Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Message to National

Good on Audrey Young for properly describing ACT's opposition to the anti-smacking bill;

The Act MPs come from a libertarian tradition and believe that the bill not only criminalises parents who smack but that it is an example of state interference in people's lives.

Thanks to National's compromise (that's right, the party that purports to believe in 'personal freedom') today power will be transferred from judges and juries (the people) to the police and CYF (the state). This isn't the trifling matter some think. God knows we need to do something about a small group of people who are not fit to be parents but that doesn't mean we have to submit to the state a massive degree of control over good and functioning families. There is absolutely no need to go this far.

And another thing John Key. You have opened the door to much, much more. Having succeeded with this folly the likes of the Children's Commissioner, Barnardos, Bradford et al will move to pushing for compulsory school checks. Then they won't need to wait for a report on a child - they can make their own. They will run the same stunts they used this time. Distorting figures, whipping up hysteria over what is, again, a problem being generated by a very small percentage of families.

You say you have saved the people from being "hung out to dry". No you haven't. You have just rolled over in the first of many battles the state will wage against innocent families. The War on Poverty, the War on Drugs - now the War on Child Abuse. More harm than good will come of it. Considerably more.


Anonymous said...

We sort of assume politicians are intelligent; they deal this a lot of complex issues. Really though at the end of the day they stand up and poffer(?) opinions. I would like to see a public input form that politicians have to answer (tick or leave comment), that way we could pin them down on silly assumptions.

I think you express that point well (ie state versus people)

Anonymous said...

why is it sometimes necessary to do word verification twice??

Anonymous said...

The confusing thing is that they all seem to be in agreement and Bradford seems happy. The impression therefore is that Bradford won...?

Andy said...

Right anon.

If the ammendment really was a compromise, then "Ms" Bradford would not have that smug smile on her face.

The communists have one the day. They have not won, but they have kicked dirt in the face of everyday reasonable, good, caring mums and dads of New Zealand who care enough about their children to give them a smack now and then.

The issue is not about smacking, it is about Should the Govt. have this much say in how I or my family opperates?


Anonymous said...

Bradford's arguement for this bill didn't get the support of majority of the population, and yet it was passed. Whatever the government believes, the general public don't agree with them and I hope they remember that the Labour government doesn't take any notice of their beliefs next time they vote.


Anonymous said...

Simple is removing a defence "anti-smacking"? It's not. This was always about removing a defence in the law that is ONLY used by people who have physically abused their children to the point that (a) it was noticed and (b) the Police considered had a fair chance of getting a prosecution. This was never an anti-smacking Bill. Now, Bradford's motivation may well have been oriented that way. But get real, this Bill simply removed a defence used by Child Abusers.

Scotty said...

Anon - it is ignorant to say that this is not an anti-smacking bill. It will prevent anyone defending themselves for smacking their children. They will have no legal right to smack their children.

How then can you not call it an anti-smacking bill?!!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, who asked a 'simple question'-

You proport that people who physically abuse their children have used section 59 as a defence, but to do this they have to show that the force used to discipline a child was reasonable. Beating a child senseless or belting them against the wall and/or kicking them, is not reasonable in any circumstances and yet many of these cases still go unprosecuted as they are not reported.

I suspect that the few cases which have successfully used section 59 as a defence have been distorted by proponents of Sue Braford's bill.

The only thing this bill has achieved is preventing reasonable people, who want their kids to obey the rules, from using smacking as an effective tool to achieve that.