Online debate - the smacking referendum

The government has every right to tell us how to raise our children. They are the government in power and they decide the law of the land. Just as they deem that all children must go to school, they can deem anything they like.

All states are nanny states and have been for a VERY LONG TIME. I wish these dreamers would stop talking of a time when they weren't.

Oh, and another fact for the 'old times were the better times' dreamers, murder and crime is no new invention. Shocking, I know, but murder has been around forever and no one government or state has yet figured out how to eradicate it. All we have are ideas and theories, since nothing in the past has worked all that well, I say we give the people who are forward thinking enough to stand up and give things a try the chance to put their plans into practice. Oh, guess what, that's democracy...

This law is a relatively new one and I am in no way surprised that there is a large faction out there who are anti it, particularly when they are egged on by 'old school' members of the media and politicians. But let's actually give it a chance, eh?

I'll leave you with this thought: Imagine the public outcry when gladiatorial battles were first banned by the Romans. Those events were so entrenched in society at the time that I doubt the change went down so well at all, but many years later we can see it was a change for the good.

Just because something worked well in the 1900s, doesn't make it our destiny.

Enjoy your day! It's a beautiful country out there...

This referendum is a waste of hard working tax payers. Making a law which states smacking is illegal isn't going to change anything, people are still going to do it. the government is in know position to tell us how to raise and discipline our children.

For all those saying that the wording was rigged in order to get a good result, I'd advise you to read http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/other/pamphlets/2001/citizens_referenda.html and if you cant be bothered to click on the link "The Clerk has three months to determine the wording of the question."

Now you are downgrading my statistics because they don’t fit with your position, scratching around a bit don’t you think. Care to define ‘good’ violence versus ‘bad’ violence? Or is it your position that violence is always bad?

I wouldn't trust a Geocities page. YOu realise they're amateur nonsense? My stats come from the United Nations. Yours from an amateur website which is being shut down (look it up). I know you probably looked really hard to find those stats to justify your position, but try harder. Violence begets more violence - the most violent states on earth are largely those with capital punishment. It all begins with smacking.

According to this source the murder rate in Sweden is double the murder rate in New Zealand. http://www.geocities.com/tents444/geohomicide.htm#murd Perhaps cultural differences explain the lack of graffiti in Singapore but I think the Rotan cane might just have something to do with it.

John keys needed help getting into the PM job last elections. How can he and his party ignore 88% of 1.600 000 voters, Thats 1.408 000 voters lets all tell him at the next elections. Or are our memories really that short.

Stop spreading lies. The murder rate in Sweden in 2008 was 1.47 per 100,000 people. In NZ it is 2.00. That's considerably higher, and it has been so for the past decade, at least. Singapore, Hong Kong and Tokyo all have similarly low rates of homicide, yet widely varying laws and punishments - I'd suggest it's a cultural thing, not a law thing - considering the countries iwth the highest murder rates have death penalties and/or corporal punishment. Do some research before spouting off lies and half-truths.

Have to differ on the Sweden thing; they do not grow up just fine. Their murder rate is double our own and that is a fact. In Singapore their murder rate is one of the lowest in the world wonder if it has anything to do with the corporal punishment they dish out. We have extraordinary amounts of crime and antisocial behavior in NZ. Corporal punishment in homes and in schools effectively controls antisocial behaviour. I would prefer it if the liberal non smacking approach worked but it is roundly ineffective. What has to happen for the non smackers to accept that violence is the only effective solution in some circumstances or will you cling dogmatically like drowning men to straws this noble ideal. The meek will not inherit the earth only get their asses kicked, turning the other cheek simply means you get whacked in the opposite one. If pacifism is the cousin of liberalism then your position is bankrupt as you deny the moral imperative of self defense, essentially what smacking is all about.

To those people who say the law is an intrusion on how they bring up their children, what do you say to the thousands upon thousands of other laws that tell you how to bring up your kids? Why is it just this one that grinds your gears? If I brought up my kid to go in public nude, sacrifice animals and punch others in the face, should I be allowed to?

Obviously people have different opinions about smacking children and I respect that. If you don't agree with smacking then don't do it. But the government has no right to tell us how to raise our children. The fact that they are saying that parents aren't currently being criminalised for light smacks is still not good enough because its still what the law says. Its the principle of the matter. What law are they going to come up next? Personally I think that a smack and abuse are 2 totally different things. Also I believe emotional abuse can be much more damaging then physical abuse... so are they going to tell us what we are and are not allowed to say to our children next?