law that has removed any legal authority for parents to ‘use force for the purpose of correction,’ we have empowered children and disempowered the parents that society reasonably expects to be responsible for their children’s correction and training for adulthood.

    Thirdly, this argument of yours is stupid because it does not recognise the difference in relationship between a husband and wife as two mature adults, and the relationship between adult parents and their children. This constant referral to an old law that permitted a husband to correct his wife adds nothing to the real debate about parental correction. Of course these laws of inequality between men and women should have been changed and it is a shame it took so long.
    Women’s suffrage was also slow in coming and the recognition of the equal right of women to vote was an important victory. Your argument for equality between adults and children though, could lead to a suspicion that you might think that 3 and 4 year old children should vote as well. Perhaps this is a little close to the truth as I have read how the ‘yes vote’ campaigners have been calling for the opinions of children to be heard in the anti-smacking debate already.

    A husband is not responsible to make his wife go to school, a wife is not responsible to make her husband eat healthy vegetables, take a bath, etc (though some may argue they have to anyway) therefore the pleas you make for equal rights cannot be logically argued.
    Actually as most of us parents know, children have far more rights than we do because they get food, clothing and shelter all free of charge without having to lift a finger to work for it or pay for it. And as parents we would say this is right and good, as we willingly become their slaves 24/7, because they are the most precious gifts we are ever entrusted with.
    Their value and worth are priceless. But with the awesome responsibility parents carry for the welfare of their children, they should be trusted in the same way as our police are entrusted with the authority to use reasonable force for the purpose of correction when needed, without the interference of the state.

    Sue, when my wife and I were traversing the country collecting signatures from thousands of good Kiwis from all walks of life, do you know what they were most upset about?
    They wanted to know when it was that you earned the right to become the ‘mother of the nation.’ What possesses you to think that you know more about raising children than the hundreds of thousands who have raised healthy, well adjusted, law abiding citizens in this country. Though they have been smacked and corrected they have not grown up violent and disrespectful, and this argument you make about smacking creating violent adults is not supported by any sensible research that distinguishes between reasonable force and a beating and abuse.
    In this wonderful free country of ours you are of course entitled to your views, and you can parent your kids and give advice to them on how they raise your grandchildren as much as you like, but don’t try and tell me my mother was a child abuser when she corrected me as a child.
    You know Sue, we have clashed a few times in debates on different topics over the past few years. I have never yet heard a proposition from you that really stood the test of common sense and proper scrutiny. How I would love to debate the anti-smacking issue with you again before all the votes are cast. Perhaps there may be some media organisation that could serve the public of NZ by setting up such a contest.
    A contest between just you and me. You, as the author of the anti-smacking law and dedicated supporter, and me, the organiser of the referendum petition and dedicated opponent.
    You said you would be willing to meet for a debate with me anywhere anytime. Let’s do it. The taxpayer will cover your travel; I’ll take care of my own.

    Regards,

    Larry Baldock
    Kiwi Party Leader

    021864833

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Auckland, NZ.
    Posts
    619

    Default

    Adults should be allowed to hit children because police are allowed to hit people?

    That is not an intelligent argument. Words like stupid, drivel, bleat don't help him either.

    The intelligent parent would learn parenting skills that do not rely on violence.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Whangarei
    Posts
    5,867

    Default

    Like I said... embarrassing.... Democracy voted in Hitler by the way... LOL

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drelly View Post
    Like I said... embarrassing.... Democracy voted in Hitler by the way... LOL
    Used for dramatic propaganda effect. Their is much debate if it was or not a democratic process , nevertheless he was a dictator , ironically you show yourself to be one too;similarly usage of dramatic words like "violence, hit or beat" instead of the actual specific & more accurate word "smack"; shows you are willing to distort to avoid having any kind of democratic process implemented because you hold a minority opposing opinion as does SwissKiwi.
    You show you are not interested in democracy & more interested in a dictatorship run by minority vocalists who share only your point of view. Alarming !And this unfortunately is what is happening in NZ more & more. At our own peril & erosion of democratic principles we do this.

    If i had been in the minority opinion camp like yourself & sided with the Sue Bradford anti smacking lobby & the bill hadn't been enacted, i would not have liked it but would have acepted it because my opinion was the minority one & i respect that we live under a democracy NOT a dictatorship.
    Last edited by mrsaneperson; 03-06-2013 at 12:24 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    191

    Default

    mrsaneperson big thumbs up from me

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Whangarei
    Posts
    5,867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrsaneperson View Post
    Used for dramatic propaganda effect. Their is much debate if it was or not a democratic process , nevertheless he was a dictator , ironically you show yourself to be one too;similarly usage of dramatic words like "violence, hit or beat" instead of the actual specific & more accurate word "smack"; shows you are willing to distort to avoid having any kind of democratic process implemented because you hold a minority opposing opinion as does SwissKiwi.
    You show are not interested in democracy & more interested in a dictatorship run by minority vocalists who share only your point of view. Alarming !And this unfortunately is what is happening in NZ more & more. At our own peril & erosion of democratic principles we do this.

    If i had been in the minority opinion camp like yourself & sided with the Sue Bradford anti smacking lobby & the bill hadn't been enacted, i would not have liked it but would have acepted it because my opinion was the minority one & i respect that we live under a democracy NOT a dictatorship.
    What a lot of silly waffle. My point is that "majority rules" does not mean the mob is right. I don't really give a shit about political process if it means doing something harmful. Democracy is only as valuable as the public are educated and I'm afraid that people are getting more stupid rather than more enlightened.

    What exactly is it that you disagree with? I'm not sure why anyone would not want children to have the same legal protection as adults?
    59 Parental control
    (1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
    (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
    (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
    (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
    (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
    (2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
    (3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
    (4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 26.05.2016 - Budget Debate - Part 3
    By PTWhatAGreatForum in forum Finance, legal and tax (NZ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28-05-2016, 05:26 PM
  2. Little advice on the keep/sell debate
    By jesseliz in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-09-2014, 12:36 PM
  3. Amazing, Gob-Smacking Tenant Try-on Tales
    By Perry in forum Tenant Stuff (NZ)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 17-02-2012, 08:06 AM
  4. First Election Debate - what a debacle!
    By donna in forum General (NZ)
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 21-10-2008, 01:17 PM
  5. New Law - Anti SPAM - watch out!
    By donna in forum General (NZ)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 28-02-2007, 10:36 AM
  6. The Carpet Debate: Depreciation or Expense?
    By jksmurf in forum Finance, legal and tax (NZ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-06-2006, 05:18 AM
  7. Anti-Monopoly
    By Julian in forum General (NZ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21-09-2005, 07:51 PM
  8. More on the P&I versus IO debate
    By Gerrard in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 23-03-2004, 08:06 AM
  9. Alarm at reopening of Superannuation Debate
    By Marc in forum Finance, legal and tax (NZ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17-03-2004, 02:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •