Monday, June 22, 2009

VOTE NO !!

New Zealand will have its say in an upcoming referendum on the 'Anti-smacking' law.

The question that will be asked is "should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

I ask you to vote NO for 2 reasons.

1, Good parents needs protecting. The law passed by Sue Bradford wasn't about stopping child abuse, it was about getting rid of parental authority in the home. Sue Bradford even said this herself.

2, we need to tackle the real causes of child abuse. What better way to sort out this terrible issue than to have a Royal commission which all New Zealanders can get behind and tackle this issue together.

The referendum question is not ambiguous. Yes it could have been written better, but so could anything. Lets get behind this referendum and lets wake the politicians up!

VOTE NO is the only way to do the above things. If you want to criminalise every good parent up and down this country go ahead and vote yes. It is your choice. But if you really care about good parents, the issue of child abuse and letting parents bring up there kids without government intervention then VOTE NO.

VOTE NO !

You can join the Facebook group by clicking here

7 comments:

Chuck said...

I can think of a third reason. Marc Alexander explains this reason better than I can.

"There's also been much dishonesty regarding the point of the referendum too. Despite its designation, it isn't about smacking at all. Rather, it's about whether parents or the state has primacy in the raising of children."

http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=811

This legislation is the final straw. It is illegal to have sex under 16 yet schools have not only supplied contraceptives to underage children. When these fail they arrange abortions. All this with out notifing the parents.

Anonymous said...

Hey Andy - oh 22 year-old, sheltered existence kiddywink with no life experience and obviously no kids of your own.

You must be pretty disappointed that as far as I can tell, you have zero comments whatsoever to all your hard work making stuff up for your FAIL blogspot.

The word it puts me in mind of is actually - FAIL!

Anonymous said...

Still no one reading your Fail blog, buddy-boy...

Andy Moore said...

Never can understand these anonymous commenters. They inevitably speak with conviction and confidence though not enough for them to stand behind their comments.

We're still 4 weeks away from the beginning of the referendum.

Anonymous said...

Got under your skin did I? Just what you need, you sanctimonious wanker.

Anonymous said...

You know, for a Christian, you sure don't like the truth much. A mother tells a newspaper she has felt like smacking her kids but hasn't, and you criticise that? Grow up.

pear said...

Uh, to claim, as the writer in this post has, that "The law passed by Sue Bradford wasn't about stopping child abuse, it was about getting rid of parental authority in the home. Sue Bradford even said this herself." Is totally questionable.

First: who said that the law was about getting rid of parental authority in the home. Give me one quote of someone in support of the original law change saying anything along those lines and I'll be happy. To claim without fact, even on a blog like this, is pathetic.

Secondly, to use Sue Bradford saying that the law was never intended to stop child abuse in support of the first claim is even more pathetic, and taking what she is saying totally out of context.

As I have listened to the entire interview, I think it is fair to claim that she was pointing out the fact that changing the law was never intended to stop child abuse, it was intended to provide police (or the crown) with the means to prosecute those who beat their children without them arguing that their beating was "correction".

Furthermore, she only said that in response to the fact that "vote no" supporters are claiming that since child abuse rates have not fallen since the law change, the law is failing. She is stating, clearly, that this was not the intention, nor an expected outcome of the law change.

Boy do I hate out of context quotes. Dude, read any book, even a children's book on journalism before thinking that you can give anything useful, rather than bullshit, to this debate.

Oh, P.S. my name is hana, email is pearshapedwonder@gmail.com. I am fully standing behind my comments though I must admit that the other comments are not mine.