Pardon the pun in the title, but it appears that the "anti-smacking" bill is really fast becoming the most talked about thing in NZ since TomCat's wedding.
This week's Woman's Day has an article on it with views from both sides, Simon Barnett from shows such as Face the Music, is against the bill with families also being used on both the for and against benches.
The newly launched Cleo website www.cleo.co.nz also has a forum running on it, which shows just how much this bill is in the minds of young people as well as parents and law makers in NZ. Some of the comments on this forum are quite interesting.
I must say that I was please to see in the DomPost the other day some opinions from children's points of view, and also that Cindy Kiro is making sure that it is their best interests we are looking out for.
I am for the repeal of Section 59, something which is of no suprise to anyone as I have stated my stance on this bill many times. The next few weeks and months will be filled with intense debate and hopefully no more ridiculous filabuster attacks will launched.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Is that all you are saying on it?
Come on....more.
I'm glad there is more time to debate this issue despite Clark and co trying to rush it through and Clark bullying her own MPs to vote together on this.
If this was such a brilliant idea, shouldn't she allow a free vote on this? Why is 80% of NZers against changing it? And why did Helen Clark say that she would never vote to repeal the law only to take it back later on?
Do you really want the Govt to tell you how you should bring up your children? Next they will be telling you what to feed your children!
Hi guys,
Section 59 should not be repealed because this is an instance of the Government invading the family.
Smacking and abuse are not the same thing, or even comparable.
As Mitch of www.smackingback.blogspot.com said,
"...If something isn't done about this now, next they will be telling us that due to high rates of "child abuse" (i.e. parents smacking their
children for correctional purposes), you now need to apply for permission to HAVE children, and as an extension of this, you may need a permit for any act likely to lead to children..."
cool blog neways, and check out www.politik.co.nz
Yes, mention "the family" and the worm will go up. What a load of bollocks. Repealing section 59 is all about protecting the family and creating a culture that does not endorse domestic violence.
No it's not. It is the Govt telling people how to bring up their children. Do you think it will change violent parents?
I doubt this will save a single life, however it will create problems for police who should be out arresting real criminals.
Heine I disagree with you saying that Helen has bullied MPs into voting en masse, however I do think that this should be a conscience vote, especially as the easter trading hours bill will be decided by conscience vote.
I think the culture that it hopefully brings about will discourage violent parents. Besides, Heine - if the bill isn't going to change anything, like you claim, then what is the harm in having it?
Oh. Crikey.
Pam, your above question was lacking in intelligence on so so many levels.
I'll focus on the topical one: you missed big brother's meaning completely. What the bill won't change is the level of violence and abuse towards children.
What it WILL change is the number of parents who will be treated as criminals for smacking their children.
Even if the police don't investigate (and in their words they'll have to investigate every complaint), then CYFS will still be most interested in who smacked who.
It will not stop bad parents beat their children, but it will make criminals of parents who give their kids a wack. And it will encurage kids to dob in their parents if they are pissed off by their punishment.
Even Helen herself said when she was smacked as a child she felt very resentful afterwards. Then again, she also said she would never support a ban on smacking!
This should be a free vote, but because Helen won't allow this it means she knows she does not have the 100% support of her caucus.
The harm? Well, let's see:
1. It gives the state, not simply the Police but far more scarily CYF, much broader scope to interfere in people's lives and generally fuck parents over. You may not find this a significant issue while you don't have kids and your party's in govt, but both those conditions might change.
2. It's fundamentally stupid to pass bad laws that rely on the Police not enforcing them. That harms the legislative process and the image people have of govt, the law and the Police.
3. The culture it's likely to bring about is one in which those ineffectual parents you see wittering helplessly while their kids raise hell are held up as the ideal, and the self-indulgent narcissists they raise as model citizens. Lots of potential harm in that.
4. Against that harm is the supposed "message" that's being sent to child abusers. Maybe Sue Bradford hasn't noticed, but the kind of people who break a toddler's bones are remarkably resistant to such messages. The only people getting a message out of it are the non-bone-breaking parents, and the message we're getting is "You can't be trusted to do the right thing, so the govt will supervise." The typical parental response isn't a pleasant one, let me assure you.
What it WILL change is the number of parents who will be treated as criminals for smacking their children.
I am actually willing to bet cash that parents that already smack their children will not get prosecuted. This is not what the bill is for.
" Besides, Heine - if the bill isn't going to change anything, like you claim, then what is the harm in having it?"
Ahhhh Pam...? In the past I have called you an airhead which you have resented.But the above comment shows I was being generous.....you are a vaccum! Have you never read history and seen that Governments have used all sorts of "pointless legislation" passed by previous administrations to inflict massive harm and misery upon people in a way never dreamed of by the bills original authors...?
Once a piece of legislation is on the books its there to be used in abused in ways never envisioned.
Pamziewamzie said...
"I am actually willing to bet cash that parents that already smack their children will not get prosecuted. This is not what the bill is for"
I am filing this post of Pam's with time and date for future reference...
So why have it then? You already aren't allowed to thrash your kids within every inch of their lives!
It just doesn't make sense.
We should have the bill so that the real child abusers can be prosecuted and not be able to use the defense of reasonable force.
I don't think either of us can predict the future James... But I'm still on for the bet. ;) And just because I have an opinion you disagree with does not make me an airhead...
And Seamonkey, I'm not an authority on the issue so I suggest you ask someone else in Labour.
I don't think either of us can predict the future James... But I'm still on for the bet. ;) And just because I have an opinion you disagree with does not make me an airhead..."
No you are a vacuum as I previously said.You have been re-classified. ;-)
xxx
Did your mum teach you to insult women when you fancy them?
xxx
James, keep away from Pam :) How much you putting on for this bet, I want in!
Pam, real child abusers can already be arrested, so whats the use of having this new law?
I didn't mean child abusers, I meant parents that ocassionally smack their kids. Um... make the time period 6 months after the bill passes. And I'll bet a bottle of Moet because that can be sent to London. If you want to bet as well ;)
It will take Pam six months to save enough on her benefit to afford that Moet. ;-)
I want into this bet too. If I win I want a private showing of Pam doing braless star jumps to the tune of..."Don't you wish your girlfriend wsa hot like me". LOL! Sexy time is here ....high five!
If Pam wins I'll give all my Asian sweatshop staff a 5 cent pay rise and half a day off....deal?
Heine...I can't help it! She keeps on hinting to me about her anal fixation....Im trapped! ;-0
The cops have said that they will treat it as a criminal act if it is reported on. An occasional smack will be as illegal as a clip round the ears and a thorough beating with a stick.
As I said, serious abuse is already illegal. Most of the country agree that it is a frivulous and unecessary bill. Even places like Fielding got over 300 people marching against it. The public simply do not agree with Labour this time.
We'll see Heine, we'll see.
I'M NOT ON A BENEFIT. I look after kids to pay my bills. Braless star jumps are a no, but you can get me a bottle of Midori and a bottle of Baileys if you want. Because they make nice shots.
P.S. No anal fixation. LOL.
good god, and yet I found myself imagining the star jumps to that song. James you're onto a winner :)
Another song I considered were "Can't touch this"....MC Hammer.
But as my hands would have been occupied anyway....;-)
"P.S. No anal fixation. LOL."
Yet she mentions it again! "Pam's erotic adventures along the Hershey highway"....there's a movie in that! ;-)
Now back to thrashing the kids because I don't know the difference between that and smacking them...;-)
Post a Comment