Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 100719	2009-06-18 08:16:00	Smacking Referendum - User Pays	Twelvevolts (5457)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
783439	2009-06-28 10:35:00	I have no objection whatsoever to you spending your hard earned cash on a pointless referendum, but I object to you spending mine...Fair enough. Nobody is forcing you to live in a country where Citizens' Initiated Referendums are legislated - you're welcome to move somewhere more in line with your views. ...I don't care what the issue is really...Golly gosh - an apathetic voter. In my book, that's almost criminal. If you don't care about the issues enough to understand them, then you have no grounds for complaint. ...albeit given the lack of any obvious problems with the way the law works...No obvious problems? How about making perfectly reasonable parents criminals? Whether the law is enforced or not isn't the point - the issue is that smacking your children is now legally a criminal offense. Note that this is *not* the same thing as 'child-beaters' - the old law covered that just fine, it simply needed enforcing. Many people view the new wording in the same league as making shouting a criminal offense. ...that just makes things even more wasteful as all referendum are a waste of money. If you want one, by all means pay for it. If all referendums are a waste of money, then what do you propose as an alternative? Riots? Assassination? Bribes? If you're going to remove the only current way for people to provide feedback to the government on a significant scale, then you need to replace it with something else. It's all very well to moan about the cost, but unless you can provide a viable alternative, you don't have much of an argument.	Erayd (23)
783440	2009-06-28 10:49:00	Can someone please explain to me why the words "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" are ambiguous? Or is this just the government (and opposition) trying to confuse Joe Voter into thinking it IS ambiguous? If it was me, the only change I would make to the wording would be to add a couple of commas: "Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand". But I think it's pretty clear anyway you read it....	johcar (6283)
783441	2009-06-28 10:52:00	There's nothing ambiguous about the question itself - anyone who tells you that is just spreading FUD. Where the ambiguity lies is how that relates to the new law - i.e. if someone supports smacking, does that mean they want the new law repealed? Or do they support the new law as well, but just want some assurance that they won't get in trouble for smacking their kids?	Erayd (23)
783442	2009-06-28 10:59:00	Sue Bradford just cost everyone more than 9 mil. Thats worse than 18 wives.	rob_on_guitar (4196)
783443	2009-06-28 11:22:00	Unfortunately there are people who do not believe that a smack is acceptable in ANY circumstances so to vote NO would imply that a smack is PART OF GOOD PARENTAL CORRECTION and should not be considered criminal and therefore such a matter should never get to a Court in the first place. If you take it further, you could back a case that an adult who grabs a childs arm to stop the child running out on the road in time to be hit by the passing bus, which the child did not see and causes a bruise on the childs skin in the process could be charged with an offence. We do not know if any law change would be passed as the referendum is non-binding anyway. We don't know what amendments would be made to the current situation either. In any event we need to tidy up the situation as it stands and we need to come up with clear laws that can and will be enforced. As I mentioned before, having laws in place may be one thing, but some so-called parent who is full of P or booze will not actually care. And where does a care-giver come into the equation where, for example, Uncle Sweep is looking after his Brother's child and gives the child a smack or pulls the child out of the path of the bus mentioned earlier. Am I in loco parentis at the time? What of a school teacher who breaks up a fight at the school? Can they separate the combatants by pushing them apart? Would that be considered an assault? I just want the rules to be clear and to the point and be enforced. I wouldn't think that is too much to ask from our law-makers. Well it might be as some of these people are actually taking a nap when laws get passed under urgency late at night.	Sweep (90)
783444	2009-06-28 11:28:00	^ x2 :thumbs:, finally we agree on something! :banana	Erayd (23)
783445	2009-06-28 11:34:00	^ x2 :thumbs:, finally we agree on something! :banana :thanks	Sweep (90)
783446	2009-06-28 14:18:00	I know of a family, a while back they got fully investigated by CYFS etc, because their son isn't the most stable on his two feet. Basically the kids got the wobbles and you can see as he walks, what his mind want and what his feet actually *do*, is something totally different half the time. It took them hours and hours and hours in the courts, one of their extended family members had to take 6-odd weeks off work to look after the little rascals (They have more than one kid) while the family was being investigated. Why? Because their kid fell over, got a lil bruised, and somebody thought there was violence at home. No foundation for the accusation at all. What a waste of taxpayers money, investigating that kind of thing! $9 million to show the country that a law (Which should have never been passed in the first place -- Lets smack Sue Bradford) needs amending to say the least, well worth it IMO. Also, while the wording isnt the *best* for the whole thing, its not misleading. The FUD spread by the media was horrible. Seriously, what idiot can't understand the question. That said, it could be 'read' in this manner: Do you wanna beat your kids? Vote No! Do you wanna go to court every time your kids trip & fall on their own? Vote Yes! Its surprisingly easy to spot those with, and those without "family values" by whats been posted.	Chilling_Silence (9)
783447	2009-06-28 14:28:00	No obvious problems? How about making perfectly reasonable parents criminals? Whether the law is enforced or not isn't the point - the issue is that smacking your children is now legally a criminal offense. Note that this is *not* the same thing as 'child-beaters' - the old law covered that just fine, it simply needed enforcing. Many people view the new wording in the same league as making shouting a criminal offense. The other thing that most people don't realise is that the police under the new law effectively become judge and jury which in my mind is not healthy.	mikebartnz (21)
783448	2009-06-28 21:29:00	The other thing that most people don't realise is that the police under the new law effectively become judge and jury which in my mind is not healthy. Don't think they are jury,stupid sometimes,but not jury.	Cicero (40)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9