Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Simon G - Destiny NZ got enough votes for a seat at the last election (they didn't get it of course, because we have a rule in New Zealand that if you don't get an electorate seat you have to earn enough votes for six list seats before you get one).
And I'm with Weston too - Simon Barnett did an incredible job of making the "pro-smacking" case.
-
If anybody needed proof that internet polls are a joke, check out the results on the Stuff and Herald websites.
Two differently worded questions, leading to very large majorities, respectively, for and against the amendment.
Not at all. You could well get the same result with proper scientific polls asking the same questions (as they are very different questions).
I doubt there is anyone who considers the amendment makes the bill worse (though many don't think it makes a difference).
I'm one of those people who voted one way on one poll and the other on the other. The amendment makes the bill more palatable, though personally, I'd have preferred Key's original wording, but this is better - the polls reflect this.
Think of an analgous question:
are you pleased that the proposal to add 50% to the price of petrol has been cut to add only 20%?
- most people think yes (the Stuff poll).Is the petrol price increase now a good idea?
- most people still think no (the Herald poll). -
Interestingly, Assoc-Prof Kevin Dawkins (University of Otago School of Law) completely dismisses this claim.
Yep - it's a completely ludicrous claim.
I don't think bill supporters have too much they can complain about when discussing media protrayal of the bill with the ludicrous arguments many (not just on the fringes) of them are making:
* It doesn't make smacking illegal
* Smacking is already illegal
* The proposed amendment codifying the safety from prosecution of parents whose smacks are (and it has to be all three to get someone off a charge) light AND minor AND inconsequential is worse than the present lawetc.
There are many many good reasons to ban smacking. Some have been made here, and some have been made in a few other places. Sue Bradford has made very few.
-
If only all/most support of the bill came in this form, we might have had a far better public discourse.
In 1957, Sweden was the first country to make hitting children illegal.
This, for example, is one place where you diverge from the arguments of those supporting the (albeit highly likely to be unenforced) corrective smacking ban.
Hitting children has always been illegal in New Zealand.
-
Children have been pretty silent over s59
Wasn't there a photo of some cute kids opposing the bill on the front page of the DomPost :)
-
Nobody important - it's not Paul Holmes ego, but his mana...
-
Sonic said:
Indeed the situation is the same as being drunk in a public place, which is technically illegal. You could walk down Queen street on a Saturday night and report all the drunks you saw, the police would be obliged to "investigate: but I'm pretty sure no-one would get prosecuted.
It used to be illegal (when we had the Police Offences Act, rather than the Summary Offences Act). It no longer is, if you're intoxicated (incapable of properly looking after yourself because of alcohol or drugs) you can be taken to a detoxification centre while you sober up (but I understand none were ever actually designated).
-
Ben:
If you lose all that then the story is really just Biggles Goes to School. Not that the latter isn't a fine story in it's own right.
Man, I've never been able to find Biggles Goes to School. I've Some rare ones (including some of the ones with racist overtones), and some first editions, but that one has always alluded me...
-
Kyle - you could call it the anti-assault bill, however, that wouldn't stop the bill being a legislative expression of Sue Bradford's desire for parents to reconsider smacking, which she considers a bad idea.
There are many things this bill can be accurately called - and the positive parenting bill is a great one - but just because it could be called these things doesn't mean "anti-smacking" is inaccurate. It is accurate, along with a number of other epithets that could have been, or are being, applied.
Perhaps we can now have another debate - is Helen Clark a New Zealander, or a long-time member of the Labour Party? Careful, you can only pick one.
-
Whatever one thinks is the rationale behind this bill, it is an anti-smacking bill.
Even if no parent is invesatigated, let alone charged following light smacking.
Even if CYFS never consider taking a child from a family because of this bill, and none of the other doomsday scenarios come close to fruition.
Even if, this is still an anti-smacking bill.
It may be a bill designed to send a message that it is not good to use force against children. Or that there are better alternatives in disciplining one's children.
Sue Bradford is anti-smacking, she wants everyone else to reconsider smacking, because she believes that it is wrong. She has proposed a bill to send a message that children are precious and should not be smacked. Whatever the legal effect, even if all this bill is is a legislative message to parents, that message is anti-smacking, and the bill is anti-smacking (it certainly isn't pro-smacking, and it's difficult to view it as neutral, either).
And when many bill supporters have taken to calling those who oppose the bill "pro-smacking", or "child-beaters" they probably aren't in too great a position to complain.