The Underworld Of Lightly (& Logically) Moderated Discussion & Debate


    Smacking referendum...again

    Share
    avatar
    canterella
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Smacking referendum...again

    Post  canterella on Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:26 am

    check this out:

    A group behind the "Vote No" bloc in the smacking referendum received around $1m over six years from a conservative American religious group.

    That US organisation advocates a return to "Biblical values" and its founder says "a little bit of pain goes a long way" for children.

    The disclosure comes as one of the country's top Anglican clergy has condemned the attitude of Christians who claim a "God-given right" to use corporal punishment against their children.

    "I am concerned that a particular stance on child discipline has too often been characterised as 'the' Christian view," said the Very Rev Ross Day, Dean of Auckland's Cathedral of the Holy Trinity.


    whole article at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10592610

    I seriously worry about the sanity of 47% of population who voted No in this referendum, do they really want to be associated with those screaming lunatics.
    And is there any other more important issue in this country than the parents' goddamned right to physically discipline their chattels. Like, unemployment? Or supercity issues? Or child killings? for instance
    avatar
    canterella
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Smacking referendum...again

    Post  canterella on Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:36 am

    correction: 54% voted, 0,3% of those who voted spoiled their votes, 88% voted no and 12% voted yes.



    Plus, my suspicions that Larry Baldrick is mad as a snake, has been confirmed with his own words:

    But Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock, who organised the petitions which forced the referendum, said he did not think there was any chance the National Government would go back to that proposal. "I don't think the Prime Minister or the public really have the appetite for another round of that scheme or a new law," he said.

    He proposes simply deleting two clauses in the Bradford law - the key clause banning the use of force for correction, and another stating that the ban on correction prevails over a clause permitting force to prevent harmful, criminal, disruptive or offensive behaviour and to perform "the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting".

    Mr Baldock said his proposal, unlike the Boscawen bill, would let parents hit their children with instruments such as a wooden spoon.

    "I'm not opposed to the wooden spoon or ruler because you can control things with that better than you can with an open hand."


    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10591928

    There you have it - a bone you can throw to the mad dogs in SC!
    avatar
    flat_tack
    Giant
    Giant

    Re: Smacking referendum...again

    Post  flat_tack on Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:58 am

    canterella wrote:correction: 54% voted, 0,3% of those who voted spoiled their votes, 88% voted no and 12% voted yes.



    Plus, my suspicions that Larry Baldrick is mad as a snake, has been confirmed with his own words:

    But Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock, who organised the petitions which forced the referendum, said he did not think there was any chance the National Government would go back to that proposal. "I don't think the Prime Minister or the public really have the appetite for another round of that scheme or a new law," he said.

    He proposes simply deleting two clauses in the Bradford law - the key clause banning the use of force for correction, and another stating that the ban on correction prevails over a clause permitting force to prevent harmful, criminal, disruptive or offensive behaviour and to perform "the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting".

    Mr Baldock said his proposal, unlike the Boscawen bill, would let parents hit their children with instruments such as a wooden spoon.

    "I'm not opposed to the wooden spoon or ruler because you can control things with that better than you can with an open hand."


    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10591928

    There you have it - a bone you can throw to the mad dogs in SC!

    Oh, bloody hell.

    Yes, nothing like getting a good bit of leverage so's you can whack the little blighters harder without hurting your hand...


    The man is a git.

    Diaz
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Smacking referendum...again

    Post  Diaz on Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:30 am

    Blank


    Last edited by Diaz on Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Wizz
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Smacking referendum...again

    Post  Wizz on Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:11 pm

    I had to laugh at old quiverfulla " The silent majority has spoken'.

    Konata
    Mortal
    Mortal

    Re: Smacking referendum...again

    Post  Konata on Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:47 pm

    canterella wrote:check this out:

    A group behind the "Vote No" bloc in the smacking referendum received around $1m over six years from a conservative American religious group.

    That US organisation advocates a return to "Biblical values" and its founder says "a little bit of pain goes a long way" for children.

    The disclosure comes as one of the country's top Anglican clergy has condemned the attitude of Christians who claim a "God-given right" to use corporal punishment against their children.

    "I am concerned that a particular stance on child discipline has too often been characterised as 'the' Christian view," said the Very Rev Ross Day, Dean of Auckland's Cathedral of the Holy Trinity.


    whole article at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10592610

    I seriously worry about the sanity of 47% of population who voted No in this referendum, do they really want to be associated with those screaming lunatics.
    And is there any other more important issue in this country than the parents' goddamned right to physically discipline their chattels. Like, unemployment? Or supercity issues? Or child killings? for instance
    While those behind the referendum are now associated with this group, the majortiy of "no" voters shouldn't be associated with "those screaming lunatics". They had no interaction with them at all. For their own reasons, outside of these religious nutters, they decided to vote "no" and support the abuse of children.
    avatar
    Psalter
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: Smacking referendum...again

    Post  Psalter on Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:57 pm

    A vote of no is not a vote in support of abuse.
    avatar
    canterella
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Smacking referendum...again

    Post  canterella on Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:33 pm

    Psalter wrote:A vote of no is not a vote in support of abuse.

    Of course it isn't. Just like the 'yes' vote is not in support of criminalising parents because they gave their child a light smack on the bottom.

    Konata
    Mortal
    Mortal

    Re: Smacking referendum...again

    Post  Konata on Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:56 pm

    Psalter wrote:A vote of no is not a vote in support of abuse.
    I wrote that on the hypothetical idea that smacking was (supposedly) illegal. If smacking is illegal, then legally it would be considered abuse. They would then be supporting what is legally classified as "abuse". I knew that you would jump on that.

    Whether you would morally classify it as abuse is a different matter.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Smacking referendum...again

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:03 am