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

« Investigate gets it right...again | Main | Duff wins legal test case, police traffic powers in doubt »

Comments

peter

However there is this Ian:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10514229

Why persevere with something that is known to be ineffective. Seems like the new law has a valid purpose after all!!

ZenTiger

Peter, there are just as many studies that show physical discipline can be effective. The point is that good parents will have a collection of tools at their disposal, and being thrown in jail because they occasionally smack their child is a terrible thing to threaten good parents with, just because this doesn't fit your world view. The anti-smacking brigade will continue to conflate a smack with abuse, and the real abuse will continue unabated.

And the stated purpose was to stop abusers being let off for assault - not for banning smacking. Bradford and co obviously lied, because this is now how it is being positioned. A liar as an MP means that their professed motives are at odds with their actual actions.

In my book, lying in this way is a bad thing and deserves punishment.

peter

Yeah Zen

Christian fundamentalists LOVE suffering and punishment!!!

And the law is working as intended. Family First bleat on!

ZenTiger

And in response to your gross, ignorant or deliberately deceitful generalisations:

And Liberals love getting their own way, can't take responsibility for their own actions, and seem to think that there is no such thing as suffering and punishment (especially as an inevitable consequence of their actions) - which, when you look at their lives, might cause one to wonder if they are just a little bit stupid, since they are no less immune to suffering than other people.

And if the law is working as intended this just confirms the lies I just mentioned, because child beatings still go on, and such abuse would never be considered reasonable force.

ropata

Bradford's dishonest law does nothing to prevent future Kahui-like child abuse tragedies. Yes there is need for more resources to prevent child abuse. Stupid and dishonest insults do nothing to help the real victims of abuse. The attitude of Bradford et al would normally make me angry, but thinking of the actual victims of abuse who are being ignored amidst all the FUD rhetoric, I feel very sad that our smallest citizens are just another political football. The repeal of S59 is an indictment on the Left and their pitiful lawmaking.

ropata

This from blogger "Put up thy Sword!":
Official poll shows anti-smacking act to be a farce
The results of a poll conducted by Curia Market Research titled "Attitudes on Parental Discipline Poll" are in. Family First commissioned this poll in the interest of informing the petition against the Section 59 Amendment Act of 2007. The poll shows that 48 per cent of respondents with children under 12 have smacked their child in the last year despite the use of parental force against children for purposes of correction now being illegal. There are many other telling statistics resulting from this poll.

mrs makepeace

"I understand now that my dad paddled me because he loves me, and he wants me to have success in my life. He disciplined me; he didn't abuse me. They're very different things."

What a perceptive young man this boy has become. It appears to me that a little guidance and a firm hand has done him no harm.

Having experienced similar forms of discipline from my own parents in my childhood I can say the same for my own rude awakenings!

peter

So FAMILY FIRST commissioned the poll? No wonder they got the result they were looking for!

You can keep bleating but really boys and girls it is time to move on.

This Bill was initiated by Sue Bradford but it required the good common sense of at least 80 to 90 percent of MPs to bring about the positive and necessary change. And remember always remember that the beloved NATIONAL Party also saw the life.

So bleat on or suck a kumara. It will make no difference.

ropata

Thank you for another enlightening and constructive contribution peter. I especially admire your respect for democracy and willingness to engage in dialogue and reach a consensus, to compromise and reconsider the arguments without resorting to silly taunts. We should all strive to emulate your maturity and politeness.

fugley

So any way, this fella ropata says Bradford's dishonest law does nothing to prevent future Kahui-like child abuse tragedies.

So, up I jumps and asks him - Please name me one law, any law, that prevents crime.

ropata

so fugley, you agree that Bradford's argument is moot and her law has nothing to do with preventing child abuse?

MacDoctor

Fugley: Please name me one law, any law, that prevents crime

So you don't think that criminalizing something reduces it's incidence? So I assume you must think that all laws are basically a waste of time.

This is called anarchy.

Because this seems to be difficult for some people, I will keep it simple (pay attention Fugs and Peter). Child abuse has ALWAYS been illegal. The repeal of section 59 has merely rendered normal physical parental discipline illegal. It has made absolutely no difference to the criminality or punishability of child abuse.

ERGO: Bradford's dishonest law does nothing to prevent future Kahui-like child abuse tragedies.

ZenTiger

So you don't think that criminalizing something reduces it's incidence? So I assume you must think that all laws are basically a waste of time.

Except you want to criminalize a light smack in the hopes it stops a fatal beating.

That's like criminalizing time outs to stop mad Austrians from locking their kids in a basement for 20 years.

Do you really think asking parents not to do time out is going to stop the Fritzls of the world?

MacDoctor

ZT: Exactly my point - There has been no change in the criminality of child abuse. Repealing S59 has made a perfectly normal activity criminal. It will make absolutely no difference to the rate of child abuse.

Of course, if they arrest everyone who smacks a child and locks them away, I'm sure the rate of child abuse would decrease. A bit like if we lock away every motorist, no one will break the speed limit...

ZenTiger

Ah, yes sorry, didn't mean to imply you were saying something different.

Just helping Fugley and Peter think things through. Or just think, for that matter.

MacDoctor

Good luck, ZT :-)

dad4justice

"Just helping Fugley and Peter think things through."

Zen ;These nasty and horrible anti Christian propaganda freaks are not worth the time of day.They are ridiculous and the scum of the internet.

peter

Fugley and I do all the thinking around here.

MacDoctor - locate brain as step 1 then really think.

Quoting back to you segments from your posting above:

"Fugley: Please name me one law, any law, that prevents crime

So you don't think that criminalizing something reduces it's incidence? So I assume you must think that all laws are basically a waste of time.

This is called anarchy."

Not carefully use of word PREVENT by Fugley! Laws will discourage unwanted behaviours but not prevent them. In the case of s59, parents are taking note and modifying behaviour, because they are wary of this legislation.

"Because this seems to be difficult for some people, I will keep it simple (pay attention Fugs and Peter). Child abuse has ALWAYS been illegal. The repeal of section 59 has merely rendered normal physical parental discipline illegal."

The preamble directed at Fugley and myself does nothing to hide your own limitations MacDoctor. S59 has rendered the excuse of "parental discipline" useless in defending cases of child abuse. There has been a change as you say yourself. It is just that you have loaded your message with the word "normal" when we are trying to change what people consider normal!

"It has made absolutely no difference to the criminality or punishability of child abuse."

But it has so. No longer can parents bleat in Court that they were only trying to apply "normal" discipline. Abuse will be considered entirely on its own merits.

I repeat - this is logical, this is supported by 90% at least of current MPs, and it won't revert to where it was. Open your eyes and move on to the next issue. You have been severely and permanently defeated on this one.

Alex's Pimp

Zen ;These nasty and horrible anti Christian propaganda freaks are not worth the time of day.They are ridiculous and the scum of the internet.

Posted by: dad4justice | June 05, 2008 at 09:28 AM

This from the man who claims to play the ball, not the man; who claims to be a loving father, yet on his own blog states the only work his daughter can aspire to in NZ is prostitution.

dad4justice

Can I have this scumbags email address as I am going to police Ian . Stuff this !!!!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.