Smacking referendum...again

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

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!

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.

Blank

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

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.

A vote of no is not a vote in support of abuse.

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.

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.