This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You forgot a fundamental something - New Zealand undemocratically criminalises good parents under new legislation when the original legislation already criminalised child abuse. There, fixed for you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Direct democracy - binding referendums - is just a nicer word for mob rule. You'd understand if you bothered to research it. Switzerland has it, and as a result women were unable to vote there until 1971.
And I believe less than 5000 people came to this march. Considering the leader paid $450,000 for it and was expecting 50,000 people to show up, I'd call that a major fail, wouldn't you?
Try reading the law. You'll find that gentle smacks are actually NOT illegal.
False in every regard. The leader expected 50,000 people to show up? What the heck you thinking to manufacture lies like that?
How about you try reading the law . Disciplining with a smack is illegal. If someone reads the law and doesn't come to that conclusion they aren't fit to vote.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Actually, he said that to the NZ Herald, and they printed his quote. He really was expecting that many.
The law says that:
) Every parent of a child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of preventing harm to the child or another person; or preventing the child from engaging in criminal, offensive or disruptive behaviour; performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
If you don't care enough to make stand about democracy you don't deserve to live in one. If people won't take a stand on this issue there's not much they will make a stand on at all.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Er... the bit where the Crimes Act was amended from allowing the use of "reasonable force" for the purpose of correction, with the clarification that the Police have discretion not to prosecute where the use of force against a child is "inconsequential". Y'know, that thing you've been getting annoyed about.
As soon as we have a majority of people who are informed, interested and objective, direct democracy could be a good idea. Until then I prefer to trust my well-paid elected representatives.
"Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies
the use of force for the purpose of correction."
That criminalises anybody who disciplines with a smack.
The police provision doesn't decriminalise good parents at all...
it merely allows Police to choose to prosecute you or not at their discretion for your criminal act. It is sad that some people clearly don't understand plain english.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh thankee, me no speakee engl-oh wait, yes I do. Yep, it criminalises smacking for correction but tells the cops not to prosecute. Bizarre, for sure, and if you want it to be clearer then I don't blame you.
But if this is what it takes to help prosecute child abusers, then so be it. If the National Party can get behind a Green policy in the face of public opinion then it's probably a good idea.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's the "democracy" thing that bugs me, not opposition to the s59 amendment. Democracy is about disinterested decisions being made for the public good, not about the majority voting for their own self-interest.
But I haven't heard a single argument that acknowledges the need to help convict child abusers, or anything more objective than "piss off nanny state this isn't democracy". We're clearly not ready for any direct democracy more complicated than picking our voting system.
Firstly the National Party only got onside so a shred of relief could be introduced. Secondly child abuse was illegal under the original law. Thirdly it is illegal to discipline children with a smack. This law would criminalise my dear parents if had bought me up the same way today. I find this utterly disgusting and I revile this injustice. The scorning of democracy in this matter along with criminalising good parents builds to the utterly unpalatable abomination weighing on good parents.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh for goodness sake, no good parents have been criminalised yet. I highly doubt any would be. The Police have no interest in wasting their time on minor smacking. Lord knows there's enough abuse out there.
Before, parents used Section 59 to escape jail sentences for being their child with a 4x4. Now, that defense is no longer there. That can only be good in the fight against child abuse.
In the time of your "dear parents", drunk driving was commonplace. Societies change.
Uh actually yes good parents have been criminalized by this ridiculous piece of garbage law. Have they been prosecuted and convicted? Probably not. Criminalized? Yes. As soon as you smack for the purpose of correction you are criminalized regardless of whether you are found out or not.
So because someone gets off on the old defense, whether or not it was justified, you support the criminalization of all good parents who smack? This is the epitome of stupidity.
Thumbs down to my comments all you like, but one day you'll find this country ashamed of trying to repeal this bill. Currently, I'm ashamed of wasting my time trying to argue facts with someone who can't properly interpret a law. But that's YouTube for you.
I have my opinion, you have yours. Sucks for you that the government is on my side then, doesn't it?
I'll go back to my political science theory, and you can go back to your whinging.
as long as I can stand up against injustice such as this I will. I couldn't care less what assumptions you make under what deluded theory. I make informed decisions on the information I retrieve and any suggestion otherwise is an insult. Any supporter of this anti-democratic garbage is saying a lot more about themselves than I care to know. Feel free to impose your views elsewhere but don't criminalize good parents thanks. Sad for you but democracy won't die this easily.
National have the numbers to change the law, but they aren't going to, despite the referendum and lost votes. Doesn't that say something? Maybe they've looked at the issue and decided that protecting kids is more important than assuaging your self-righteous outrage.
My parents would be criminals too, but they're sensible people and wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. - Winston Churchill
Isn't it interesting that democracy got rid of slavery. The majority that was the North defeated the South. The minority confederacy (which basically represents the undemocratic anti-smacking bunch) was forced to yield by the majority. It is only a matter of time before justice is also served in this country and the anti smacking injustice repealed. Slavery cannot win in the face of democracy, neither will the anti-smacking garbage.
yet the current law would take away my right as a child to be brought up how I was by hands down the best parents in the world. The current law would have taken away an upbringing I hold dear.
The Civil War is an interesting example - slavery was only one of many issues where the Southern states disagreed with the Northern-dominated Federal Government. The South went to war not to save slavery, but to assert the individual States' rights to self-determination. Both sides were fighting for democracy.
The Federal democratic process didn't go the way the Southern States wanted it, so they decided to change the game. Sound familiar?
If the majority had not taken a stand slavery would not have been abolished at that point. The rule of the majority dictated to the minority what was acceptable, not the other way around as seen in NZ.
Yeah, good to see the champions of democracy so quick to show their displeasure for free speech :-P
Actually I blame youtube, there's some kind of anti-politeness filter that makes any argument turn into a shouting match. It's only a matter of time before someone brings up Hitler. Who, incidentally, used referenda extensively to promote his agenda :-)
Oh, lord. you're comparing us with communists now?
Wow, I just thought you were someone who knew very little about democratic process and just REALLY wanted to smack your kids. But you've officially entered the realm of crazy.
I don't have kids. I valued my childhood and I love my parents. There is no way that their actions today should be criminalized under law pure and simple. Go off on a tangent, I'm not following.
Who's counting out democracy? I reckon this whole thing shows how robust our democracy is. Politicians from all parties making a stand on a contentious issue, in the face of public opinion, to try and save some of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. It's beautiful! Democracy at work.
Except that instead of saving anybody it criminalises good parents, spits on democratic process, and ignores the fact that child abuse was illegal under the previous law. Yes indeed, the anti-smacking bill is a nasty piece of undemocratic garbage.
It's already saved children from being forced to return to abusive parents.
But as we've said before, no good parents have been prosecuted. That's what an objective investigation has found, and that is why John Key isn't changing the law.
Honestly, if you put this effort into real problems, like climate change, maybe we'd get somewhere.
The original law would have stopped children being forced to return to abusive parents without blanket criminalising good parents. It's like someone while they were drunk got the idea to criminalise all and sundry. Good parents not being prosecuted or convicted has nothing to do with the fact that they are criminals when disciplining with a smack.
Ah, it must be nice living in a world where everything is black and white and everything you disagree with is a conspiracy against you.
Back in reality democracy involves consultation and compromise and unpopular decisions and protection against the majority. But that's cool, keep believing in the definition of democracy you got from the back of your Weetbix box.
It's nice being able to recognise injustice from justice as it is clearly a trait some of us are unfortunate enough not to share. So democracy involves some misguided persons view of what entails protection for minorities but inexcusably ignores the majority. You can concoct whatever conspiracy you want and I'll leave you and it in the loony bin where it belongs. It is a sad day when a select few misguided individuals actually think they are doing a benefit by oppressing the majority.
The purest form of democracy is the referendum on a single issue. Representative democracy that we see is democracy for 1 day and a dictatorship for the next 3 years. This is disgusting pure and simple. Another thing that is disgusting is people trying to blur the distinct lines between smacking and abuse. If a person doesn't know the difference they aren't fit to comment. Abuse was prohibited under the original s13. The current law criminalises good parents & ignores democratic process.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Where did you get the idea that direct democracy is the purest democracy? It's actually very close the Greek idea of a corrupted democracy, in which the people rule themselves with their emotions, and not with their brains.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's political science theory, actually. Not a self-serving idea on my part. Governments aren't required to follow the random passions of the people - they're supposed to objectively examine both sides of an argument and decide what's best for the people as a whole.
That's what Key's done. He's examined the law and found that no parents are being unfairly prosecuted or investigated. They're investigating it again just to make sure.
I don't know how the people who acted in this ad sleep at night.
viperchris34 1 year ago
Compulsory wearing of seatbelts - knee jerk response from the stupid
Drink driving made illegal - knee jerk response from the stupid
Smoking in bars banned - knee jerk response from the stupid
Public health care proposed in the US - knee jerk response from the stupid
Votes for women - knee jerk response from the stupid
New Zealand removes an exception from their law allowing adults to assault a child - knee jerk response from the stupid
I see a pattern emerging.
uzbekisdude 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You forgot a fundamental something - New Zealand undemocratically criminalises good parents under new legislation when the original legislation already criminalised child abuse. There, fixed for you.
grannman 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Direct democracy - binding referendums - is just a nicer word for mob rule. You'd understand if you bothered to research it. Switzerland has it, and as a result women were unable to vote there until 1971.
And I believe less than 5000 people came to this march. Considering the leader paid $450,000 for it and was expecting 50,000 people to show up, I'd call that a major fail, wouldn't you?
Try reading the law. You'll find that gentle smacks are actually NOT illegal.
louisebee86 2 years ago
False in every regard. The leader expected 50,000 people to show up? What the heck you thinking to manufacture lies like that?
How about you try reading the law . Disciplining with a smack is illegal. If someone reads the law and doesn't come to that conclusion they aren't fit to vote.
Shizzlebee 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually, he said that to the NZ Herald, and they printed his quote. He really was expecting that many.
The law says that:
) Every parent of a child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of preventing harm to the child or another person; or preventing the child from engaging in criminal, offensive or disruptive behaviour; performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
It's really not hard.
louisebee86 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is so much evil in the world now, and in the recent past - and this is the issue these people choose to make a stand over?
Give me a break.
Where were they in 2002/03 over Iraq?
gentlegenie 2 years ago
If you don't care enough to make stand about democracy you don't deserve to live in one. If people won't take a stand on this issue there's not much they will make a stand on at all.
grannman 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why this issue? I'm trying to figure out why a few people are getting so worked up over the changing of the word "reasonable" to "inconsequential".
I'd be prepared to take a stand *against* binding referenda based on recent events..
fortydayweekend 2 years ago
what on earth do you mean changing "reasonable" to "inconsequential"?
'Why not this issue' would be a rational question.
If you are willing to take a stand against democracy feel free to trot off to China where the authorities would love to have you.
grannman 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Er... the bit where the Crimes Act was amended from allowing the use of "reasonable force" for the purpose of correction, with the clarification that the Police have discretion not to prosecute where the use of force against a child is "inconsequential". Y'know, that thing you've been getting annoyed about.
As soon as we have a majority of people who are informed, interested and objective, direct democracy could be a good idea. Until then I prefer to trust my well-paid elected representatives.
fortydayweekend 2 years ago
Er... clearly if you have s59 you would see that
"Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies
the use of force for the purpose of correction."
That criminalises anybody who disciplines with a smack.
The police provision doesn't decriminalise good parents at all...
it merely allows Police to choose to prosecute you or not at their discretion for your criminal act. It is sad that some people clearly don't understand plain english.
grannman 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh thankee, me no speakee engl-oh wait, yes I do. Yep, it criminalises smacking for correction but tells the cops not to prosecute. Bizarre, for sure, and if you want it to be clearer then I don't blame you.
But if this is what it takes to help prosecute child abusers, then so be it. If the National Party can get behind a Green policy in the face of public opinion then it's probably a good idea.
fortydayweekend 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's the "democracy" thing that bugs me, not opposition to the s59 amendment. Democracy is about disinterested decisions being made for the public good, not about the majority voting for their own self-interest.
But I haven't heard a single argument that acknowledges the need to help convict child abusers, or anything more objective than "piss off nanny state this isn't democracy". We're clearly not ready for any direct democracy more complicated than picking our voting system.
fortydayweekend 2 years ago
Thanks but I'll take democracy over someone's misguided foolishness anyday.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. "
C. S. Lewis
grannman 2 years ago 3
Firstly the National Party only got onside so a shred of relief could be introduced. Secondly child abuse was illegal under the original law. Thirdly it is illegal to discipline children with a smack. This law would criminalise my dear parents if had bought me up the same way today. I find this utterly disgusting and I revile this injustice. The scorning of democracy in this matter along with criminalising good parents builds to the utterly unpalatable abomination weighing on good parents.
grannman 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh for goodness sake, no good parents have been criminalised yet. I highly doubt any would be. The Police have no interest in wasting their time on minor smacking. Lord knows there's enough abuse out there.
Before, parents used Section 59 to escape jail sentences for being their child with a 4x4. Now, that defense is no longer there. That can only be good in the fight against child abuse.
In the time of your "dear parents", drunk driving was commonplace. Societies change.
louisebee86 2 years ago
Uh actually yes good parents have been criminalized by this ridiculous piece of garbage law. Have they been prosecuted and convicted? Probably not. Criminalized? Yes. As soon as you smack for the purpose of correction you are criminalized regardless of whether you are found out or not.
So because someone gets off on the old defense, whether or not it was justified, you support the criminalization of all good parents who smack? This is the epitome of stupidity.
grannman 2 years ago
Thumbs down to my comments all you like, but one day you'll find this country ashamed of trying to repeal this bill. Currently, I'm ashamed of wasting my time trying to argue facts with someone who can't properly interpret a law. But that's YouTube for you.
I have my opinion, you have yours. Sucks for you that the government is on my side then, doesn't it?
I'll go back to my political science theory, and you can go back to your whinging.
louisebee86 2 years ago
as long as I can stand up against injustice such as this I will. I couldn't care less what assumptions you make under what deluded theory. I make informed decisions on the information I retrieve and any suggestion otherwise is an insult. Any supporter of this anti-democratic garbage is saying a lot more about themselves than I care to know. Feel free to impose your views elsewhere but don't criminalize good parents thanks. Sad for you but democracy won't die this easily.
grannman 2 years ago
National have the numbers to change the law, but they aren't going to, despite the referendum and lost votes. Doesn't that say something? Maybe they've looked at the issue and decided that protecting kids is more important than assuaging your self-righteous outrage.
My parents would be criminals too, but they're sensible people and wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. - Winston Churchill
fortydayweekend 2 years ago
Also, this is the most red thumbs I've ever had, woohoo!
fortydayweekend 2 years ago
You so quoted the line that I wanted to! I like how everyone thumbs down our argument, as if it makes it magically go away.
If they had YouTube during the fight against slavery, we would be the North, and they would be the Confederacy.
louisebee86 2 years ago
Isn't it interesting that democracy got rid of slavery. The majority that was the North defeated the South. The minority confederacy (which basically represents the undemocratic anti-smacking bunch) was forced to yield by the majority. It is only a matter of time before justice is also served in this country and the anti smacking injustice repealed. Slavery cannot win in the face of democracy, neither will the anti-smacking garbage.
grannman 2 years ago
I meant in terms of human rights, not "majority".
louisebee86 2 years ago
yet the current law would take away my right as a child to be brought up how I was by hands down the best parents in the world. The current law would have taken away an upbringing I hold dear.
grannman 2 years ago
The Civil War is an interesting example - slavery was only one of many issues where the Southern states disagreed with the Northern-dominated Federal Government. The South went to war not to save slavery, but to assert the individual States' rights to self-determination. Both sides were fighting for democracy.
The Federal democratic process didn't go the way the Southern States wanted it, so they decided to change the game. Sound familiar?
fortydayweekend 2 years ago
If the majority had not taken a stand slavery would not have been abolished at that point. The rule of the majority dictated to the minority what was acceptable, not the other way around as seen in NZ.
grannman 2 years ago
Yeah, good to see the champions of democracy so quick to show their displeasure for free speech :-P
Actually I blame youtube, there's some kind of anti-politeness filter that makes any argument turn into a shouting match. It's only a matter of time before someone brings up Hitler. Who, incidentally, used referenda extensively to promote his agenda :-)
fortydayweekend 2 years ago 4
communism is a prime example of the tyranny of the minority. No thanks.
grannman 2 years ago
That's because communism isn't a democracy.
louisebee86 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is an example of the tyranny of the minority and a very applicable parallel to the injustice NZ is facing today.
grannman 2 years ago
Oh, lord. you're comparing us with communists now?
Wow, I just thought you were someone who knew very little about democratic process and just REALLY wanted to smack your kids. But you've officially entered the realm of crazy.
You poor thing.
louisebee86 2 years ago
I don't have kids. I valued my childhood and I love my parents. There is no way that their actions today should be criminalized under law pure and simple. Go off on a tangent, I'm not following.
grannman 2 years ago
I wouldn't count out democracy merely because National under John Key is currently inactive. That would be delightfully premature.
grannman 2 years ago
Who's counting out democracy? I reckon this whole thing shows how robust our democracy is. Politicians from all parties making a stand on a contentious issue, in the face of public opinion, to try and save some of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. It's beautiful! Democracy at work.
fortydayweekend 2 years ago 2
Except that instead of saving anybody it criminalises good parents, spits on democratic process, and ignores the fact that child abuse was illegal under the previous law. Yes indeed, the anti-smacking bill is a nasty piece of undemocratic garbage.
grannman 2 years ago
It's already saved children from being forced to return to abusive parents.
But as we've said before, no good parents have been prosecuted. That's what an objective investigation has found, and that is why John Key isn't changing the law.
Honestly, if you put this effort into real problems, like climate change, maybe we'd get somewhere.
louisebee86 2 years ago
The original law would have stopped children being forced to return to abusive parents without blanket criminalising good parents. It's like someone while they were drunk got the idea to criminalise all and sundry. Good parents not being prosecuted or convicted has nothing to do with the fact that they are criminals when disciplining with a smack.
grannman 2 years ago
Ah, it must be nice living in a world where everything is black and white and everything you disagree with is a conspiracy against you.
Back in reality democracy involves consultation and compromise and unpopular decisions and protection against the majority. But that's cool, keep believing in the definition of democracy you got from the back of your Weetbix box.
fortydayweekend 2 years ago 3
It's nice being able to recognise injustice from justice as it is clearly a trait some of us are unfortunate enough not to share. So democracy involves some misguided persons view of what entails protection for minorities but inexcusably ignores the majority. You can concoct whatever conspiracy you want and I'll leave you and it in the loony bin where it belongs. It is a sad day when a select few misguided individuals actually think they are doing a benefit by oppressing the majority.
grannman 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They haven't ignored it. They've read it and decided the law is good as it is. It's already protected a child from a parent who beat him with a hose.
That's representative democracy. Look it up.
louisebee86 2 years ago
The purest form of democracy is the referendum on a single issue. Representative democracy that we see is democracy for 1 day and a dictatorship for the next 3 years. This is disgusting pure and simple. Another thing that is disgusting is people trying to blur the distinct lines between smacking and abuse. If a person doesn't know the difference they aren't fit to comment. Abuse was prohibited under the original s13. The current law criminalises good parents & ignores democratic process.
grannman 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Where did you get the idea that direct democracy is the purest democracy? It's actually very close the Greek idea of a corrupted democracy, in which the people rule themselves with their emotions, and not with their brains.
louisebee86 2 years ago
Interesting that you would make the self-serving assumption that a person would not use their brain to make a decision.
grannman 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's political science theory, actually. Not a self-serving idea on my part. Governments aren't required to follow the random passions of the people - they're supposed to objectively examine both sides of an argument and decide what's best for the people as a whole.
That's what Key's done. He's examined the law and found that no parents are being unfairly prosecuted or investigated. They're investigating it again just to make sure.
louisebee86 2 years ago
Bring back the rule of thumb!
fitzyp 2 years ago 3