If you break the law we`ll make sure you don't get prosecuted
This is what I think John Key will tell Cabinet tomorrow.
He will advise that the law surrounding smacking should not be changed. Instead he will instruct police and CYFS not to prosecute or investigate cases of light smacking. [Update: well, not before they report every case of smacking to the Government]. This will not reassure parents because he has said this before and one parent got convicted for smacking, with others getting prosecuted.
Our panty-waisted Prime Minister just hasn't got the balls to change the law. We expect Parliament to pass laws in line with democratic interests, not pass policy. The referendum asked whether smacking should be a criminal offence, not whether parents should be prosecuted or investigated by police or CYFS.
Parents want to live within the law, not to break the law in the knowledge that they wont be hassled.What John Key is effectively doing is putting a used condom over the law to provide added protection. It won't work. It is also undemocratic as the public don't want that. They want to parent within the law and smack their children in the knowledge that such as smack is not a criminal offence.
If we can break a criminal law passed by Parliament with the explicit intention, after an overwhelming referendum ,that it will not be upheld, I guess we can break other laws too - perhaps small amounts of shoplifting will be fine, especially in a recession. After all shoplifting laws are working well, aren't they? And shoplifting, like smacking, can also happen in the supermarket.
Any other suggestions welcome.
Labels: referendum, s59
7 Comments:
I suggest that theives be no longer prosecuted.
Yes, this was my thought too. Once parents get used to the idea that they are technically an un-convicted criminal and that people (or a government made of people) can cherry pick which laws they follow, a whole raft of silly laws can be ignored. I'm off to 'the pirate bay'.
But seriously, the reason JK is so unwilling to back out of this legislation, is because the UN told NZ gov to put this legislation in place. And to reverse it may mean a withdrawl from UNCROC. IF you look at all the 'yes vote NGO's' many of them have links back to the UN.
The question I have now (the same question, that I asked John Key 2 years ago) is, Why does NZ let a non-democratically elected, ideological foundation like the UN, set its policy for it, without screening it for common sense first?
"We expect Parliament to pass laws in line with democratic interests, not pass policy."
The law was passed in line with the democratic interests at the time. If Baldock and his bunch of bible toting thugs hadn't pushed this issue then it would have slipped quietly into history and no one would have been worried about the occasional bully prosecuted for using excessive force on his kids. The liberals of this country have been suckered by Baldocks bullshit.
'bible toting thugs'
Careful, your prejuduce is showing... and the passing of this law had nothing to do with democracy. The majority of NZers have always been against this law. This had much more to do fringe ideology than anything else. Seems like you have freed yourself from one belief system only to get suckered in by another!
I sent the following email earlier today...
Dear John Key and the rest of the National Cabinet,
Please listen to the voice of the people and amend the current anti-smacking law.
You have indicated that you plan to do nothing more than offer prosecution directives to the police, but this is simply not good enough for my wife and I, and the thousands of other Kiwi parents who are left vulnerable while the anti-smacking law remains on the books in its current form.
Please understand that we are NOT asking you to repeal the new law, simply to amend it so that the letter of the law explicitly excludes mild physical discipline from the list of illegal acts.
A mere 'do not prosecute' order is simply not good enough because it will only remain in force as long as you are in power, or until some future government should decide to rescind such a directive and then leave us good parents to contend with the current law which leaves us open to the possibility of prosecution.
My wife and I are not regular smackers, but we have already felt the impact of this law upon our ability to effectively parent our children, especially in public settings where we have had to start enduring bad behavior from our young children, when previously a light smack would have resolved the issue quickly and effectively, but the new law has left us feeling vulnerable to the possibility of official investigation, and has thus hampered our ability to quickly resolve situations where a light smack was the most practical disciplinary option.
My wife and I voted for National at the last election, and this issue was one of the motivating factors in voting for you, and your response to this issue now will also be a motivating factor for us when it comes to voting at the next election.
Remember, not only have more than 1.4 million voters expressed their opposition to any law prohibiting the use of physical discipline, highly qualified NZ legal experts have also expressed strong dissatisfaction at the problematic and messy nature of the new anti-smacking law.
Please do the right thing tomorrow and amend the law to explicitly exclude mild physical discipline - you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking such a step.
Kind regards,
Brendan Malone
Here are a couple of links to help when writing to John Key and the Cabinet:
http://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/the-message-is-clear-decriminalise-light-smacking/
and
http://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/referendumsection-59-the-way-forward/
How about a 'little bit of speeding'? A little bit of illegal parking?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home