Pro-smacking lobby threatens second referendum

Ashley just because you post your comment twice, it doesn't make it anymore intelligent. You are right with one point, people will still do it. Just as the murderers still murder, the rapists still rape and the drunks still drive - even though it is illegal. What it does do is send a message to society that it is not o.k to hit children. It is quite sad the government needs to tell parents how to raise their kids and if they weren't doing such a terrible job at it they wouldn't need to.

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 no position to tell us how to raise and discipline our children.

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.

@Jebus... you mean Yes voters when referring to Kim. This whole thing is hilarious.

@KiwiChick
Unfortunately your reply to me was incoherent. Deep breaths before you start smacking your computer.

To assume I don't support smacking is wildly outrageous. But I sure as hell don't support your right to abuse your child. Perhaps this is a waste of time, but here's a response to your points that I could understand.

"That you didn't Vote "j" (lowercase) is because you are one of that small minority"
It's not a small minority that didn't vote. It was 45%. About the same number that voted No.

"the anti smack lobby did everything to attack the referendum and did nothing to present their argument on the topic"
The argument is the law is working fine. Parents aren't being turned into criminals like you'd have us believe. So why change the law? Because you said so? How is that 'reasonable'?

"Poll after poll including justice Dept ones have given the same number Over and Over again"
So why have a referendum then? We have Polls that know what everyone thinks!

"That would make the no voters not vote if they thought that would mean no action..."
Again, this doesn't make sense. Key and Goff both said BEFORE the referendum that regardless of the result they had no intention of changing a law that works as intended.

If, as you say, your side/cause is the "thinkers", then why can't you explain why the law should be changed? All you've done is said 'the people have spoken. Listen to us.' this doesn't make sense.

The ref. question was dumb... The law is fine... What's your problem?

Kim, you moron - the law states explicitly it is okay to use force to prevent the kind of situation you are describing. Yet more evidence the no-voters have no clue as to what they are talking about.

Thomas
The word force is as wrong as the the word smack in this context. I mean if you grab your child when he is about to put his hand in a meat grinder are you not useing force to stop him?
If you are looking for a good name for this bill how about. The anti parental correction bill? or maybe, The child empowerment over parents bill.
The point i am trying to make i guess is the the anti smackers use the work smack in whichever way suits their cause. You will not find one person on any of these forums that would say that hitting your child is ok what I/they are saying is lets have a decently worded legislation to give NZders exactly what Keys is telling the police to do anyway.

Kim, the media is equally guitly of making the publicbelieve this was the anti-smacking bill when it would be more accurately described as the anti-force bill

RE: Last comment
I'm sorry i got the last comment a bit wrong so i will qoute from the article.
Qoute:
The court heard how on July 24, Pe...(persons name) was in her 8 year old daughters bedroom. After noticing drawing on a dressing table, Pe... had smacked her daughter three times in the head.
The smacking had caused the girl to bit her top lip and left her with a lump on her forehead. (end quote)
This is obviously not smacking.
The reporter uses the word smacking 3 time in the article and never once the words hit, slap, punch or any other word to describe the assault.

I read in the Bay of Plenty Times today an article about a women that was convicted for SMACKING her child about the head and causeing a bruse and a swollen eye. This is the type of bul$%t that the media trys to use to sell papers and push the editors or the reporters view on the rest of us. Hitting a child around the head and causing this type of injury is not smacking in any way shape or form and for a paper to use that type of language in a news article should be criminal. This type of abuse was illegal before the law change and she would have been convicted of assault anyway. Come on NZ media at least give this debate a level playing field.
P.S i will never buy/use or advertise in this paper again. Except for my dog to poo on.