|
The
violence that anti-smacking needs to address occurs in a small proportion
of our society, this small proportion will still exist despite any law
or bill that parliament may care to pass. The real solution is to afford
more study to this identifying this minority to ascertain the real cause
and find a real solution to the problem of major violence towards this
particular group of 'at risk' children.
The
government saw fit to arm Police with stun guns to use at their own discretion
to subdue members of the public, yet they intend to not allow parents
to discipline with a much smaller measure of force, where is the equality
or democracy in that?
You can't tell me that a stun gun doesn't hurt or humiliate and isn't
dangerous or doesn't have lasting psychological effects!
You can't tell me that when a policeman uses a stun gun on someone it
isn't for disciplinary purposes, the subject either co-operates or is
threatened with stunning again, that is disciplinary.
Does this mean that Sue and the government intend that the only people
that will be allowed to apply "reasonable force" will be the
police?
I can just see it, a million or so parents afraid to smack their children
because of the law, calling 111 to request assistance in disciplining
their out of control children! of course the real violent parents will
have their fingers poised on the dialpad too instead of beating their
children because they respect the laws that politicians make so much eh?
What
an utter waste of taxpayers money this little diversion is!
We need a law to prevent social engineering by politicians! They are neither
qualified nor compassionate enough to make personal decisions for us all.
We also need laws to make everything politicians do transparent to the
public long before they are even considered to go before parliament, no
wait, I will go one better than that, we need a system that allows every
kiwi to vote on any issue that concerns them in order for it to be ratified
by parliament!
Further
update- 03/05/2007
It is now confirmed that this is but a diversion and both labour and national
are still messing about with a law that already gives police the power
of discernment, further alteration does not address the so called loophole
that allows child beaters to 'get away with it' by way of an unclear definition
of "reasonable force", John Keys suggestion bringing the present
law back to it's original status, so nothing will change if that is to
be the accepted version. Millions of taxpayer dollars spent on what?
One has to ask why these people were not able to think to this conclusion
before spending?
Sue
Bradford tells me that "Nothing about this process has been undemocratic"
which of course is not true as in a democracy the people are consulted
and the peoples' will is adhered to, not necessarily the opinions of a
politician's so called expert advisors. At no time did Sue Bradford ask
for a public referendum or a public survey - non democratic!
The
process of charging someone for assault is the same for adults as it is
for children, determining what is a serious assault is up to the police
and the courts. Sentencing is up to the law which is up to politicians
to decide
Sue
also tells me that this bill has been two years in the making, what on
earth were they doing for two years? who were they consulting? and perhaps
more importantly how much did it cost? Even vastly more important is the fact that we "the people" are being railroaded out
of a democratic right to an opinion that will be listened to and adhered
to if it proves to be the will of the majority.
Sue, you too are now being railroaded if indeed your intentions were actually
genuine, as your bill is now back to the state where it was before you
suggested it.
We
have at least two million adults of well varied backgrounds of knowledge
about the real lives they are living right now here in New Zealand not
in some other country with other forms of social structures.
New Zealanders are traditionally pioneers, that is what makes us different
from others around the world, it is not only dangerously wrong of politicians
to interfere in our private lives it is also insulting indicating that politicians
appear to be of the opinion that "we the people" are incapable
of bringing up our children in a decent manner without political interference,
this also indicates that you politicians are losing touch with the reality
of our lives unless of course you are deliberate in your intentions.
The greatest percentage of these parents know what works for them and
do not trust that any change to the section 59 will bring a better life
for either themselves or the minority of children and families that suffer
the cruelty you say you are trying to prevent.
No
New Zealander in his or her right mind would ever ask politicians (nor
anyone else in most cases) to manage their personal lives for them, you
are charged with the management of our tax money, laws and consequently
our prosperity only, when politicians laws cross the line into our private
lives they reduce themselves to the status of "self righteous busy
body" and thus severly reduce their credibility.
Being reminded of John Keys whispers of Labour Party corruption, at this
point it may also be a pertinent reminder that Tax is collected to benefit
all New Zealanders not a select few, and that corruption can hold a 14
year sentence when the final dots are connected.
The
Labour Party used to be known as "The" socially aware and socially
responsible political party, their performance has proven that this is
no longer the case.
|
