Friday, November 02, 2007

A question

Why is it ok for parents to use force for the purpose of:
  • preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person
  • preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence
  • preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour
  • performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting
But it's not ok to use force for the purpose of correction?

All I want to know is...  who says?

Who says that a smack (reasonable force) is now officially and legally classed as child abuse, when using force (not specified that it must be reasonable) for any of the other four categories is accepted?

Who are these over-paid beurocrats to tell us decent, everyday Kiwi mums and dads that we are criminals?

They told us: "Smacking's been illegal for 100 years" (no it hasn't) and... "We just wanted to remove the legal defense for parents to beat and abuse their children" .  Rubbish, such cases do not exist.

They had no leg to stand on, the only way they managed to pass Bradford's confused and poorly worded bill into law was by ignoring you, by ignoring the people of New Zealand.  Polls indicated that 83% of Kiwis were opposed to repeal.  The Letters to the Editor sections were overloaded with annoyed parents and concerned citizens.  They ignored you New Zealand, National sold out and joined forces with Labour to pass the law which now criminalises 78% of good Kiwi parents (as an independent poll taken after the law was passed indicates).

"It's not an anti-smacking bill", they said.  Check out the following link:  Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill

What are we going to do?  Democracy.  Go to where you can find out more information on The Great New Zealand Table Challenge and the Citizens Initiated Referendum on the question "Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?"

No comments: