Hollow victory for pro-smacking group.
The votes are in and the result is pretty clear despite those who live in a constant state of denial...politicians like Sue Bradford. 87.6% is a pretty clear response and the overall voter turnout was better than your average local body election. I guess she needs a slap to say..."oi...flawed or not...New Zealander's are sending you a message". You have to be pretty politically blind not to see it.
Sure, you can brush off the fact that it was a loaded question, certain groups getting international funding and so on...but no one can deny the response and if I was able to and I will be on my facebook page, trying to find out some of the reasons why those who voted NO, voted no in the first place...because I think the results will be interesting.
Did I vote no because I like to smack? No.
Did I vote no because I support people who abuse children. HELL NO WAY.
Then why did I vote no? I voted no because the parliamentary process that enacts our laws, and should be protecting them failed. It failed families and to some degree is still failing families. But this law, invaded the home...and that in my mind crossed a line. I voted no, because a government and allied parties did a deal together to appease a minority and one persons vision of a nirvana...a peaceful society.
I voted no...because a government was telling me the best way to discipline a child when necessary. You know, it was enough with the strap was removed from schools and the outcome of that is school discipline flew out the window with them. A government then moved to remove some of the more enjoyable aspects of school foods...trying to tell a parent that you can't have them order a meat pie if they wanted.
Has this law change though reduced child deaths? Stopped abuse? No. But to be fair, I don't think any law really can stop it completely. It is an unfortunate side of life. However when you look at the recent headlines of children being abused in various forms, it does not give me the confidence of Green MP Sue Bradford or others who say "this law is working".
CYF agencies all over the country have such a backlog in cases that the police are having trouble keeping up. This year it was announced that over 300 CYF staff were going to lose their jobs. At a time when they need them the most, they are losing their jobs!!! Regardless if they are administration staff, they support the workers so they don't have to be bogged down in paper work.
I have to say though that the question to me was a loaded one and only really offered one possible sensible answer...and it was not in my mind YES. A yes vote supports the current law. A law that went against the overwhelming public opinion that this is not what was wanted by the people. One commentator said "This law change was sold on the pretext that it would stop the senseless murder and physical abuse of infants. Only a fool would expect a law to be able to stop everyone committing such acts".
I voted no because I believe that a parent has the right to chose how to discipline their own child within appropriate measures. I voted no, because I do not believe that a government has a right to impose its will upon its people especially when its representatives are required to vote on a moral or ethical issue along party lines. I know for a fact, members of Labour and some of her allied parties would have voted against the law change had it been a conscience vote.
Commentator Phil Jackson who wrote in a Herald and I have quoted in this blog said this law came in as a "disrespect for democracy". I know our former MP for this area went to his people and made it clear their anger against the proposed changes...yet...he was not able to exercise his conscience or the will of those he represented because it was not a conscience vote.
With what is being proposed by the Prime Minister in terms of some instructions to the police and details of what may be considered acceptable, I'm happy for the law to remain un-changed.
Another example:
I was listening to someone the other day talking about allowing our kids to experience the natural consequence of their actions. A pretty stupid and narrow view of the intelligence of some kids. Lets look at some scenarios that kids tend to get themselves into at times and ask what are the natural consequences.
There are more productive ways of disciplining than smacking. I totally agree and for me, a smack is a last resort...but at times...a necessary one. I support the YES campaigners in trying to deal with abuse and abusers. But this is not the way in my view.
That's my 10c worth.
Sure, you can brush off the fact that it was a loaded question, certain groups getting international funding and so on...but no one can deny the response and if I was able to and I will be on my facebook page, trying to find out some of the reasons why those who voted NO, voted no in the first place...because I think the results will be interesting.
Did I vote no because I like to smack? No.
Did I vote no because I support people who abuse children. HELL NO WAY.
Then why did I vote no? I voted no because the parliamentary process that enacts our laws, and should be protecting them failed. It failed families and to some degree is still failing families. But this law, invaded the home...and that in my mind crossed a line. I voted no, because a government and allied parties did a deal together to appease a minority and one persons vision of a nirvana...a peaceful society.
I voted no...because a government was telling me the best way to discipline a child when necessary. You know, it was enough with the strap was removed from schools and the outcome of that is school discipline flew out the window with them. A government then moved to remove some of the more enjoyable aspects of school foods...trying to tell a parent that you can't have them order a meat pie if they wanted.
Has this law change though reduced child deaths? Stopped abuse? No. But to be fair, I don't think any law really can stop it completely. It is an unfortunate side of life. However when you look at the recent headlines of children being abused in various forms, it does not give me the confidence of Green MP Sue Bradford or others who say "this law is working".
CYF agencies all over the country have such a backlog in cases that the police are having trouble keeping up. This year it was announced that over 300 CYF staff were going to lose their jobs. At a time when they need them the most, they are losing their jobs!!! Regardless if they are administration staff, they support the workers so they don't have to be bogged down in paper work.
I have to say though that the question to me was a loaded one and only really offered one possible sensible answer...and it was not in my mind YES. A yes vote supports the current law. A law that went against the overwhelming public opinion that this is not what was wanted by the people. One commentator said "This law change was sold on the pretext that it would stop the senseless murder and physical abuse of infants. Only a fool would expect a law to be able to stop everyone committing such acts".
I voted no because I believe that a parent has the right to chose how to discipline their own child within appropriate measures. I voted no, because I do not believe that a government has a right to impose its will upon its people especially when its representatives are required to vote on a moral or ethical issue along party lines. I know for a fact, members of Labour and some of her allied parties would have voted against the law change had it been a conscience vote.
Commentator Phil Jackson who wrote in a Herald and I have quoted in this blog said this law came in as a "disrespect for democracy". I know our former MP for this area went to his people and made it clear their anger against the proposed changes...yet...he was not able to exercise his conscience or the will of those he represented because it was not a conscience vote.
With what is being proposed by the Prime Minister in terms of some instructions to the police and details of what may be considered acceptable, I'm happy for the law to remain un-changed.
Another example:
"A woman I know spent nine months carrying her baby, with morning sickness in the first trimester, and toxaemia in the final few weeks. The baby's head was too big for her birth canal and a caesarean with epidural was needed.
That baby woke three or four times nightly for over six months causing countless lost hours of sleep. When that baby grew into a 10-year-old and one day went too far, with the woman already stressed out, she slapped her child on the face. Under this legislation, she could have become a criminal.
In summary, the new law prevents smacks for correction without any basis, has a test that could never be absolute and objective, and was meant to stop deaths. In reality the architects of this law were uncomfortable with parents giving their children physical discipline and wanted to impose their ideals on others".
How true this statement is. The test is "in the public's best interest". How broad is that...and who is the public to decide? Now...if I was, like the late Michael Jackson dangling my kid of a high rise building, yeah, I deserve some flack...but if I want to clip my kids ear for not listening or getting their attention on the wrist then I don't expect to be labeled a criminal, which is the fear. I can't discipline my kid without being in fear that if someone saw and didn't understand, I'd wind up in cuffs.I was listening to someone the other day talking about allowing our kids to experience the natural consequence of their actions. A pretty stupid and narrow view of the intelligence of some kids. Lets look at some scenarios that kids tend to get themselves into at times and ask what are the natural consequences.
- Sticking a metal fork, spoon or knife into a power socket.
- Playing with a knife.
- Touching a hot iron.
- Playing on a road.
- Stealing or lying.
There are more productive ways of disciplining than smacking. I totally agree and for me, a smack is a last resort...but at times...a necessary one. I support the YES campaigners in trying to deal with abuse and abusers. But this is not the way in my view.
That's my 10c worth.
Labels: law and order, New Zealand Politics, Smacking referendum
posted by Wiremu Bayliss at
11:27 am
0 Comments
