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
783479	2009-06-30 12:15:00	You've quoted the view of a QC without reading the Law Commission's response to it. "We suggest that, in the vast majority of "time out" cases, parents will be prompted by a mix of motives, which may include prohibited correctional purposes, but in all likelihood will also include other permitted purposes. It is thus questionable whether in such cases a jury could ever properly convict a parent beyond reasonable doubt, which in turn may tell against the likelihood of prosecution." Oops - my bad, I thought you were trying to draw attention to the QC's quote, and figured that pasting it here might be useful. Apologies if I missed the stuff you were actually referring to, that was not my intention.	Erayd (23)
783480	2009-06-30 13:00:00	...responding line by line might seem systematic to you but you actually have to make a point, not just suggest I live overseas because I don't believe in spending nine million on a referendum. Fair enough. I use point-by-point because it's easier to keep track of, but I guess it's not everyone's cup of tea. And the point I was trying to make with my 'put-up-or-move' comment (possibly I was a little obscure there, and I let my feelings on the subject get away on me a bit) was that referenda are one of the core functions of our democratic system, and the *only* way for the government to get feedback from a significant portion of the voting population on particular issues. The national census is good, but it happens far too rarely to be of any use on an election-term timescale. As one of the few truly democratic countries in the world, I feel very strongly that we shouldn't treat that lightly - ignoring a referendum is the first step down a very slippery slope away from democracy. So the points you haven't refuted as far as far as I can see. 1. The majority of people in this country don't believe 9 millions dollars is usefully being spent on this referendum.I don't actually believe this is the case, but it's possible that I have missed whichever poll stated this - do you have a link to a reliable (and statistically sound) source? Noting the 77% figure you quoted above, this is getting into I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it territory for me. I'm a cynic by nature. 2. There doesn't appear to have been a single case taken by the Police since the act where a reasonable person would consider the act correction. (punching a child for example is not what most people think is reasonable).I actually agree with you here, however as I stated above I don't think it's relevant. The issue is not whether people have been (or will be) prosecuted over this, but rather that it actually makes the action itself illegal. It's like saying that walking down a footpath is illegal, but the cops have been instructed to turn a blind eye. The issue I have is not with how the law is being enforced, but with the law itself. 3. The referendum won't change the law. The referendum won't *necessarily* change the law, but it will make the politicians sit up and think, and at least take a serious look at it. And if the result is overwhelmingly in favour of making smacking legal (which extensive polling at the time of the amendment showed was the case), then in most people's eyes they have a moral obligation to make that happen. 4. The referendum is therefore a waste of money.This is the part of your argument I don't understand. Can you clarify it for me? The way I understand your argument is that you consider ~$5ish per working person a waste of money, because you don't think the government should receive accurate feedback on an issue that an overwhelming number of people have complained about, and asked the government to get feedback on. You also want the government to pass legislation on an issue that a large number of people feel that they don't understand properly, without yourself having any say at all on its outcome, and also denying a say to those who it directly affects. In addition, you either don't think you should be entitled to give feedback of your own, or you think you should have to pay extra for the right to give that feedback on a case-by-case basis, and that those who don't pay (or can't afford to) shouldn't be allowed a voice. Essentially, you believe that the only large-scale feedback the government should care about is the general elections. Is that what you mean, or did you mean something else? Possibly I'm missing something, but as far as I can see that is the only logical conclusion one can draw from your statement. The law was introduced by the Greens (I believe)...Yes - it was a member's bill written by Sue Bradford (Green MP). ...but was supported by both the major political parties...Except it wasn't. It was *voted for* by both major parties, but national never supported the bill. The bill had the numbers to pass anyway, without them, however by voting for the bill they got a couple of their own amendments into it to soften the wording a little. I personally think they should have made a moral stand and voted no anyway, but realistically they were being pragmatic - at the time, they were in Opposition and their vote made no practical difference to the outcome. ...that's called democracy.Noting that according to polling at the time over 90% of the population were against amending S59, I'd say that's actually pretty undemocratic. A democratic government is supposed to listen to the population it represents and carry out the wishes of that population - something that clearly didn't happen here; they just did what they wanted to and to hell with what the population thought. I don't know the exact voting pattern but a subsequent election and a new Government, and they still don't want collectively to repeal the law.Indeed - the main reason for this, as far as I can see, is that both the opposition and the mainstream media will paint this as 'supporting child abuse'. While this is far from correct, the unfortunate truth is that a lot of people will believe it - and the type of people who will believe it are the ones who flipped from Labour to National at the last general election, and could easily flip back - they're some of National's most fickle supporters. Essentially, they're worried that changing the law back will cost them a large number of votes in 2011. I personally think that ignoring a referendum will cost them more, so we may actually get to see some action there. I wasn't a fan of introducing this law and certainly don't believe reasonable parents should be arrested.On that we agree :-). The various examples given about agencies other than the Police are not really relevant, the Police enforce this law not Governement Departments. Whether or agencies act appropriately or not, they don't appear to do that under the authority of this act, and indeed the same complaints were made about them before. Those complaints may well be valid, you'd have to investigate each one to know, because people accused of wrong doing are likely to minimise their behaviour and seek sympathy under claims of wrong doing under the act. That's true, but only up to a point. While the police are the ones who would actually prosecute, it's often the government agencies who will investigate first, to establish the facts. Noting their mandate, they are obligated to investigate and report this to the police, regardless of what the police actually do with it. And while a CYFS investigation is not in itself a legal punishment, it can be very, very stressful for all involved, and for those who are subject to it the scrutiny and processes involved can easily be every bit as damaging as a court conviction. If this act doesn't work, I believe the political parties will want to change it. The stated reason they aren't doing this now is they haven't seen example of the fears you have about it becoming a reality.That is their stated reason, but I personally don't believe it's the real reason - I think the real reason is they are scared of losing the sheep vote. Like any law, it might not really be tested until someone is arrested who administered a light smack, but the way I read it such a case won't get very far, and if it does the law will get changed pretty quickly I'd suspect.Absolutely - agree with you 100% on this one. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll get such a test case, or at least not for quite some time.	Erayd (23)
783481	2009-07-01 02:19:00	I don't actually believe this is the case, but it's possible that I have missed whichever poll stated this - do you have a link to a reliable (and statistically sound) source? Noting the 77% figure you quoted above, this is getting into I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it territory for me. I'm a cynic by nature. $5 his figures were sourced from a poll on stuff.co.nz.	Metla (12)
783482	2009-07-01 02:51:00	$5 his figures were sourced from a poll on stuff.co.nz. Ha, those aren't reliable at all!	Erayd (23)
783483	2009-07-01 02:52:00	$5 his figures were sourced from a poll on stuff.co.nz. Accuracy of + or - 100%...	johcar (6283)
783484	2009-07-01 04:28:00	Twelvevolts you obviously missed my earlier post where I told you how a families life got turned upside-down by the fact their young boy is un-coordinated! Basically this law strips parents of their ability to discipline their children. Picture this (Honestly): You're 9 years old. You want to stay up late and watch TV (As all 9 year olds do), and not only that but you've found where your parents his the lollies in the pantry. Your father comes in, tells you nicely its bedtime and you need to hand over the sweets. Being 9 years old, and having found out from one of your school friends that adults cant do **** with this new law, you decide to tell him "No, I want to watch TV" and sit there. As a father, you cant do jack .. why? Because any type of physical contact can easily be misconstrued as physical abuse now. Lets string this out a little: Father picks up child, child starts kicking and screaming, the lollies fly everywhere in the commotion. Father pops the child in bed and closes the bedroom door walking out to clean up the lollies on the floor. Child rushes out and starts watching the TV again, sitting happily on the sofa, knowing that basically "Dad's luck has run out, if I make enough of a fuss, he's got no choice now but to let me sit here". Plausible? Under current New Zealand law, yes! I don't know about you, but I'm getting married this weekend. I would *never* lay a hand on my wife, no matter how pissed off I get (And together we've had some real doozy arguments). I plan to use the same respect for my children, save from the fact that at times some children *do* need a physical incentive to be obedient, or not be disobedient. Ya cant do jack alright but it doesnt say you cant put an axe through his playstation.... bbbwwwaaaahahahahaaaa. Im not voting.	Gobe1 (6290)
783485	2009-07-01 04:55:00	deleted.....	SolMiester (139)
783486	2009-07-01 07:46:00	All I want is for the govt to be bound by the referendums we have. It is absolutely stupid to have a referendum if it is not binding and quite frankly I don't think it is very democratic if the govt is not going to listen to what the people want. You obviously have more faith in the majority than I do. I'm sure we'd soon end up with all kind of crazy laws based on whatever wheelbarrow someone was pushing that week. Most people wouldn't vote and a minority could effectively push any agenda. Kind of like local body elections currently.	Twelvevolts (5457)
783487	2009-07-01 07:51:00	Fair enough. I use point-by-point because it's easier to keep track of, but I guess it's not everyone's cup of tea. And the point I was trying to make with my 'put-up-or-move' comment (possibly I was a little obscure there, and I let my feelings on the subject get away on me a bit) was that referenda are one of the core functions of our democratic system, and the *only* way for the government to get feedback from a significant portion of the voting population on particular issues. The national census is good, but it happens far too rarely to be of any use on an election-term timescale. As one of the few truly democratic countries in the world, I feel very strongly that we shouldn't treat that lightly - ignoring a referendum is the first step down a very slippery slope away from democracy. I don't actually believe this is the case, but it's possible that I have missed whichever poll stated this - do you have a link to a reliable (and statistically sound) source? Noting the 77% figure you quoted above, this is getting into I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it territory for me. I'm a cynic by nature. I actually agree with you here, however as I stated above I don't think it's relevant. The issue is not whether people have been (or will be) prosecuted over this, but rather that it actually makes the action itself illegal. It's like saying that walking down a footpath is illegal, but the cops have been instructed to turn a blind eye. The issue I have is not with how the law is being enforced, but with the law itself. The referendum won't *necessarily* change the law, but it will make the politicians sit up and think, and at least take a serious look at it. And if the result is overwhelmingly in favour of making smacking legal (which extensive polling at the time of the amendment showed was the case), then in most people's eyes they have a moral obligation to make that happen. This is the part of your argument I don't understand. Can you clarify it for me? The way I understand your argument is that you consider ~$5ish per working person a waste of money, because you don't think the government should receive accurate feedback on an issue that an overwhelming number of people have complained about, and asked the government to get feedback on. You also want the government to pass legislation on an issue that a large number of people feel that they don't understand properly, without yourself having any say at all on its outcome, and also denying a say to those who it directly affects. In addition, you either don't think you should be entitled to give feedback of your own, or you think you should have to pay extra for the right to give that feedback on a case-by-case basis, and that those who don't pay (or can't afford to) shouldn't be allowed a voice. Essentially, you believe that the only large-scale feedback the government should care about is the general elections. Is that what you mean, or did you mean something else? Possibly I'm missing something, but as far as I can see that is the only logical conclusion one can draw from your statement. Yes - it was a member's bill written by Sue Bradford (Green MP). Except it wasn't. It was *voted for* by both major parties, but national never supported the bill. The bill had the numbers to pass anyway, without them, however by voting for the bill they got a couple of their own amendments into it to soften the wording a little. I personally think they should have made a moral stand and voted no anyway, but realistically they were being pragmatic - at the time, they were in Opposition and their vote made no practical difference to the outcome. Noting that according to polling at the time over 90% of the population were against amending S59, I'd say that's actually pretty undemocratic. A democratic government is supposed to listen to the population it represents and carry out the wishes of that population - something that clearly didn't happen here; they just did what they wanted to and to hell with what the population thought. Indeed - the main reason for this, as far as I can see, is that both the opposition and the mainstream media will paint this as 'supporting child abuse'. While this is far from correct, the unfortunate truth is that a lot of people will believe it - and the type of people who will believe it are the ones who flipped from Labour to National at the last general election, and could easily flip back - they're some of National's most fickle supporters. Essentially, they're worried that changing the law back will cost them a large number of votes in 2011. I personally think that ignoring a referendum will cost them more, so we may actually get to see some action there. On that we agree :-). That's true, but only up to a point. While the police are the ones who would actually prosecute, it's often the government agencies who will investigate first, to establish the facts. Noting their mandate, they are obligated to investigate and report this to the police, regardless of what the police actually do with it. And while a CYFS investigation is not in itself a legal punishment, it can be very, very stressful for all involved, and for those who are subject to it the scrutiny and processes involved can easily be every bit as damaging as a court conviction. That is their stated reason, but I personally don't believe it's the real reason - I think the real reason is they are scared of losing the sheep vote. Absolutely - agree with you 100% on this one. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll get such a test case, or at least not for quite some time. You're becoming almost reasonable. Yes this started when a poll came out saying the majority of people don't want this to go ahead (75% I think it was). So if you believe in majority rule, you'll be hoping it is called off.	Twelvevolts (5457)
783488	2009-07-01 08:05:00	You're becoming almost reasonable. Yes this started when a poll came out saying the majority of people don't want this to go ahead (75% I think it was). So if you believe in majority rule, you'll be hoping it is called off.I believe in democratic process, which normally means majority rule. Out of interest, where are you getting your "most people don't want a referendum" figures from?	Erayd (23)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9