Comments on: This weeks ballot – and we are off again

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 04:53:37 +0000

Can’t you see that this ignoring of public democracy helped lose the last election. and no I do not want to worry that I may be in cells if I forcibly carry a kid to his room. That would be an assualt on an adult even though some may need it. Sue Bradford in Frogblog showed a total contempt for democracy, research or parent worries.

By: kaya

kaya — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:30:51 +0000

@jarbury – Nice, so a bit of electorate deception is fine as long as you get what you want. Good to see the left are still the same devious bunch I abandoned after 25 years. Strategically it might make sense? Good grief.

By: jarbury

jarbury — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:21:14 +0000

Yeah I did the sums after making that comment and worked that out Graeme.

Is that even more reason for Labour to vote for the bill though? Knowing that they could do so without actually worrying that it might pass…. you know, justify it on the basis that “88% of people in the referendum seem to indicate they want this issue looked at again, we’re putting our out of touch perception behind us and supporting what the people seem to want.”

Personally, I would be grump at Labour if they did something like that. However, strategically it might make sense.

By: Graeme

Graeme — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:24:41 +0000

jarbury:

1. that wouldn’t work – National + the Greens is a majority =)

2. it doesn’t matter – the debate is almost certainly going to last a while: Boscawen doesn’t currently have the numbers to get it to select committee, so he’ll postpone the first reading debate to try to work on the numbers … maybe the early months of election year?

By: jarbury

jarbury — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:17:06 +0000

From a strategic point of view, I think Labour should support the bill to the select committee. This is for one simple reason – the longer this issue drags out the more damage it will do to National. The issue was a significant factor in bringing down the last government, in my opinion, so it’s in Labour’s interests to to let National suffer over the matter for a while too.

Just look at the frothing over at Kiwiblog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/08/boscawen_smacking_bill_drawn.html

By: Herodotus

Herodotus — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:51:26 +0000

Andy B there is still the ability to smack and be within the law all that has changed is the abilty to smack for correctional purposes and be in some cases to be protected by S59. And if we talk of giving the same rights to children as adults then you try to place an adult in time out and not be technically committing an assult.

By: Andy B

Andy B — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:44:07 +0000

Amendment to s59 of the Crimes Act (I refuse to call it by its other name) is about protecting those children whose parents may beat them. Scratch that. Its about those parents going to jail for a long time. Under the old law, parents who beat their children almost to death could get off or get reduced sentences if they said they were using reasonable force. Now the problem we’ve got is, what the heck is reasonable force? You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and trying to define this based only on case law isn’t really that great. Reasonable judgment is a moral statement and it isn’t right to have such ambiguous terms in law (and there are hundreds of them). s59 is also about giving our most defenseless members of society the same legal rights against assault as an adult. Its about equaling the score a little bit. Just because you are the child’s parent doesn’t mean that you should have the right to beat them.
in 50 years time, we will look back on s59 in the same light that we look at slavery and wife beating now. Abhorrent.

By: bikerkiwi

bikerkiwi — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:23:19 +0000

@ frank – and to think they allow people with such a shallow view vote.

ACT did a lot of good arguing against the horrific EFA that labour brought in. A lot of what they do is excellent work.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:17:09 +0000

Good on ya for not supporting it.

Although Trevor, bit surprised it took you so long to realise that a bill from the ACT party is bad. Let’s make it real simple. Anything ACT supports = stupid/evil/mean/lame. Therefore, anything ACT supports, Labour should not support. QED.

By: sammy

sammy — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:31:40 +0000

Key’s decision will cause major divisions in the National caucus. Has anybody asked Chester Borrows if he stands by his own amendment? Or any of the other National MPs who had argued so strongly for it? Are the press gallery asleep, or these days do they just wait for a press release to give them a story?

There’s a civil war brewing. National supporters are furious on the blogs. Here’s one quote:

“As for Key I have two words for him and they rhyme with “plucking banker”.”

That’s from Blair Mulholland, who stood for the National party candidacy in the Mt Albert by-election. Strong stuff.