I’m voting Yes
August 2, 2009 – 5:42 pm“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
Almost everyone I talk to about the 2009 Citizens Initiated Referendum agrees that the question is completely stupid to the point of being dishonest. The main problem is with the word Good, by including a judgement call in the question the “correct” answer is presupposed. A lot of advertising uses similarly constructed language, but nobody expects ads to present a balanced opinion.
So what are we supposed to do when faced with such a question? Both John Key and Phil Goff have indicated they will probably abstain, somewhat cowardly in my view. Both National and Labour supported the (minor) revision to the existing law that started this whole mess, the least their leaders could do is support the new law in public. It is also odd to see the Prime Minister seeming to advocate not voting in a democratic process, I would hope that he would be encouraging more democracy not undermining it.
I am voting yes. I think the changes to the law were sensible and necessary, and it seems that the only ones who disagree have a very odd outlook on families. Certainly the examples that were publicised of how unfair the new law was evaporated very quickly when the true facts of the cases became known.
Even if I was indifferent to the law (and maybe I am, I have no children) I would still be voting yes. I bitterly resent the fact the public money has been spent on a referendum that even its supporters acknowledge is useless. The people who forced it though with such ridiculous wording deserve as much scorn as we can muster and my feeling is that the humiliation of losing their own referendum would be richly deserved.
Every YES vote is another tablespoon of poo frosting on the huge poo cake the instigators of the referendum will be eating if there is a large YES turnout. And that is reason enough for me.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
8 Responses to “I’m voting Yes”
It was your fourth paragraph that convinced me to vote yes as well. Frankly I wasn’t going to bother at all, because of the reasons you state – essentially that it’s a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money that could probably have been better spent paying MP’s to visit the towns they already live in.
Children can be absolutely awful at times of course (I’m a parent of two and today am one of those folk that smile + nod at parents dragging their screaming kids bodily through the supermarket) but the great thing about kids is that until they hit about 18-25 you’re essentially smarter than them. Rather than smacking I find Archimedian principles more useful. Give me the appropriate lever (removing privileges of electronic forms) and I can move the world (or at least make you pick up your crap and be nicer to your younger brother).
By Stu on Aug 2, 2009
I’m a yes man too. The law change that prompted all this is great. It simple puts children where adults are. We are not allowed to smack adults who don’t do what we want. Even if those adults have “limited” capacity to reason etc, as people suggest children do.
You don’t see people being pushed or jostled having people arrested for assault, it doesn’t happy. The law just puts everyone on an even par and that’s great in my opinion.
By Aza on Aug 2, 2009
Whoever pushed that leading question through as the referendum question is a retard, its turning people off supporting the referendum.
I agree the law change was undemocratic, but I dont’ care enough to vote.
By Chuck on Aug 3, 2009
I am not sure what you mean by the original law change being undemocratic – it was debated by our elected representatives, changes were made to the language when objections were raised, voted on by parliament and eventually passed in the normal way.
The only difference was that the bill passed with a larger majority than usual since even the opposition parties (including National) thought the change was a good idea once their concerns had been addressed.
But apparently that isn’t good enough for some people, and here we are.
By Andrew on Aug 3, 2009
So what the result will be like of this referendum? Will the smacking be forbidden once and for all? Predictions are accepted here – http://www.votetheday.com/new-zealand/new-zealand-corporal-punishment-referendum-result-450/
By VoteTheDay on Aug 4, 2009
I don’t have any issue with the question, but then I am on the side that it is slightly biased towards.
The law change only removed a defence under the Crimes Act. It did not suddenly make it illegal to beat your children, nor did the presence of that clause previously ever prevent a prosection.
The compromise National sold-out on was one of the most brain-dead decisions ever made. Give the Police discrestion when investigating – something they already have. Lets create more work for the Police, compelling them to investigate harmless correctional methods, and take away a way for people to defend their actions should the Police determine there is a case to answer/quota to meet.
By Anonymous on Aug 4, 2009
“slightly biased towards” – surely you jest.
My understanding is the law gives Police discretion not to prosecute if they believe the act is not serious enough.
In any case, nothing has really changed. It’s not like hundreds of good parents have been dragged off to the re-education camps since the law was changed and I don’t hear the Police complaining that they spend all day investigating smacking.
The well publicised cases put forward as examples people being prosecuted for “good parental correction” have turned out to be anything but.
I know there is an old cliché about politicians passing any law that is “for the sake of the children”, but at worst this change makes no difference and at best makes it just a little harder for someone who belts a child to get away with it. I fail to see the downside.
By Andrew on Aug 4, 2009
finally found where the poo frosting quote was from! i was too afraid to google for “poo frosting”.
By Brenda on Aug 9, 2009