PM says it is ok to smack your kids
I was at the Family First forum in Auckland today. John Key was one of the speakers. He said it was "ok to smack your kids", and the law is administered "the way I want it to be". Therefore in some situations it is fine to break the law provided it is the intent of parliament that the law be disregarded, particularly as Key himself has said that the law is a "dogs breakfast" and that " no-one knows what 'correction' or 'good care and parenting' is".I do.
Key, commenting on administration of the anti-smacking legislation by Child, Youth and Family, said that "CYFS would not say 'do not smack a child'". Meaning that CYFS workers, although now told not to investigate cases of light smacking, would never tell parents that they could not smack.
Unfortunately for Key there was a woman in the audience - who so happened to be sitting behind me - who is on a CYFS care and protection panel. She told Key that social workers were in fact telling parents that they should not be smacking their kids. Key said he had a problem with that, and it needs to change.
He should talk to CYFS bosses about this, rather than telling family organisations that things need to change and doing absolutely nothing about ensuring that change occurs.
Labels: Family First, John Key
7 Comments:
I was also at the Family First Forum. Mr Key managed to sidetrack the questions. He makes the assumption without any evidence that most people who voted NO did so solely or mainly because of concerns that good parents will end up in court for lightly or moderately lightly smacking their child. This is of course a concern but there are many other issues. Larry Baldock explained that children were coming home from school and informing their parents that smacking is against the law and they will report them if they are smacked. The major concern of many people is that this law is undermining parental authority. Mr Key ignored this comment and repeated the manta the law is working and if parents are charged for lightly smacking their child then I – not National – but I will change the law.
It would appear that National does not intend on changing the law. However, it is important to let Mr key know the opposition will not go away. ACT’s John Boscawen is having meetings around the country to demonstrate that the opposition to this law will not go away. The next meeting is in Christchurch. Check out the following blog for details or the next meeting.
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/09/christchurch-event-john-boscawen-david-garrett-larry-baldock-on-s59.html
http://section59.blogspot.com/
When the law is written in a way that cannot be understood or administered in the way intended then it is a bad law and needs to changed. Full stop. What part of that does our government not understand.
It is the governments role to ensure that laws are written in a way that they are understood in the main by one and all.
If this is not the case and they are open to interpretation then ignorence of the law should become a defense in law.
If the government/law enforcers are not sure what they mean then how the hell is the public supposed to?
One of the things John Key said that just blew me away was:
"If I thought the police were not going to administer the law the way I want it to be, then I will change it".
Note the number of "I's" in that sentence?
Scary stuff. I know what Jim Evans would have to say about that little gem.
I thought that was bloddy strange as if he as Pm can tell the police what to do operationally.
Is this soemthing to be worried about?
MikeNZ
Yes, it is something to be worried about.
Jim Evans speech about this will be on youtube soon, I believe.
If anyone could link the Jim Evans speech from youtube here when it is up I`d be most grateful...
Jim Evans speech part One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5bN2J0L9pE
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home