Smackdown 2: The Referendum

14 Comments + Add Comment

• 
  Bernard July 8, 2009 at 2:09 pm

  Well said. I don’t think the question could be anymore loaded. If you (they) really wanted the people’s opinion, you (they) wouldn’t word it like /that/.

  Reply
• 
  Ken July 8, 2009 at 2:25 pm

  I agree.
  I say – Don’t encourage them. Don’t vote.

  Reply
• 
  Scott July 8, 2009 at 3:03 pm

  I agree to a point, i’m not a fan of smacking for discipline. But answer this… Can you physically place your child in Time out, as part of positive parenting? According to the law… NO! and could it be investigated? The Head of the Canterbury police child abuse unit says he can’t say whether or not they wouldn’t prosecute for a light smack or physical discipline (I have the Audio).
  According to Sue Bradford herself the Law is confusing and misleading (I have video). Families commission’s Chief Jan Pryor agrees that the law could be made clearer.. (I have Audio). . This is not about smacking it’s about bad law. And bad law needs to be corrected – I don’t want the old law reinstated, because I like the fact that we are moving away from a violent society. I just want it to be clearer for parents like me.
  I also agree this is not a Christian issue… for me it’s about being a parent. If I can force the govenment to listen and make the law right, then maybe a No vote wouldn’t hurt. But it sounds as if it won’t matter anyway. (The law would have been better the way Sue Bradford had it in the first place.. At least it was straight forward and I knew where I stood.)

  Reply
• 
  Drew July 8, 2009 at 3:32 pm

  Scott – thanks for your perceptive comments. I agree the law as it stands is a mess. I guess it’s the old camel=a horse designed by a committee syndrome. Too much input from too many people.
  As I read the current law you could physically place your child in time out but as a preventative measure not a corrective one. As if anyone could make that distinction! It’s a nonsense.
  I would be all in favour of a petition which called on parliament to revise the current law to make it clear, concise and consistent but that is not the thrust of the referendum that has been presented by the religious right. The aim of their referendum is to make smacking legal and thus reopen the loop hole in the law which gives abusive parents a legal defense. This I believe would be a big step backwards.
  If all concerned citizens wrote to their MPs asking for the law to be improved I think that would be more productive and far less expensive than a bogus referendum based on a shockingly slanted question.

  Drew

  Reply
• 
  Scott July 8, 2009 at 4:30 pm

  I can’t agree more Drew. But I guess in any referrendum that is sponsored by a particular agenda it is going to be slanted. in 1999 an NZ citz ref stated “Should there be a reform of our Justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims” – 91.78 voted in favour. This is just as slanted as the smacking ref. These aren’t binding but they identify feelings towards that particular agenda. The only diff is that it asks voter “should there be reform” – maybe the smacking ref should have stated similar.

  If Sue Bradford from her position had a ref questions it would probably have been just as slanted “Should violence against children, as protected under section 59, be outlawed in NZ”. OF COURSE it should be. I say outlaw it all together! at least then we’d know what it actually says and actually means.

  Thanks Drew

  Reply
• 
  Damian July 8, 2009 at 7:12 pm

  I agree Drew.

  Reply
• 
  Will Aspish July 13, 2009 at 12:07 pm

  Well said Drew.
  Vote YES for a law that is working!
  http://yesvote.org.nz/

  Reply
• 
  Shunda barunda July 15, 2009 at 9:06 pm

  “The right to hit your kids is not a great Christian principle that we should be fighting for.”

  Oh you really swallowed that lie hook line and sinker.
  The problem with Christianity in NZ is that there is just too much common ground shared with left wing ideologues.
  Go to any contemporary church and all you find is a bunch of unquestioning blind little sheep towing the party line.

  Reply
• 
  Drew July 17, 2009 at 3:06 pm

  Shunda – Your comments suggest that you have scant knowledge of Christianity in this country.

  Christianity in Aotearora/NZ covers the full political spectrum but undoubtedly leans more to the conservative right than the liberal left. It depends a lot on which denomination you’re talking about.

  I’m afraid that Jesus – with his anti-wealth, pro poor stance and the early church – living in community and working with the needy would share a great deal in common with these dreaded left wing ideologues.

  If you consider hitting kids is a great Christian principle – I wonder what other rights you’re prepared to fight for…the right to keep slaves perhaps, to own assault weapons or repress women.

  Your last sentence is derogatory nonsense. Most churches are attended by intelligent individuals seeking to learn more and open to new ideas. The few churches where the members are expected to follow a party line unquestioningly are most certainly not left wing but ultra conservative which rather defeats whatever point you were trying to make.

  Reply
• 
  Shunda barunda July 19, 2009 at 12:47 pm

  Oh Drew, spare me the rhetoric, Hitting kids? smacking is nothing to do with “hitting”.
  And I have a very good knowledge of Christianity in NZ, enough to know that the biggest problems we face are from those within the church.
  Your liberal beliefs are also at odds with what Jesus taught.
  Human compassion is not the same as Gods compassion my brother, it comes out of the “knowledge of good and evil” that humanity gained in the garden of Eden, against Gods will.
  I have witnessed exactly the same methods and of control and manipulation in contemporary christianity, that the worst of the left wing ideologues use.
  You could call it “passive legalism” if you like, tow the line or be subtly pushed aside.

  Reply
• 
  Frank July 19, 2009 at 7:25 pm

  Shunda, I am out of the country at the moment and haven’t been able to follow this properly and am only able to check in every now and then but I thought I would offer some quick thoughts.

  Over my lifetime I have attended most denominations and would say that it is futile for both sides of such a discussion to try and label the church as being either too left or too right – I think it’s fairly well split.

  I think if one were to examine the mainline churches one would find a strong left leaning, but on the other hand, in evangelical churches the leaning at this point in time would probably be more moderately to strongly right. The spectrum is well and truly represented. Even in my own microcosm of friendship, the spectrum is represented – from communist voters to libertarian voters – all Christian.

  I find the distinction made between “smacking” and “hitting” to be an interesting one and predominantly a quibbling of semantics that makes one more acceptable as it sounds less forceful.

  There are, of course, degrees of smacking – without entering the argument over whether it is right or wrong, I would be interested to know, for you, where it moves from being acceptable “smacking” into “hitting” or at least something that is violent and unacceptable? I ask because from what I can see in the many discussions I have had around this topic – that line is subjective and relative and it amazes me how many Christians bring their Bible to the table on what they deem to be acceptable.

  I have spoken to people who think any form of force is wrong and I have covered the spectrum right down to a man who thought “smacking” his son forcefully and repeatedly on the bare bottom with a piece of alkathene pipe was acceptable and mandated in the Bible.

  Interestingly he also made a distinction between smacking and hitting when I asked him the same question about what he thought was acceptable – he believed that if he closed his fist then it moved from a smack to a hit – in his mind, anything that could be defined as a smack rather than a hit, was acceptable.

  I know you won’t be at that end of the spectrum, but hopefully you can understand why I would ask the question.

  In your first comment, you disagreed with Drew when he stated that “the right to hit your children is not a great Christian principle” – you called that a lie. To try and turn this discussion into something fruitful rather than simply an argument back and forth I would like to hear your thoughts on why that is a lie. I am guessing it will come down to some biblical passages worth discussing.

  Can you point out why you think, in the face of the assertion that Drew’s statement is a lie, that it is a Christian principle to “smack” our children?

  Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts here.

  Reply
• 
  Shunda barunda July 22, 2009 at 8:23 pm

  “Can you point out why you think, in the face of the assertion that Drew’s statement is a lie, that it is a Christian principle to “smack” our children?”

  That’s simple.
  This issue has nothing to do with “Christian principles” it is to do with the loss of common sense.
  The lie I was referring to was the “smacking is hitting” mantra well worn by the left and others willfully ignorant of the reality of parental authority.
  This issue has nothing to do with Christianity despite the best efforts of the likes of Sue Bradford to make it so.
  Most people that signed the petition were parents who could see this law for what it was, a blatant intrusion into the lives of parents to promote radical human rights ideology.
  And Frank, your mentioning of the “alkathene pipe” and “closed fist” example is also very cliche of the dishonest approach of the left.
  If you can’t use your God given discernment to differentiate between discipline and abuse, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

  Reply
• 
  Frank July 23, 2009 at 3:41 pm

  Hi Shunda,

  Thanks for offering some more thoughts.

  I agree with you, this isn’t a “Christian issue”… in the sense that term is often understood.

  Because I agree with that, I struggle to understand why you would make it a matter that comes down to my “God given discernment” when it comes to defining the difference between discipline and abuse.

  Surely we can both agree that since this is not a “Christian issue”, whatever I define as my God given discernment (a somewhat subjective determination from person to person) should be a minor part of the discussion – indeed, since the issue is a legal one, I am not allowed the luxury of exerting such discernment as a primary argument.

  The law was and still is based around “reasonable force”, so the question I asked was premised on that. I used the example I did to highlight some of the extremes of defining the term “reasonable” and since I am a Christian, it specifically interests me how people use their belief system to back up their particular understanding.

  I would like to hear where the line is for you – the differentiation between discipline and abuse – of course I can define these things for myself, but I am interested to hear how you define them – where does it cross from discipline to abuse and how do you think the law should differentiate.

  Allow me to gladly put forward my belief that the current piece of legislation is downright confusing though.

  Open up, share your understandings a little more without the well worn mantras against the left

  Note: I personally think the old concepts of left and right politics do little to define the political spectrum of the modern world. Modern politics is a lot more nuanced that those terms allow for.

  Reply
• 
  VoteTheDay August 4, 2009 at 9:22 am

  So what the result will be like of this referendum? Will the smacking be forbidden once and for all? Predictions are accepted here – http://www.votetheday.com/new-zealand/new-zealand-corporal-punishment-referendum-result-450/

  Reply