Pro-smacking lobby: change the law, or else

Email
Print

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:00a.m.

Larry Baldock

Larry Baldock

By Laura Turner

Opponents of the so-called anti-smacking law have threatened the Prime Minister following last night's referendum landslide that if he doesn't repeal the law, he will feel the wrath at the next election.

Around 1.6 million New Zealanders voted in the referendum, 88.1 percent voting 'no', and while John Key says he has taken notice, there is still no need for a law change.

Petition organiser Larry Baldock felt vindicated last night, winning 87 per cent of the vote. He had 1.4 million people support him, all the votes he needed except the one that holds the key to a law change.

"It's my belief that the law is working, and at this point we don't need to change the law," says Mr Key. "But it's also my intention to take to Cabinet next week a series of proposals which I believe will give parents in New Zealand comfort."

But Mr Baldock says he wants nothing less than a law change, and has issued an ultimatum to the Prime Minister.

"More people voted 'no' than voted for the National Party to make John Key Prime Minister, so if he thinks he can ignore this he's really kidding himself," says Mr Baldock.

In response to the question, 'Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?' the biggest support for a 'no' vote came from the Coromandel, Invercargill and New Plymouth. A higher than average number of votes in support of keeping smacking a criminal offence came from Helen Clark's old electorate Mt Albert, Dunedin, Wellington Central and Rongotai.

Phillipa Howden-Chapman voted 'yes'. She is also a member of the New Zealand Psychological Society that honoured Green Party MP Sue Bradford yesterday for her work in making smacking illegal.

Ms Howden-Chapman says a smack teaches children and society that violence is acceptable.

"When suddenly something happens and you don't know what to do you lash out, and in some cases it's a flick - but we know too often that can go to a smack, an open hand, a closed hand, a pushing against a wall."

She adds: "I think that it was such a badly-worded referendum question that we really can't know what most people are voting for, and we know only half the people voted."

But the pro-smacking campaigners say they will push this issue as far as they have to for another law change, and if Mr Key doesn't listen he will feel the impact at the next election.

"Many political commentators said this was the straw that broke the camel's back for Helen Clark's prime ministership," says Mr Baldock. "I hope John doesn't make the same mistake."

And politics is one place where time out is worse than a light smack.

3 News
Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

20 Sep 2009 03:52p.m.

cerise wrote:

Ha, Mark: Smacking isn't the only form of punishment. You're making it out like if we don't smack, the child can do anything? I promise that some of these teenagers who "have no respect for society or themselves", such as the ones who skip school and rebel or whatever, have been smacked as children. Not that I'm claiming all children who get smacked turn out this way (or even many of them). I'm just saying your claim is based entirely on your own assumptions. I don't really have an opinion either way, but most of the arguments for pro-smacking that I have seen are really unconvincing. But maybe Mark is a bad example.

31 Aug 2009 01:22a.m.

mark wrote:

You only have to live in the uk and see that making a parent a criminal for smacking their child and the teachers in a position of not being able to reprimand with the deterant of a smack just has not worked, when you have a child that can do whatever they want without any fear of reprimand apart from being shouted at you then lose the ability to control and teach the lifeskills we all need in our upbringing,in a sense you are putting a child in full control of their own future without any intervention from an adult unless the child wants that intervention,and tell me a child that does !! Did you ?? Whether it be a parent or a teacher they need that ability to control,kids are out of control in the uk,and then they as still kids themselves with no respect for anything or anyone end up having kids,they then have no respect and they have kids and it goes on and on and on,common sense has been lost due to the extreme minority of parents that do abuse their children and to protect the few we run the risk ruining the rest by taking away the rights of parents to make that adult concious decision that the only way to deal with a situation is to smack,not punch,attack or beat,just smack,you tell me a parent that wouldnt lay their own life down to protect their child,and yet people seem to think that a child who is hanging around the wrong crowd,choosing that wrong path at an early age, and is abusive either physicaly or verbally,vandalises property,steals and is only 10yrs of age will sit down and listen to a good stern shouting at,get real wake up and smell the coffee,that child needs a goood smack and feel their ass stinging,otherwise by the time that child is 15 he will be lost and have no respect for society or themselves.If not smacking works,why is the younger part of our society so violent,they are not taught right and wrong anymore ,just allowed to do as they please.Stop looking for a perfect world by destroyng the one we have got..

24 Aug 2009 04:45p.m.

Chris wrote:

Sue Bradford sent her kids to school in the snow bare footed to show others "how poor her family is". If that isn't child abuse, nothing is.

24 Aug 2009 04:36p.m.

Chris wrote:

It is evident that "Umm" and "Err" IS Sue Bradford. Welcome to the internet. And don't worry, you will never be able to ban internet in schools.

24 Aug 2009 02:53p.m.

Justafied wrote:

These Bradford type of pathological narcissistic bullies who desire to Lord over the families of this country and who endeavour to reach into my household to influence the way I teach, educate and take care of my family can go and take a flying leap off their fancied altruistic precipice and fall head first into their own moral cesspit from whence they sprang.

The notion that a smack is not synonymous with physical abuse will not be entertained by them. How could it? It simply does not fit with their goal of perverting our society to conform to an ideology where complete moral relativism dominates all way of life. However, their strongest resistance to this change will need to be disempowered before it can be brought to fruition. The greatest threat to their cause is the family that lives by a moral code of conduct.

A good number of these kiwi families adhere faithfully to a way of life taught to them by their parents. Many of these families have religious backgrounds i.e. the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim etc. These parents and caregivers along with many other kiwis, desire to teach their children right from wrong, hoping to raise them to be upstanding citizens and productive members of society. But more than that, parents simply want their children to be safe and happy, making the most of the legacy that they have left them.

Along the way these families will be met with difficult situations where their efforts to teach values and principles can be quite challenging. Section 59, if used to its full capacity, can forcibly remove much of the effectiveness of the efforts of these parents. According to Section 59, unless a parent's efforts are "inconsequential" they may be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

24 Aug 2009 01:32p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Excuse me, is this the same Larry Baldock of the same Kiwi Party who couldn't even persuade one percent* of New Zealand voters to support his dire fundamentalist party during the last general election? If so, he certainly has no mandate to speak for anyone but his benighted colleagues.

(0.66%, to be precise)

24 Aug 2009 01:15p.m.

Err wrote:

Chris - if the Green Party didn't get any votes, how did they get so many seats? You don't even know how our electoral system works, let alone the law. I voted for Sue Bradford as a part of the Greens list, as did a couple of hundred thousand other people - twice as many as voted for Rodney Hide and his motley crew. And National voted for the law as it is too - don't pin this on one person with your ill-educated opinions.

24 Aug 2009 01:08p.m.

To any other party wrote:

To Umm. Yip point taken. but here is my take on things. Every one has there own opinion. But here goes.
1. it was bully tatactis that got this into law in the first place by all the parties.
2. National want to up our taxes (any cause my family problems - domestic violence, drinking, gambling, stress etc)
3. Taking funding away from schools, polytechnics and universities. (more kids on dole or pregnant)
4. Sell of my SOE's eg ACC (here we go again)

Labours mistakes:
1. Civil union bill
2. anti smacking law.
3. Giving a dam about the little person and not just corporate money

Again this is my opinion and there are others i know with the same opinions. Sorry but you must be - need i say it one of the corporate money. Thanks for letting me voice MY OWN OPINION

24 Aug 2009 01:07p.m.

Chris wrote:

Umm(or whatever your name is) It's not about voting for a party which does not support this law, its about showing all the stupid politicians which didn't even get any votes [cough]Sue Bradford[/cough] that this is a democracy and what the people choose should be happening without any nonsense.

24 Aug 2009 12:56p.m.

Umm wrote:

To Vote Any Other Party: Who are you going to vote for if not National? Did you forget last November that they also supported the change in the law? Who are you going to vote for instead - Labour? ACT? Haha.