The Dim-Post

August 25, 2009

Non co-operative games

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 10:12 am

From the Herald:

Green MP Sue Bradford, who sponsored the original child discipline bill, last night congratulated Mr Key on his response.

“Steps to increase people’s comfort with and understanding of the law – while keeping the law intact – are an appropriate response to the referendum result,” she said.

. . .

[Larry] Baldock said Mr Key did not address the real issue, which was people’s concerns that the law criminalised parents for smacking for correction.

“It’s not about prosecution and the Prime Minister is using the wrong language. When he says no parents have been criminalised what he means is that very few parents have been prosecuted.”

Act MP John Boscawen said Mr Key had made “a huge mistake” in his handling of the issue.

If Bradford wants to be constructive here she’d have been much better off railing against Key’s response, calling it a disgusting compromise, abandoning the abused children of New Zealand etc. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Boscawen, Baldock et al will oppose any solution Bradford supports and support anything she opposes. These people don’t care about outcomes, they just want the attention and to be seen to have ‘won’, and for that to happen Bradford needs to be seen to have lost.

About these ads

37 Comments »

  1. Zigactly.

    Comment by StephenR — August 25, 2009 @ 10:19 am

  2. ha, wrong stage of the debate to go all reasonable.

    Comment by Neil — August 25, 2009 @ 10:40 am

  3. On Morning Report, DepComm Pope said few parents were prosecuted. He started to say that they were dealt with using other methods, but trailed off. Unfortunately Gentle Geoff failed to ask him what those “other methods” were. An offical warning? Diversion? Public caning?

    Just the fact that police received a complaint against the parent means that there is a record created, data held, police notes, maybe even an arrest and a recored interview. But the parent shouldn’t feel like a criminal through all that, of course.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — August 25, 2009 @ 11:56 am

  4. Through all this no one from the ‘pro-smacking’ lobby has bothered to define what a ‘smack’ is and at what point a smack becomes ‘physical violence’.

    I’ve heard the term ‘light smack’ used, a ‘light smack’ is with an open hand, but what about 2 ‘light’ smacks or 10? Is a wooden spoon acceptable? And what about a closed fist is that acceptable?

    See, the fabulous referendum question really asked us nothing. At what point would most people consider that a parent has over stepped the line between a light smack (that is not a criminal offense) and physical violence (that would be considered a criminal offense)?

    (by the way I’m not trying to figure out how hard I can hit my kids, I’m very much an ‘anti-smacker’ and voted ‘yes’ in the referendum)

    Comment by ieuan — August 25, 2009 @ 2:01 pm

  5. what about 2 ‘light’ smacks or 10?

    What about 50? Is that too many? Is 49 okay? What about 100 really light smacks? 1000 with a piece of straw?

    Comment by georgedarroch — August 25, 2009 @ 2:47 pm

  6. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Boscawen, Baldock et al will oppose any solution Bradford supports and support anything she opposes.

    Isn’t her action reasonable then? Putting them on the wrong side of the PM, who seems to have public support for a “reasonable” course of action, might just be a shrewd move.

    Comment by georgedarroch — August 25, 2009 @ 2:49 pm

  7. “1000 with a piece of straw”

    Does it count if this is self inflicted in bored frustration whilst sitting on the “time out” chair?

    Comment by cj_nza — August 25, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

  8. Through all this no one from the ‘pro-smacking’ lobby has bothered to define what a ’smack’ is and at what point a smack becomes ‘physical violence’… At what point would most people consider that a parent has over stepped the line between a light smack (that is not a criminal offense) and physical violence (that would be considered a criminal offense)?

    like the saying goes… you can’t define pornography, but we all know it when we see it.

    Comment by Phil (not Goff) — August 25, 2009 @ 6:17 pm

  9. I’m a parent. It’s not that I want to smack my children or that I think I have a ‘right’.

    What I object to is the assault on the concept that my home is my castle. I totally reject the view that government and its enforcers (police, CYPS etc) hae a right to tell me what to do within my own family. And before some spittle-flecked rabid socialist raises the accusation, I am not a fundamentalist or survivalist. I just believe in personal responsibility coupled with personal rights.

    In my view the Bradford law wasn’t to save children – if it was then it has failed miserably. the law was a direct attack on the integrity of the democratic family unit. Sue Bradford is a communist. She hides in the Green party as no other party would give her a moment. There is shame on the Greens for allowing themselves to be hijacked by the socialists. look at the number of Greem MP’s that have communist loyalties. It leaves me constantly bewildered why everyone gives a vote for Green and they haven’t realised they are always getting Red! Moreover, how many of those MP’s would be elected if they stood in a constituency?!

    So, the Bradford law was just one more step down the road to shatter the nuclear family. Why, because it is a central plank to total state control to take the children from the parents and brainwash them into the ‘proper’ way to think.

    Stopping the statists is what the vote was all about. The question wasn’t the issue. I know parents who would never use a smack and don’t care if they can or not. They voted in response to the underlying question. And they totally rejected state intrusion.

    Comment by Christopher Thomson — August 26, 2009 @ 9:04 am

  10. I’m a parent, too. I voted “yes”.
    I see no reason why if it is legally unacceptable to whack a dog, it should be legally acceptable to whack a child.
    The referendum question was a crappy piece of writing – what part of GOOD parenting involves coercion though violence? Because that’s what smacking is. For myself, I know that any thoughts I have of smacking my kids come from my frustration/anger – and there are far more useful and constructive ways of dealing with these feelings than hitting someone.
    Our children are not our property to be treated as we will. They are valuable independent people who rely on us as parents to help them make their way through the world for a time.

    Comment by verdant1 — August 26, 2009 @ 9:50 am

  11. Actually it is legally acceptable to whack a dog. And , in fact you can do worse to animals than you can to a child and still be within the law.

    Comment by Christopher Thomson — August 26, 2009 @ 10:01 am

  12. for examples go to the horse races anywhere and see a sound thrashing being administered.

    Comment by Christopher Thomson — August 26, 2009 @ 10:02 am

  13. “So, the Bradford law was just one more step down the road to shatter the nuclear family.” – I thought the Civil Unions Bill shattered the nuclear family?

    I’m so out of touch with what ‘democratic family unit’ is angry about these days.

    Comment by Boganette — August 26, 2009 @ 10:03 am

  14. Christopher Thomson, you are a bit paranoid. The green party’s sitemap http://www.greens.org.nz/sitemap (the last half of it has a ‘subject’ area) gives a good overview of the kinds of things they’re into. I challenge you to find the ‘red’ or family-destroying subjects and see how many items are in them compared to say, the environment, or health, or climate change.

    Comment by Rimu — August 26, 2009 @ 10:09 am

  15. And the Greens are so honest they would never tell a lie or hide anything?

    It’s not a matter of being paranoid, it’s a matter of being paranoid enough.

    How do you know a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.

    The last man to enter parliament with honest intent was Guy Fawkes.

    But enough of the quotes. How many of the unelected greens MP’s are steeped in communism? A few, some, most, all? Then ask yourself “what do communists say about the family” Put these 2 items together and think about what that means. And remember the quote “if we cannot think well, others will do our thinking for us”.

    Comment by Christopher Thomson — August 26, 2009 @ 10:30 am

  16. I totally reject the view that government and its enforcers (police, CYPS etc) hae a right to tell me what to do within my own family.

    Presumably they get to intervene if you kill them?

    I’m not say that’s the same as smacking. I’m just saying the universal anti-nanny-state statement doesn’t work – you have to argue the particular issue on its merits.

    There is a line. The question is where it is.

    Comment by lyndon — August 26, 2009 @ 10:43 am

  17. Christopher,

    How many of the unelected greens MP’s are steeped in communism?

    Oh, that’s an easy one. There’s no such thing as an ‘unelected MP’, regardless of colour. As an MP, you have been elected, by definition.

    Honestly, your comments are a roll-call of the sort of crazed fundamentalist/survivalist/sovereign familial micro-state njutjob talking points you claim to repudiate. To which I say: keep at it; you make the rest of us, even people like Sue Bradford, look boringly sane.

    L

    Comment by Lew — August 26, 2009 @ 11:24 am

  18. As the saying goes, ‘you know when you have won an argument when your opponent stops arguing the facts and starts with the insults.

    Lew, you lose.

    Counter the argument. Can you?

    Comment by Christopher Thomson — August 26, 2009 @ 11:51 am

  19. Is it an insult if it’s true?

    Comment by Boganette — August 26, 2009 @ 11:57 am

  20. And a second thought, so my arguments sound like something I’m not. then what does that make my points? Centrist? leftist? Maybe they aren’t any such distinction.

    And all elected? I don’t think so. Here is the obvious definition “An election is a formal decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual to hold public office.”

    What seats did they stand in and win? I guess I missed that last year.

    Comment by Christopher Thomson — August 26, 2009 @ 11:59 am

  21. What seats did they stand in and win? I guess I missed that last year.

    I guess you also missed us switching to MMP back in the 90s; by your logic our current Minister of Transport is ‘unelected’.

    Comment by danylmc — August 26, 2009 @ 12:25 pm

  22. “An election is a formal decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual to hold public office.”

    In New Zealand, Christopher Thomson, people get two votes. It just so happens that 157,613 people voted for the 9 Green members of Parliament.

    Comment by georgedarroch — August 26, 2009 @ 1:45 pm

  23. Yes. I totally agree. He is unelected. He was appointed. Now just before I discuss that, remember MMP, only 1 percent more people voted for MMP that voted against the legislation. We got MMP, why can’t we get rid of the legislation?

    But anyway. I don’t have an issue with unelected officials being in charge, we don’t elect our police – maybe we should. And our Judges. What I do have an issue with is when those who are appointed then use their position to force their narrow beliefs and personal agendas onto those who had no say in whether they should be in a position to do so. The result of the referendum overwhelmingly says just that. Maybe list MP’s are not allowed to introduce legislation? Maybe all legislation should be subjected to referenda. Something like the Swiss model perhaps.

    And I don’t mind people being appointed. I would like to see the idea taken to the level that the elected government would appoint capable experts in their field to fill these roles. I am totally comfortable with national (as the example as they are in government now) getting the capable members of the other parties and appointing them to head areas they are good with. I can’t think of anyone in the current labour or Jim Anderton party but I am thinking maybe Sue Kedgley. I can’t suggest anyone else as I haven’t done research in that direction.

    Oh, and I also sometimes like the idea of a Demarchy. Now that would be interesting to see in action.

    Comment by Christopher Thomson — August 26, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

  24. George, only 157,613 people voted for the Green party. How many voted to get rid of the legislation. More than a million?

    Put it another way, 90 percent of the voters didn’t want the green party. Which is about the same percentage that don’t want the legislation.

    Is that a message that both should be got rid of? Simplisitc; but I am keen to hear your riposte.

    Comment by Christopher Thomson — August 26, 2009 @ 1:59 pm

  25. What would be the point of a list then? My list vote is representative of me too. Moreso than my electorate vote, in my case.

    Comment by Chris S — August 26, 2009 @ 2:01 pm

  26. I guess you also missed us switching to MMP back in the 90s; by your logic our current Minister of Transport is ‘unelected’.

    And I assume Christopher is with the Baldockians who are incandescent with rage that the duly elected Prime Minister isn’t treating a glorified opinion poll as holy writ?

    Democrats of convenience. Got to love ‘em.

    Comment by Craig Ranapia — August 26, 2009 @ 2:03 pm

  27. And I assume Christopher is with the Baldockians who are incandescent with rage that the duly elected Prime Minister isn’t treating a glorified opinion poll as holy writ?

    Well in contrast to your common-or-garden opinion poll, the margin of error here is extremely low.

    Comment by StephenR — August 26, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

  28. It’s the Death of Democracy isn’t it Craig?

    How long before the Key=Hitler starts? Nazi parallels are striking and ominous, if you’re a loon.

    Comment by Mark — August 26, 2009 @ 2:21 pm

  29. I wonder how some would feel if a referendum returned 90 percent against troops in Afghanistan but the Prime Minister still sent them? Still just an opinion poll and the result fit to be ignored?

    I’m not incandescent, just surprisingly disappointed. I thought Key was going to be our very own mini-Obama. The new deal etc. Mind you, that was back then. I have since seen an article that explains why he is just as socialist as Labour’s years. Can’t rememb er where though so if someone has also seen it post the link please.

    Comment by Christopher Thomson — August 26, 2009 @ 2:36 pm

  30. I have since seen an article that explains why he is just as socialist as Labour’s years

    Interest free student loans, Working for Families, very similar tax rates, state run healthcare and education – *endless* socialism, he’s practically Marx himself. But more seriously, just go to a libertarian site (http://pc.blogspot.com/), they have many articles on Key/National in the way you seek. May depend on one’s definition of socialism.

    Comment by StephenR — August 26, 2009 @ 2:42 pm

  31. Stephen, I couldn’t get the link through but I will have a bit of a look around. It contrasted why it was Bill English who was swallowing the “dead rats’ and Key was quite happy as there weren’t any deceased rodents for him to ingest. Might have been on a press bloggers page. Hence same tune, different piper.

    I have a home office and today has been rather boring so I have enjoyed the discourse. I have listened to the reasonable and the unreasonable and I am trying to decide what my ‘brand’ is.

    And if anyone asks if I know the difference between an assault and a smack, I do. Remember that a kiss is an assault too, so I guess I won’t be doing the wild thing any more – or maybe I need to do as much as possible before it gets criminalised. That would certainly keep Mrs Thomson happy. Doing it plenty, that is.

    Comment by Christopher Thomson — August 26, 2009 @ 2:57 pm

  32. Christopher, there is no argument worth countering. I’d won the factual debate before I’d even started, and I don’t care a whit for the verbal jousting.

    L

    Comment by Lew — August 26, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

  33. “What I do have an issue with is when those who are appointed then use their position to force their narrow beliefs and personal agendas onto those who had no say in whether they should be in a position to do so.”

    You do realise that the majority of MPs in Parliament – an overwhelming majority – supported the ammendment don’t you?

    While it suits your crazed argument to blame Sue Bradford and The Greens for every ‘evil’ you see in your world it’s not actually logical to do so.

    Your hysterical venom should be aimed at ALL the MPs who supported the ammendment.

    Comment by King Kong — August 26, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

  34. “Your hysterical venom” Crikey! Christopher Thomson, this shouting is what you are up against, you “hysterical” man that just wants to be left alone to “beat” his children “and wife” into submission (using a bible, eh, Lew?). You “nazi”, I bet you are “racist” “capitalist” who “rapes the planet” in an “unsustainable” way, too.

    Lew has no doubt seen you out in the back blocks of somewhere, wearing camoflage and firing your AK47 (or more likely an M16!) whilst you stockpile tinned food in an underground bunker. “Honestly, your comments are a roll-call of the sort of crazed fundamentalist/survivalist/sovereign familial micro-state njutjob.”

    After seeing this on his profile, I can understand why he is shouting the way he is:
    “[Lew's] research interests include symbolic politics, propaganda, political discourse and communication, political use of the media/media use of politics and identity politics,”

    Comment by Clunking Fist — August 27, 2009 @ 5:00 pm

  35. Yup. His judge of character is impeccable. (that phrase is to be said/read in a heavily sarcastic tone).

    I guess I will have to get rid of my store of water and food I have put by. Shame really as I was only doing what the government wanted.

    I thought if I was out the backblocks I would have been mistaken for a Bradford supporter.

    Still, when one is such a perfect creature so well in touch and enjoys such moral superiority as lew does then it must be hard for him to even contempalte that anybody wouldn’t see that his world view is the right one. I feel bad for even daring to think anyhting other than what he wants me to think.

    Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

    Comment by Christopher Thomson — August 27, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

  36. Poor wee things.

    Yeah, there are plenty of tools on the left too, and some of them genuinely believe their leaders’ propaganda hype is the Unvarnished Objective Truth as well. My scorn isn’t reserved for righties who uncritically parrot talking points, so don’t take it personal-like.

    L

    Comment by Lew — August 27, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

  37. “My scorn isn’t reserved for righties who uncritically parrot talking points”

    No mirrors in your glass house?

    Comment by Clunking Fist — August 28, 2009 @ 9:32 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 349 other followers

%d bloggers like this: