The Referendum on Smacking In New Zealand: VoteNo.org


With the referendum on smacking at a go and media reporting rather one sided in favor of the so called YES vote. The Vote NO site gives you the other side of the story. The site is understood to be an initiative of Family First, and appears to be supported by the For the Sake of Our Children Trust, FIANZ, the Pasefika Trust, the Fact and Family Trust, the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Unity for Liberty, Focus on the Family, Cross Power and Family Life NZ.

The FAQ page consists of highly condensed yet to the point information in relation to the issues at hand: is the law working, prevention v correction, did this law help stopping child abuse, smacking and minor acts of physical discipline and more. So for those that want to hear the other side of the story as well I recommend you check the site out.

I do recommend you read the pamphlets with real life cases resulting from this law either here >>> or the case descriptions on the Family First website.

In addition to the site itself, you could have a look at the blog, follow this site on twitter or join their facebook group.

Also check out The Yes Vote Fail site for a slightly lighter approach, where I found the videos below.

More on smacking referendum: PM warned


ACT Party leader Rodney Hide has warned Prime Minister John Key of a public backlash if the government ignores the result of the controversial smacking referendum.

Snubbing the referendum result sends a message that politicians know what’s best for the people and that the government is running a “nanny state”, Hide wrote in a letter delivered to Key’s office on Friday.

In the sidebar it states that: John Key has said the law will not be changed back unless it can be shown that good parents are being prosecuted for light smacking.

If he really said that than I would be disappointed as apparently even the Prime Minister does not know the law. The matters are formulated straight forward in that a correctional smack is a criminal offense. The law does not make this distinction and regardless of how you look at it: well willing parents that want to have even the “light smack” as part of their parental toolbox will need to consider whether or not they are willing to commit a criminal offense.

Besides that, WHO is appointed to determine whether or not a smack is to be considered a light correctional smack that does not justify prosecution or falls within the boundaries of prosecution required? There are no clear guidelines there and personal opinion may well start playing a role in that decision.

In all democratic fairness, the provision as standing in Section 59 should not have been there in the first place. I would have to agree with Mr Hide here.

Nats acted with sheer vindictiveness


Eight months on from Labour’s election loss, former prime minister Helen Clark has no regrets and she rejects suggestions that Labour alienated voters by pushing through measures such as the child discipline bill.

Now in New York as head of the United Nations Development Programme, Miss Clark has also revealed unease at the National Government’s direction on climate change and says its scrapping of her flagship sustainability agenda was motivated by sheer vindictiveness.

I had a little bit of a smile on my face when I read the article. Quite honestly I think that the loss of Labour is a combination of alienating voter and a total lack of campaign. Remember, it was never about why yes to Labour and always about why no to National.

But now this, vindictiveness as a hidden agenda behind the change in course on the sustainability agenda. Should she not applaud the fact that there is still some of her “flagship” afloat? Good Lord Helen, are you not taking yourself a bit too serious, “your” flagship?

More and more reports are appearing that this whole climate change thingy has nothing to do with human interference. You were looking to have New Zealanders hand over substantial amounts of tax money (which many don’t have) for the sake of being part of the club, your club for that matter. Vindictiveness… get real and step of that horse, you are starting to sound like some of the Labour supporters on Grassroots Labour (ning network). How cheap but most of all not addressing anything of value.

In the end it is clear now that it was never about democracy and all about you and your ideology: just sit back people and let Mother Helen take care of you by creating the perfect nanny state. Well guess what, vindictiveness has none to do with it. The children grew up after eight years, found out that mother had not been completely honest and found a new foster home.

Have fun in New York.

Colmar Brunton on Smacking: 83% in favor of smacking to be expected


The One News Colmar Brunton Poll of 1,001 respondents from 25 to 29 July asked several questions on smacking:

70% indicated that they would vote in the referendum, of which 83 percent indicated to vote “no” (e.g. in favor of smacking your children).

Posted via web from John Dierckx

Waikato people smack law down


Waikato residents have given overwhelming support to allowing parents to smack their children.

Some 92 per cent of Waikato people who plan to vote in the current postal referendum voting papers went out yesterday are against smacking of children being a criminal offence, according to a telephone survey of 409 people in a Waikato Times-Versus telephone poll.

The poll was run this week on Tuesday and Wednesday. The results are a continuation of the high popularity for sanctioning smacking that has registered in national and regional polls for the past four years.

But the Government has already said it won’t change the two-year-old law, which Prime Minister John Key thinks is working well.

The Times poll showed 70 per cent of Waikato residents planned to vote in the referendum, with that rising as high at 78 per cent within Hamilton. Females (76 per cent) were also more likely to vote.

Residents were asked: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” Just 8 per cent said yes.

Why am I not surprised? The support for smacking as part of parental corrections have always been there. It was typically a law that was pushed through by someone with very specific view on parenting.

Whatever your view: the key question of course is HOW FAR CAN A STATE INTERFERE IN FAMILY LIFE?

If I go from the first results, the Anti-smacking legislation is considered by the overwhelming majority as going too far. So that leaves us with the referendum: I can’t help but feeling that I need to vote because of the importance of the subject but at the same time that it is a useless exercise as nothing will change as a result of it, regardless of the outcome?
Is this not a lot of wasted money?

And, where can I find some clarity on how this law has been of influence not so much on Police involvement in parental matters but of CYFS involvement?
Anyone any suggestions or links, please let me know.

Posted via web from John Dierckx