It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Zealand Votes to Legalize Smacking Kids

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


No, it was universal.

The form got posted to everyone. It had one question.


Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? Yes/No


Note 'good parenting'.


I think that because the question was so leading to people that it affected the outcome of the votes greatly and they are using that as an excuse to discard the vote entirely.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by Welfhard]




posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   




I think that because the question was so leading to people that it affected the outcome of the votes greatly and they are using that as an excuse to discard the vote entirely.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by Welfhard]


I trust you know that I have tremendous respect for you and your countrymen. Would your statement imply that the use of a misleading question prompted almost ninety percent (or a vast majority of that ninety percent) of the respondents to vote in a manner contradictory to their beliefs? That would be some powerful manipulation and cause for extreme alarm.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Just to clarify this a little.

Up until about 3 years ago it wasnt a crime to discipline your children in New Zealand until one Sue Bradford of the Green party took on a personal crusade to bring in this law change that would make even technically a light smack a criminal offense, most of it brought about due to two rather big child abuse cases here in NZ, they where real bad but in reality had absolutely nothing to do with parental smacking and everything to do with economic and social issues. Was quite a hub bub over it all and the law change passed and while it hasn't been as bad as pro smackers thought there where a few case where people where charged under it. Interestingly it hasnt stopped true child abuse one bit.

ie we've always been allowed to smack kids until the law was changed recently against the majority of the public's wishs, so Foxs news articles title is rather misleading and sensationalized considering the history.

I personally find it funny Sue Bradford is saying the referendums question was flawed since im pro smacking and I accidentally voted yes (which is actually the anti smacking answer) on the ballot, which meant i had to throw mine out
so my Pro vote was wasted. Saying that the question was confusing when it was equally confusing for both sides of the argument just doesnt make sense and sounds like she's got sour grapes over a good deal of the public shooting down her baby (pardon the pun).



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


i agree. The news story about this makes it look as if the new zealand people have been fighting for ages to get smacking legalised!!

All that is happening is that a few years ago the majority of the country got pissed because the government changed the smacking laws to make any smacking illegal, and now we are trying to reverse what the public did NOT want in the first place.




posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


No no no. I think just about everyone thinks the idea that we can't smack out kids when appropriate is absurd.

But the question is leading.

I think that almost everyone would've voted as per their beliefs but the fact that it's a leading questions still meant the results could be contested. I knew that it was gunna happen as soon as I saw the question.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


I appreciate that Bigfoot. I was getting pretty confused. So the poll referenced is an accurate representation of the wishes of your countrymen? Almost ninety percent believe that it should be ok to smack your child when in the context of 'good parenting?'



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


TBH, I don't think it matters at all for one simple reason. This was an effort to combat child abuse and it doesn't work. Therefore tweaking the bill won't do any good because they need to go back to the drawing board and come up with new ideas instead of trying to combat good parenting! That's the travesty here.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


I appreciate that Bigfoot. I was getting pretty confused. So the poll referenced is an accurate representation of the wishes of your countrymen? Almost ninety percent believe that it should be ok to smack your child when in the context of 'good parenting?'


Id say most of us dont want to smack our kids ever, but some times you have to thats just reality... I have no kids personally but im part of a large family.

I was smacked, and sometimes I even got a wooden spoon across my backside, but I could actually count the number of ties I ever got smacked to about 12, over 10 years and it stopped for me around the time i was 10.

I was quite a handful as a kid also very into everything and strong willed, which oddly is the opposite of how i am now, I needed to learn boundary's and smacking was one way I knew I was over em. I was never abused, and I never thought of it as abused, sure i thought it was unfair, but being a kid I couldnt always see it from all angles, as an adult i can.

Kids these days are basically animals, i grew up in the 80's and 90's and I can tell you the kids these days are nothing at all like me and my peers where, and back then as a teen I often thought to myself a good deal of my peers where mildly out of control.

For me the whole problem with the referendums question was that to both parties your mind instantly said 'yes' as the answer but unfortunately yes was the wrong answer to put to it if you where pro smacking. Throw in the fact it was a yes/no question instead of having two statements and you picked which one you agreed with.

Also the instructions, sure they are simple but in each of the pictures the pencil was near the yes box, and the guys thumb was over the yes box. Throw in the example tick which was a box with a tick in it which was right above the yes box... talk about mentally conditioning you.

I made a mistake and didnt read the question completely and since the whole question hinged on a single word in the last 3rd of the sentence (ie 'criminal' take that out and the question sounds like is a smack as a correction a good part of parenting) mistakes where easy to make... and I made em which ticked me off big time. Luckily there are 6 other voter age family members in my family, but still that was 1 less vote counted.

Should have been two statements and you ticked which ever one you agreed with, confusion solved. It annoys me that Sue Bradford is lumping in the spoilt (votes like mine) and non-voted numbers as proof that she would have won instead of conceeding that the vast majority of people in this country are completely against her madness.

Do we want to smack... hell no, but should we be jailed for child abuse if someone thinks giving jhonny a short sharp wakeup call for being an ass in a supermarket... hell no again.

Heck if you smack your kid for doing something dangerous or anti-social your an abuser, if you dont and they get injured or become badly anti-social your abuser... commonsense has left the building in this world. The huge child abuse states in this country arent about parental smacking, its about things the government simply refuses to work on, unfortunately its also strongly a racial problem which is something people dance around all the time.

This was an attempt to get it back a little. I wish the referendum was binding, but John Keys a whimp.


Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


TBH, I don't think it matters at all for one simple reason. This was an effort to combat child abuse and it doesn't work. Therefore tweaking the bill won't do any good because they need to go back to the drawing board and come up with new ideas instead of trying to combat good parenting! That's the travesty here.


Agreed, but unfortunately it still ends up with us keeping the problematic law in place


[edit on 21-8-2009 by BigfootNZ]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
It worked for our parents when they were kids, it worked on some of us and it worked for our grandparents.

Nothing wrong smacking kids in stages.

1-10 year olds get a smack on the butt that increases in stregnth with age

11-17 year olds get a slap across the face that increases in streangth with age.


18-death(the parents) beat the hell out of them if they feel froggy.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Here's a cynical angle no one has mentioned: If they spend all their efforts on parents who spank their kids, they will not have enough resources for those who beat their kids.

If NZ is anything like the US, getting children out of abusive homes, even when severely beaten and in danger, is very difficult. Social services cannot be spending efforts going after lesser cases is it means other kids will die from neglect or beatings while they worry about a few well-earned smacks.

Not very idealistic, but we don't live in a world of ideals.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


I really appreciate the insight, Bigfoot. It sounds like the true will of the people prevailed in this instance and that's a great thing. The part that disturbs me is the manipulation of the voters the first go around. I'm glad that was corrected. I was reticent to believe that so many of you had been duped my misleading wording.

Your contribution to this thread has cleared up a lot of confusion on my part and I am very thankful you decided to help us out.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


I really appreciate the insight, Bigfoot. It sounds like the true will of the people prevailed in this instance and that's a great thing. The part that disturbs me is the manipulation of the voters the first go around. I'm glad that was corrected. I was reticent to believe that so many of you had been duped my misleading wording.

Your contribution to this thread has cleared up a lot of confusion on my part and I am very thankful you decided to help us out.




i wouldnt take my words to much to heart, im just one side of a two sided coin


Thing is the original bill was put through and voted into law by parliament, cant remember the final vote but it was a close one, with a few ministers abstained and i think most of the voting was along party lines rather than the individual ministers beliefs.

I dont think there was genuine manipulation with the referendum just lousy planing, at least even with the confusion those that did vote, did and we got a result for our $9millions worth... just one that aint worth diddly in the end really since nothings gonna get change
tax payers money well spent id say **tongue in cheek**


Originally posted by jd140
It worked for our parents when they were kids, it worked on some of us and it worked for our grandparents.

Nothing wrong smacking kids in stages.

1-10 year olds get a smack on the butt that increases in stregnth with age

11-17 year olds get a slap across the face that increases in streangth with age.


18-death(the parents) beat the hell out of them if they feel froggy.


Not sure if your being sarcastic
i apologise if you are, to me its a sharp thump enough to sting and get there attention. I wouldnt use it beyond 10 years since at least by then they can reason alot better. If I had a kid who was climbing the supermarket shelves and who refused to come down after I asked, law be damned he's getting a smack... the BIG problem is some kids now days are savvy enough to know there even is a law, and they know how to use that fact to get there way, if your kids screaming about 'help help im being smacked' i can assure you most parents will just suck it up out of fear, and to me that is whats so wrong with it all... every ones frightened to be a parent since they might get dobbed in.

Stupid thing is, both results... letting the kid get away with murder or being arrested and having court hearings and possible jail time are both more abusive to the kid in the end than the quick smack and short lived tears. Hows that for mind boggling.


Originally posted by Blue Alice
Here's a cynical angle no one has mentioned: If they spend all their efforts on parents who spank their kids, they will not have enough resources for those who beat their kids.

If NZ is anything like the US, getting children out of abusive homes, even when severely beaten and in danger, is very difficult. Social services cannot be spending efforts going after lesser cases is it means other kids will die from neglect or beatings while they worry about a few well-earned smacks.

Not very idealistic, but we don't live in a world of ideals.


Heh yeah our social services is CYF's (Child Youth and Family) and they can be a really problem, thing is they can be down right stupid, taking kids from families for ridiculous stuff and at the same time sticking kids in foster homes that are worse than the places they where taken away from. While I think the heart is in the right place some of them become a little to 'personal crusade' ish and their heights of PC can be stupefying. Still an essential service however. CYF's drops the ball regularly but id say they are pretty good getting kids out of true abusive homes quickly, didnt realise in America it was hard to do so.

Also of note this is all personal opinion on my part based on what I see in the news, not exactly fact.


[edit on 21-8-2009 by BigfootNZ]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Spare the rod, spoil the kiwi.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I think its a good idea too

I was smacked as a kid when I was younger and I turned out fine. A kid I went to school withs mother was an advocant for child abuse, and she used to speak out against smacking kids. Her son grew up into drugs and spent time in jail for assault.

Im not saying that all kids not smacked will turn out like this, but I dont see anything wrong with letting them know right from wrong with a light spanking (not a belt, fist, or cane...just n outstrectched hand will suffice)



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


Wasn't being sarcastic at all.

I will be raising my kids by what I posted. If they want to act like an animal in the supermarket then I will inform them of what will happen when we get home. They still act like an animal and I will make good on what I said.

I won't be like some parents I see and count to three. They get a count to one, thats it.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
They should legalize using a 2 x 4 on the like bastards

that'll teach em



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
not a touchy subject at all
Parents should be allowed to discipline their kids

Countries that allow this have some of the brightest students in the world.

Discipline is necessary
The govt. has no business in telling parents how to discipline their kids.




Bingo!

My parents raised 5 boys (still don't know how they did it!?!) never swore in front of us. Damnet the Hell was the worst we ever heard, and if you made Mom cry, might as well move to china! This is without them really lifting a finger.

We could have gang tackled my Dad, but we knew better! He was a very good boxer(L W class) in the Navy and after, before starting a family.


There was always a consequence for our actions, and we knew it. When we did some thing bad (like me peeing in the bushes (8 yrs old) instead of using the bathroom, I knew what was coming! Grounded and couldn't go out to play with friends!

Yes they spanked us(in the behind) though, I am sure we deserved more than that much of the time.

I always remember them telling us, "You know, Son, this hurts us more than it hurts you!"

(In my head, "like hell it does?"), "It hurts me more than it hurts You!"

Ah, the memories!


It reminds me of the Eddie Murphy story(comedy tape) he tells, when his dad came home real drunk and challenged his son's to a fight, and I think wagered some money on a bet that they all couldn't kick his ass! Eddie said, they kicked his ass and took his money. The next day his dad didn't remember what happened and Eddie had a new bicycle though didn't tell him where the money came from! Real funny Story!





posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


Displine is a parental right and essential tool, without it children are intolerable for the most part. Exceeding a spanking is of course, unacceptable, but, it should remain in the hands of a parent to decide what method of punishment/disciple they wish to implement.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Yeah, Sue Bradford really didn't think about how annoying her legislation actually was.

Everyone seen even lightly disciplining their child for a while were all like "OMGZZZ CHILD ABUZEEE!"

Was so damn silly.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
New Zealand is sounding like a nicer place to live every day... Isn't New Zealand one of the least hostile countries on Earth also? Not too mention, the most beautiful country I've ever seen...



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join