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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


It's good that your child has a very orderly brain. Not all mammals are like that (except in Japan, maybe.
) There are obedient mammals, and there are problematic ones. We are made of hormones and chemicals, after all.

The problematic ones really need a good spanking. Why, some are even put down.





posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
You aren't betting on a horse that you think has the best change of winning, you're voting for the party you think has the best policies.

I don't know, maybe you do think that's Labour (I certainly don't think it's the Greens).

Last election, I voted for the Legalise Cannabis party.


I vote for the Party most compatible with my own values, which tends to mean their policies are the ones I think will work the most (being from a family with socialist a background and an environmental stance and mindset Labor, Alliance and the Greens fit that bill just a pitty there isnt a party that's a fusion of those 3 in core values) . Certainly agree with you on the mindless people who just vote the two largest parties out of being lazy. I mean we have an MMP system, it should be used for exactly the reason you mention, and i personally believe it trumps the American system. No offense to those states side.

Imagine if America had MMP, Ron Paul would have gotten in and would have a modicum of sway, rather than being a lowly senator (or am i getting that wrong?, I only know the basics of American politics and even that makes my head spin)

Then again we have people like the ones my brother works with... who turn up on the day of voting and choose which ever takes their whim. If your gonna be given the right to vote... do it properly and with some thought for crying out loud
(oh and that bash sentence wasnt directed at your choice of vote
)

And for the record i voted Green for party, Labor local


Also sorry for the off topic banter their


Originally posted by ladysharrowandherbarrow

no adult has a right to hit a small child..it is an act of violence.

“Children need love, especially when they do not deserve it.” ~Harold Hulbert


Thats the whole issue though, just what is 'Hit', to me to 'hit' someone is 10x worse than a slap on the bum or wrist, or a smack (i would never hit a kid in the head since to me that IS a hit).

To someone else it could be stricter or even less defined than my own opinion. And ultimately, if 'hit' is defined wrongly then your overriding one groups opinion with someone elses. It was never fully discussed or decided just what constituted a 'hit' and because of this the police where to use their own judgment... which can go horribly wrong, point in case the guy who flicked his kids ear and got arrested... did he really punch his kid in the face like the witness said or was the witness mistaken and he only flicked the ear, the police believed the witness and the guy and his family and his kid have had to go through legal proceedings...

Resulting in a climate of fear for the parents to be parents as someone else in this thread mentioned. Hows that for family friendly society.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
To legalize!?!?!


HA! I'll be DAMNED if anyone tries to tell me its "illegal" to smack my kid.


You want one as well, young man? Let me bend you over my knee...


Naughty, naughty politicans. Pull anything like that again young man and I'll tan your hide with razored straps!



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
This is ridiculous.

If you have children and you feel that they need to be spanked, just do it.
Screw what the Government tells you. Governments across the Globe have overstepped their bounds in so many ways. It is time for people to stop caring what they say. They don't care about what you say!



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
It's totally true. Laws like that probably did cause perfectly awesome parents to be turned into criminals.

If the government can taser and possibly kill your kid, you should be allowed to smack them a tad.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
...and so it goes: the law was never about smacking children, it was hijacked by 'Family Violence First' and rechristened (by them) as the anti-smacking legislation and since then has become obfuscated and overridden with the emotional cries of those who would smack their children saying" we are not criminals'.

The thing is that that law would never have targeted them anyway if they were acting responsibly....but since they made a song and dance about it they feel like victims and now clamour for the right to be able to beat their kids (for that's what the law was about;the use or not or reasonable force).

New Zealand has shocking child abuse statistics and any legislation which can help bring that down is good, such as the current legislation is.

Because it was hijacked by a vocal minority it became an issue.

Sure, you can beat your kids, just don't expect me to agree with you.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   
That's the thing though, beating your children is not what parents that discipline their children in this day and age want to do - Well, a good parent, anyway, but a light smack is useful for teaching children what's right and what's wrong very fast. When they do something that warranted them getting a smack the last time they did something wrong. Then, once they think about the last smack, they'll think of not doing it again. Kinda like animals when you tell them off for scratching the mat or something, they question their actions or maybe just wait to you're out of the room and then they'll do it behind your back.

If the smack is hard enough to leave a bruise, or actually hospitalise the children, then that's abuse. No good parent would ever do that to their child. It's way too hard to actually keep tabs on abusers, though. Mainly because you'd have to invade their privacy.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
yes. beating children will help them understand more as of just speaking to them they've done wrong. (or none physical punishment)



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigfootNZ

Hey totally agree with you, thing is im a Labor and Greens supporter in reality, just not on all points
... just will never be able to support National ever, they go against my moral grain, big business, banks and pandering to farmers and all that.

Not sure if your post was hoeing into me or not, back in 1997 i was just a fresh from college kid, wasnt until that year i even read the news paper or watched the news every night, unlike now.

Didnt realize it was an Alliance members bill to begin with, interesting considering I voted Alliance the election around that time. My comments on Sue Bradford is more about how shes the person who ran with it, and seems to have taken it like it'll be her immortal stamp on the countries history... then whines about the public up roar like its being unfair.

Id hardly call our country full of idiots...we got em but I still think we've got that spark of common sense some other larger countries lost a long time ago... no offense to others in this thread



Originally posted by mogul

She said "with the 46% of people who didn't vote, combined with the 11% who voted 'yes' and the 1% of voters who 'spoilt their papers', 60% of the population sent a clear message that they want to retain the law outlawing 'hitting' of children".



Yeah I read that on Teletext and couldnt make heads or tails of it until your post (i spoilt my paper due to a crud question but my vote wasnt going to be in favour of her). Shes flustered and clutching at straws over a shock to her reality that most of us dont agree with her. Looks like Family First are starting to really push the government over accepting the referendums out come for a repeal of the law change. Will be interesting (although I aint holding my breath, its National after all unless they really are scared of being in only one term this time around)

Pity Labors rudderless
(even though I think Goffs not to bad, just weak)


Originally posted by mogul
This is what your taxpayer dollar is paying for. She is a list MP btw, NOBODY AT ALL voted for her.


yeah one of the biggest problems with our governmental system, i say once the smacking fiasco is over the public get busy on cutting parliament down to those who actually won their seats
, oh and excess parliamentary privileges.




Was going to reply yesterday, but I had computer trouble. Like you I could never vote for the national party - after the "land transport" fiasco of 1998 I just don't trust them any more. Maurice Williamson who was one of the main enablers to this cheating of the public is STILL THERE. Unfortunately Helen Clark put me off Labour for life. So I'm supporting the Legalise Cannabis party.

No, of course my post was NOT hoeing into you. I would never do such an awful thing. I didn't know you voted for the alliance party, everyone is entitled to think for themselves. Good on you.

I knew there was a document somewhere stating that the "anti-smacking" Bill was a UN demand, so I looked it up and found a Herald article of 5 Oct. 2002 saying "article 19 of the convention (UNCROC) requires all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse while in the care of parents, guardians or anyone else"

Early press releases (which are still on newspaper archives) attribute just about everything with regard to this, to Steve Maharey.

What I meant by "a country of idiots" (sort of sarcastically) was that this is how we seem to be seen by the UN and our own politicians. We're seen as little children who vote to go to the park, but mother overrules and says "I know what is best for you and you're going to see auntie".



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


But the thing is that parents HAVE been arrested and CYPS has taken their children, caused untold harm and ensured that these people will have a terrible reputation for ever, for just that - SMACKING THEIR KIDS.!

Sure, maybe nobody was actually sentenced to life in jail because of it, but a lot of damage was already done.

You are right about one thing though, this is not about smacking kids, never was. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE STATE MEDDLING IN WHAT IS THE BUSINESS OF PARENTS ALONE AND TRYING TO MAKE THEM THINK THAT THEY ARE ALL POTENTIAL "CHILD ABUSERS" AND CANNOT BE TRUSTED!

It is now about our incredibly arrogant PM ignoring the results of a referendum. We, the people, are paying for him to live in luxury, travel in luxury and (theoretically) to do what we (as his employer, his paymaster) tell him to do. We are not paying so that we can be told "we know better than you bunch of morons, and so we are overruling you"!



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
It's totally true. Laws like that probably did cause perfectly awesome parents to be turned into criminals.

If the government can taser and possibly kill your kid, you should be allowed to smack them a tad.


What a horrible coincidence. I was just reading an article about a 16 boy in Ozark who was tasered 19 times by police, while he had a broken back.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


Hey totally agree with you, thing is im a Labor and Greens supporter in reality, just not on all points

I'm not at all. I'm not for National either. I think the country shouldn't and doesn't actually have to be monopolised by two parties. I will always vote for smaller parties and I encourage others to do the same so we can diversify the Parliament. Most people I know don't like either party but they'll vote for one of them because those are the two major contenders and I think, that's a plainly bad idea. People will vote in 2 parties that do not represent the opinions of the people because the people don't know the point of voting.

You aren't betting on a horse that you think has the best change of winning, you're voting for the party you think has the best policies.

I don't know, maybe you do think that's Labour (I certainly don't think it's the Greens).

Last election, I voted for the Legalise Cannabis party.



All this "infighting" is possible because we have an MMP system (RATHER THE BUREAUCRATIC INTERPRETATION OF THE MMP SYSTEM). When it was first mooted - like, I suspect, many other people - I was expecting a very different system to the one imposed by these parasites.

We now have "MPs" who cost us millions of dollars, lie, cheat and steal from us and do everything politicians do, BUT WHOM NOBODY EVER VOTED FOR.!

That is an incredibly bizzare situation. In the last government we had a speaker of the house and a minister of finance who nobody had ever voted for.

Margaret Wilson was one who scammed the system for all it was worth, she must have taken millions of dollars out of the "trough" and she stood in Tauranga in 2002 and came THIRD when the votes were counted. Stating clearly that nobody wanted her and that not only that but not even enough people wanted her for her to come anywhere near to gaining that seat.

Yet, she was "on the list", so she was imposed on us anyway.

We were very clearly promised a referendum on "MMP" after it had been "tried", but that has been OVER RULED LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE!!!

Again, this is a case of "you bunch of morons don't know what is good for you so we'll do what we like".



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join