| 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 | ||
| 783449 | 2009-06-28 23:26:00 | Don't think they are jury,stupid sometimes,but not jury. Under the new law it says that the police have wide powers of discretion which makes them judge and jury. ie. the law is obviously not well enough defined. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 783450 | 2009-06-29 10:59:00 | the fact of the matter is that anti smacking legislation should never have been seriously considered for the statute books. The government should not interfere with the right of parents to discipline ther children with what may be an entirely appropriate level of punishment given the circumstances necessitating the disciplinary action. Many of our behavioural problems in society arise from a lack of discipline, both in the home and at schools, and whilst I am not generally in favour of physical punishment for children, there are circumstances when it is necessary as a last resort to get the message through to an unreceptive disobedient child. If the government wishes to apply criminal sanction parents when they found it necessary to phuysically discipline one of their children, then perhaps the same government might like to shoulder the responsibility for raising the children . There is already sufficient teeth within NZ criminal law to take action against parents who physically abuse their children, or treat them with cruelty. Furthermore, I would suggest that the anti -smacking made potential criminals out of tens of thousands of decent law abiding loving parents without detering one iota those parents who made a practice af administering unwarrented and cruel physical punishment against their children. |
KenESmith (6287) | ||
| 783451 | 2009-06-29 11:41:00 | It does no such thing, and only a fool would think it did. So where are all these cases of good parents suffering at the hands of this law? Exactly none so far. |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 783452 | 2009-06-29 11:45:00 | Give it up, Your arguments have been demolished.You lose. | Metla (12) | ||
| 783453 | 2009-06-29 11:49:00 | 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. 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. 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. 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. I voted in the general election, I'm not an apathetic voter at all. You dress your cause up anyway you like, it is a nine million dollar protest against a law where so far none of these reasonable parents you refer to have yet to be arrested. This vote won't prove one way or the other whether the law is good or bad, the alternative is letting the majority in parliament have a vote, but that's right you don't agree with that process. |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 783454 | 2009-06-29 11:53:00 | Give it up, Your arguments have been demolished.You lose. Demolished by who? Just repeating what you believe doesn't make you right, and your nine million spend has the majority of New Zealand thinking it is a waste of money, so you can't even muster a majority there either. And after you spend the nine million the end result will be no change at all. Quit while you are miles behind is my advice to you. |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 783455 | 2009-06-29 11:55:00 | Enlightenment. pressf1.pcworld.co.nz |
Metla (12) | ||
| 783456 | 2009-06-29 11:59:00 | So where are all these cases of good parents suffering at the hands of this law? Exactly none so far. This is not the latest but presumably does show what is happening. www.familyfirst.org.nz I hope this helps you understand. It does not even have to go to court to put a Parent to considerable inconvenience. Just face it. THE CURRENT SITUATION IS FLAWED! |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 783457 | 2009-06-29 12:03:00 | Ok those might even turn out to be real, but is that really a result of the new law? And if it is what use will a nine million dollar referendum with a question that doesn't really address the issue be? | Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 783458 | 2009-06-29 12:16:00 | So you can't find any examples so you run away from the question. Methinks you're the one doing the running here - you haven't rebutted *any* of my points so far, and I have systematically demolished yours. Care to take mine on point-by-point? Edit: I see you've edited your post - yes, it's the result of the new law, because under the old one 'reasonable' force was legal. Now, any force at all is illegal. And the mere fact of having a referendum in this case is far more important than the outcome - just getting that many signatures means a massive proportion of the population are *very* pissed off about the law change! |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | |||||