My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Tip: How to view all comments on 1 page | Main | Spreading a little left wing love… »

Comments

Shane Ponting

And yet it seems that John Key himself will *not* respect the outcome of the referendum - no, according to the latest statement I'm aware of he will only correct the law if parents are sent to jail for use of force (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/4596934a24035.html)

Now that's a fair provocation for changing the law, that being the case but I'm disturbed that especially in light of his pretense above in your commentary there, it appears that he really doesn't respect the will of the people. It shouldn't need to get as far as imprisoned parents - public opinion expressed through referendum *should* suffice.

peter

Shane

You are of course absolutely correct. Smart insights here.

It is hypocritical for John Key to back a referendum when his party voted for reform of legislation that a considerable majority of NZers wanted to retain.

If John Key was to initiate a reversal of the reformed legislation questions would need to be asked. At present he said he sees no case for change.

Mischief is the mission.

ropata

I am in awe of your mind-reading skills.

ZenTiger

What he said needed to be said. He's only confirming what many already see as self evident: the mischief Helen Clark makes.

The sorry point that he doesn't understand the full import of s59 is yet another problem, but a slightly better proposition than dealing with the hypocrisy of Clark on this matter and the fundamentalism of Bradford.

peter

The referendum proposal is mischievous because it will lead nowhere.

Parliamentarians from National, Labour and virtually all other parties KNOW that they led NZ in a direction that the public were opposed to. Sometimes that is what leadership is.

John Key has said he sees no reason to change the law and I do admire him for being up front about it and in the face of extreme right wing Christian fundamentalists who seem to be among the leaders of this ill-conceived campaign.

He should go one step further and put the petition ring leaders in their place, but there is an election pay off in putting head in the sand!

Mind you he is not the first MP I heard of that advocated a petition while saying he did not want to take notice of the result. Remind me of the other famous case folks ..

Why not commission another poll on the issue - you would get a better confirmation of current public sentiment.

Petiitions are old technology and boring stacks of paper, impossible to validate completely. It is quite like ly just another scheme to try to tie up government infrastructure quite unnecessarily.

YOu simply cant run a country by referendum - there are feasibility issues but also we ELECT our parliamentarians to do all the consulting for us.

There was a select committee process and those present could see that there was only one way to go.

Sorry smackers and bashers, time to move on.

Dan

Well Peter, your response is typical of liberal arogance.You state the same old crap, and are still blind to the fact that most NZ's don't want to be led in the direction we are going. But of coarse the thinking has already been done for us by our panel of esteemed experts, and what would a "breeder" like me know about such complex social issues any way.I guess I and all other ignorant NZ's should shut up and breed kids for nanny state to raise, and educate how they see fit.
Get a life brother, and stop interfering with mine

peter

There is a brilliant article by Brian Rudman on the smacking question in todays NZHerald:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=144&objectid=10519421

I quote from the longer version in the paper itself:

"National's John Carter, hardly one of your soft-centre liberals wrote afterwards 'I originally opposed the anti-smacking bill. I do not want a society where good parents are criminalised for doing their jobs. But neither do I want a society where the law can be used to shield bad parents who abuse their chidren. So I supported the amended bill for John Key negotiated."

Ouch fundamentalists!!

Also I see Jim Bolger no less has another big role awarded by the Labour led govt.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=144&objectid=10519472

I wonder whom HE will be voting for in November!

As Armstrong says..

His [Bolger's] comments about being disappointed successive private owners had failed to inject sufficient capital into the rail network were picked up by Finance Minister Michael Cullen and wielded against National in Parliament"

Ouch Ouch fundamentalists!!

The comments to this entry are closed.