Ball now in Key's court re anti-smacking law

They thought we'd forget about it. They thought it was over. They claimed it was confusing. They thought we'd be silenced. They were wrong. Over the past 3 weeks New Zealanders were asked if a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence in New Zealand. After the nationwide vote, the answer is a clear and resounding NO. The tribe has spoken. Anti-smacking law, it's time for you to go. One question has been unequivocally answered but another question remains: What happens next? John Key now has a clear choice to make. He can either give in to the anti-choice anti-smackers and retain an undemocratic, stupid, ambiguous and unworkable law that criminalises good parenting but does nothing to real child abuse. Or he can be the outcast to Sue Bradford and her ilk. He can make the choice parents aren't allowed to make: the right choice. The right choice is to change this stupid anti-choice law and clearly define reasonable force so that good ordinary parents don't have to feel like criminals and the real causes of child abuse can be addressed.

Unfortunately, things don't look so promising. John Key continues to be pretty much as dismissive of democracy now as before the referendum. He tries to assure us by claiming that proposals short of changing the law are being considered by cabinet that would supposedly put parents at ease. These are empty promises from an empty suit because, as long as the current law remains, parents who smack their children as part of good parental correction will be criminals regardless of whether or not they actually get prosecuted. The so-called compromise between John Key and Helen Clark (Subsection 4) gives police the discretion not to prosecute when the offence is too inconsequential. But who defines what's inconsequential? If I stole a couple of grapes, that would be considered inconsequential by most people but I would still technically be breaking the law. Furthermore, discretion only applies to the police not others like CYFS. They can take away any kids they like just for a light smack. The substituted Section 59 is too confusing and leaves good parents in fear of whether or not they would be criminals. It allows reasonable force for prevention but not correction. But the subsection against correction prevails over the subsection allowing reasonable force for prevention. This makes parents who smack unsure of whether it is for prevention or correction. And, since the prohibition against correction prevails, this pretty much makes any form of reasonable force illegal. If Parliament won't make the law clear and the police don't have clear guidelines as to how to apply the law then how are parents supposed to know whether or not they're actually following the law?

Many people think that the anti-smacking referendum is just about smacking. It's not. It's about leaving good parents alone and giving them the right to choose the best way to parent under the circumstances. It's about telling the Nanny State to stay out of family lives. Anti-smackers claim the allowance for reasonable force under the old Section 59 let child abusers get away. If that's the case (and that's debatable) then reasonable force should be defined so parents know exactly where they stand under the law. The anti-smacking law did not stop the Kahui twins and countless other children from being murdered. Instead it continues to persecute countless good parents. Merely tinkering with the application of the law does not change the law itself. National won the election by only 45% and 88% voted NO in the referendum. This, along with a majority with ACT, provides a clear mandate to change this stupid law so that good parents have choice in parenting. Anything less is unacceptable.

If nursery rhymes were set in modern New Zealand

The thing about nursery rhymes is that they're so old and irrelevant. So here are a couple of updated nursery rhymes for New Zealand's modern politically correct society. Just a warning that most of these won't necessarily rhyme.

The Young Woman Who Lived in a Shoe

There was a young woman who lived in a shoe.
She had so many children so she could stay on the DPB;
She gave them some broth without any bread;
Then whipped them all soundly.
Now CYFS took her kids instead.
And she's facing charges of child abuse.

If Jack and Jill was set in New Zealand

Jack and Jill went up the hill
To fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down and broke his knee,
And claimed on ACC.
He's also on an invalid's benefit.

Stay tuned for more.

Who let the terrorist out?

Scotland let the terrorist out. Well, not yet. But they're going to release the Lockerbie bomber (Abdel Basset al Megrahi) on, get this, "compassionate" grounds. And no, they don't mean compassion for the victims' friends and family. For those who need their memory jogged, this is the Libyan terrorist who blew up a Pan Am airliner in 1988 killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground. Now the guy responsible for one of the worst (along with the 7 July bombings in London) terrorist attacks in the UK will be released just because he's got cancer. Getting cancer is far too compassionate for him and I for one don't have any sympathy for him. You'd forget, from hearing this news, that he's supposed to be serving a life sentence. But when has a life sentence actually meant a life sentence? The least he deserved was a death sentence back in 1988 so all this taxpayers' money could be saved. Somebody tell me how this is compassionate to the victims. I just hope this terrorist evil-doer is denied treatment but it seems as though, if a terrorist wants to get out jail, all he has to do is give him/herself cancer. Maybe Osama bin Laden will now be thinking of giving himself cancer so that, if he's ever caught and put in jail, he can be let out early on "compassionate" grounds.

Quote Quiz

Guess who said this:

"We need to go back to the time, back to the day when we parents saw somebody, saw some kid fooling around and -- it wasn't your child, but they'll whup you anyway. (Laughter and applause.) Or at least they'll tell your parents -- the parents will."

And who said this:

"… they don’t want to see, ah, you know, stressed and harassed parents, ah, you know, called in by the police because they, they smacked a child, so I think there’s a debate to go on…"