Proof the "smacking" referendum question is rubbis

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10534667

When posed the question as in the referendum, 86% agreed with it (i.e anti- the law).

When posed the ACTUAL LEGISLATION AS PASSED, it was split 50/50 (50 against, 50 either for or believed it was an improvement).

It was major failure of the labour govt to sell this bill and the perception of it is rubbish. What bothers me is that it was pushed through regardless.

It has already been used in cases that many people dont think it was justified (im 50/50 on it) so perhaps the criticism was valid. Labour and other politicians use stupid polls / arguements and statements all the time so i dont really have a problem with a biased question, thats how all politics works.

I dont like controversial laws like this they end up splitting people very for/ very against and creating emotion rather than thoughtfulness.

Its a cock up all round.

bob I agree with some points but Labour? This was a Green bill signed in by almost all parties, National included?

I still haven't seen a conviction or even a charge under Section 59 because of this amendment that shouldn't have been laid.

Anyway, didn't want this to be about the law change so much as the poor way in which the citizens-initiated-referendum has been put together.

Technically they did OK by putting the word correction in there - but realistically it's going to be viewed by most people as "is smacking criminal?" And that's not what the law change was about.

sorry should have read labour led govt, i believe it reflected poorly on them and once they were on the back foot it was hard to get rational debate.

Not sure i agree with the improvement being lumped in with the yes, of course it was an improvement.

if the media had actually addressed what the law amendment was for and does and the bulk of the public had actually bothered to find out what was being proposed and how it would effect them this referendum wouldn't be on the cards now I reckon

its a non binding referendum which considering the parties that supported and voted for the amendment will surely come to nothing - well some politicing no doubt, so the hacks that call themselves political reporters (TV) will have something to justify their rumour monging ways

The bible says I can beat my kids, to hell with the law.

This illustrates perfectly why CIR imo is a waste of time.. The questions are inevitably loaded to get both the required number of signatures and a majority e.g. the ones on tougher sentences for violent criminals or the current one concerning the change to s59 of the Crimes Act implemented last year.

haha Oh, so it’s all because the question is ‘loaded’! haha

Well then shouldn’t be hard for you to come up with an oppositely ‘loaded’ question that would get the public voting the way you want. We would love to hear it.

Good luck – I think you will need it!

Considering all the childcare experts supported the bill, I'm amazed you'd even spout such bullshit

you can still use physical force to prevent a child doing something. you cannot use it in a PUNITIVE manner.

A question might be "Should it be legal to physically assault a child?"

odd... talking about bias… the stats they give on two votes are calculated differently.

On the first non-answers are counted as 'unsure'. Might be a little clearer if they were correctly labelled as ‘no answer’, but this is still infinitely better than the second where they are just ignored altogether!

This little statistical trick pushes the percentage accepting or supporting the law to 50% (34+16) where in reality it was only 44% (29.5+14.3) who ever actually indicated this.

Where did I make any comment about how our ‘childcare expert’ overlords might vote? And where on earth is this poll showing that 100% of them supported the bill??


haha well it’s more than a bit of a stretch to describe that as ‘oppositely loaded’ the other way. But even so enough of public would see straight thought that horseshit and you would never get close to 90% saying NO.

I honestly don’t know why people continue to argue about this…

You got your way, it’s now illegal for parents to correctively discipline their children. - The nanny state has spoken. Be happy.

Is it really necessary to delude yourself into believing that the general public actually supported this bill??

The fact that the referendum question gives such a different response to the actual description of the law proves how loaded and badly worded the CIR is. Regardless of your belief in the actual wording of the amendment.

I fail to see how a child care expert's opinion should weigh more heavily on my view than my own life experience. Seems like ludicrous logic to me.

Me: I was smacked as a child, all my friends were smacked when they were little, and none of us have criminal records and we've all turned out pretty decent people.

Child care expert: No, you're wrong, smacking kids will make them violent and anti-social......

What. The. Fuck.

how do you know you and your smacked friends are ok virgo? You assume you are, is that it?

sometimes we use experts because, well, they know more than life experience alone can teach a person

People who want it to be legal to assault their kids remind me of that old saying "If we got rid of all the laws, we'd have no criminals."

Sometimes, people I know just don't listen to me, even when I'm right. I try logic, I try persuasion, nothing works. Surely if they're that stubborn I should be able to smack them for the purposes of correction?

And if it's about correcting CHILDREN, why should we stop at hitting our own kids? Just because that kid is soembody else's doesn't make him mature

Its disgusting that Sue Bradford is actually an MP, let alone allowed to have made this ridiculous new law.

When you let tree huggers start making decisions you going to end up hitting a wall. The smacking bill is a nazi style approach to making New Zealand parents lose control of their kids.

Obviously the underlying factors of the bill are not so much for the actual smacking, however - I think it is good that people are taking their kids to the police station when they have been naughty, just to say - F**k you Sue.

anyone here for a 6 litre a minute shower trickle

anyone?

anyone?

anyone?

what does that mean for plumbers in nz...?

yeah should they have the same rights as adults if they are not expected to make the same decisions in life that adults make ..? I like hugging trees though..

why would someone suggest parents would want to assault their own children ..?

Smacking is assaulting.

it's a right to self-defence against the forces of anarchy

as such it should be sanctioned by THE STATE

And it can still be used in preventive fashion. It just can't be used in punitive fashion.

punishment and the threat of punishment is prevention

quite a bold statement r u suggesting that parents are criminals ...?

only the ones that assault their children

hence why I won't be voting for labour. Anyone who is willing to refer to their own parents as criminals when all they were doing is being the best parents they knew how to be is not a person I want leading my country....bye bye Helen.

In the context of this thread thats a fairly retarded comment.

well at times their are quite a few retarded ppl who other then myself make retarded comments . but I am more interested in dealing with this issue , do you have any examples where this legislation has been in any way , so far..been effective ?

yeah tru the ole girl (helen) just won't let go of that bone ...

Just how is smacking assault? I am no qualified social worker (um - people that are actually trained in this sort of thing) but just what on earth are you supposed to do?, its been arond for thousa

What will be MOST interesting is seeing how this generation of kids turn out in 20 - 30 years.

Only then will we know if the anti-smacking home invasion law has done any good lol.

Oh please dont smack me for putting my hand on the stove lol!

And in further evidence of just how far off the mark these people are:
- Only 28% of the people who know about the law are opposed to it
- 80% believed children should have the same protection from assault as adults
- The Christian parties that claimed 89% support for their views and campaigned solely on the topic received less of the vote than Bill and Ben

christian man gets off beating hell out of child in nelson

news

ok I missed this post. How do I know I'm ok? I get along with a good cross section of the population around me and I'm a law abiding citizen. but that's just my criteria for determining whether a person is 'OK'. If you have other criteria then put them forward.

you could argue that i'm not ok because my views are bit too right wing for people's liking on here.....but that is hardly an imperfection worth branding my parents as criminals for!

err how about just pulling child away from stove? hasn't shild learnt lesson by buning hand on stove? you want to add more pain by smacking?

doesn't stand up to reason I'm afraid

Same protection = the kid is free to make a complaint to the police and press charges… I guess I could agree with that.

See how these ridiculously loaded questions work both ways? haha