Written By: - Date published: 5:45 pm, January 29th, 2008 - 57 comments
Categories: child discipline -
Tags: child discipline
Mike Moreu from The Press is shaping up to be quite a fine cartoonist. Here’s his take on the Religious Right’s petition to restore the riding crop lady‘s right to beat her children.
Meanwhile the folks over at Newzblog have done a great send-up of the increasingly incoherent Garth McVicar from Sensible Sentencing and the equally dreadful Christine Rankin of “we’ve got a Maori problem” fame.
All the more timely in light of today’s speech. I wonder what Garth would think of boot camps?
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Oh yeah – this is easily as apt as Redbaiter accusing every social democrat in the country of being a Stalinist. What incisive wit.
Haha – the referendum questions are idiotic as the cartoonist points out.
Maybe one should have been “Do you think inflicting physical pain as punishment is a part of good parenting?” That is what their question actually means.
Retards.
or maybe – Do you think a good parent should be criminalised for doing their job. Interesting to note that Nutty Sue Bradford is straight away using emotive language like “beating” and “bashing” to describe the way i raise my well disciplined, well behaved, likeable three children. I am pleased I signed the petition and I pray that the 300,000 signatures are obtained. Certainly when I signed it over the Christmas break there was a queue of people signing up. I think the old Maori lady behind me summed it up when she said something to the effect “what business does Labour have telling me how to raise mylovely children”
I cringe to think NZ will once again be seen overseas as living in the past – I try so hard to convince people it’s not like that any more but things like this make us look like social dinosaurs
Absolutely sick Tane absolutely sick
Family first among other groups want a referendum on the “anti-smacking” law. Do you not get it. They actually believe in democracy unlike you.
I guess you don’t even know what referendum means
This smacking law is real sick .
It’s a good cartoon.
Of course, Teh Party would be happier if the 250,000 plus who have signed the petition were Party members eh? How many votes do you think the s59 won Labour?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10489370
I’m sure stories like this will drive more supporters to FF.
The religious right should follow the Gloriavale example, by breaking off from the rest of the wider community, and going and forming a pure-Christian-”commune” (for lack of a better word).
Then they can control all they like. And they have the nerve to suggest that the Government is interfering in people’s lives.
And they have the nerve to suggest that the Government is interfering in people’s lives.
Damn right – all the govt is doing is criminalising parents, whereas these fucking religious mofos are trying to… to… er, what exactly was your point again?
Policy Parrot
Good idea, they can take the extreme left wing activists and the extreme right wing activists with them. They can take the telephone cleaners and the dental hygienists as well – we don’t need that bloody diversity thing in our communities. Life will be much easier when we are all drones wearing plain light brown overalls (or perhaps red ones for ceremonial occasions).
Simeon hits the nail on the head – these guys are asking the public to decide, not just cheering their own flavour of political party because it’s much easier if nanny looks after such tough decisions for us.
CAPTCHA daily childless – very appropriate.
Oh yeah – this is easily as apt as Redbaiter accusing every social democrat in the country of being a Stalinist. What incisive wit.
It’s pretty clear to me that the cartoonist is satirising the religious nutters behind the petition and not the people who signed it Milt.
Loved the link to sod’s piece – you’re on fire brother.
Attention Jimmy Mason.I can assist with your court case.Talk about fire brother.Things are hotting up.Sit tight.Big shake up coming.Lots going down.
vote in the poll at http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/tabid/183/Default.aspx
The question is “Should there be a referendum on the anti-smacking bill?”
Bob McCroskie:” So you do not want to see smacking banned?”
Helen Clark: “Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature.”
I’m antismacking, but if Clark hasn’t signed the petition then she’s a complete hippocrate. Hollow.
on the TV 3 poll 73% say yes there should be a referendum on the “anti-smacking” law.
Only 21% say No.
So who’s right. It seems quite obvious.
So who’s right. It seems quite obvious.
Does it? The matter of what’s more popular seems obvious – “right” is a different question altogether.
I haven’t and wouldn’t sign these “loving smack” loonies’ petition. It’s one thing to object to being made a criminal by some do-gooder wowsers, quite another to campaign for the right to hit your kids.
You wouldn’t sign a ‘loonies’ petition with a name like psycho?
300,000 ‘loonies’ is a lot of votes Ms Milt.
Psycho I wouldn’t sign it either. But in light of Clark’s comment above I feel she should, or is she just a hollow hippocrate?
Give it a rest Concerned. You’re boring.
Oh I know I’m boring Daveo. Clark’s statement on smacking was quite clear. Yet is is Family First that wears the smears. You give it a rest or you’ll just sound hollow and hippocritical like Clark. Guess I’ll get banned soon.
Well the holiday is over. Back to work.
As I understand it – virtually every party in parliament voted FOR the repeal of s59, including National. wikipedia (article is inaccurate, from memory Copeland didn’t actually vote against – press conference or something).
from granny:
My point is that we have a representative democracy – what convinced that number of representatives to vote for the bill? Probably the same that convinced me to switch from “why do we need the law change?” to why we badly need it. The opposition to the bill scared the hell out of me – the hysteria of the opposition convinced me that there were people around who’d I HATE to give a defense of reasonable force to.
Looks like they are still around
Anyone talking about “children’s rights” is actually talking about rights that they wish to take away from parents and bestow on the state.
Summed up in Shrillary Clinton’s lame-ass observation “it takes a village to raise a child.” This, of course ignores the fact that most people don’t want their child raised by a village.
Sue Bradford remains a militant Marxist-Leninist dedicated to undermining the institutions of a free society and replacing them with totalitarian socialism.
The three main roadblocks to the Marxist-Leninist goal of a secular and socialist world order are private property (which provides material independence from state power), the family (which affords loyalties prior to the state), and religion (which claims authority above that of the state).
Marx claimed that society is evolving inexorably toward socialism through a process called dialectical materialism. Here, an existing condition (thesis) comes into conflict with a new condition (antithesis) that is attempting to emerge. Out of the dialectical conflict between these two opposing forces a new, higher condition (synthesis) emerges. This is then put through the process again as the new thesis, until the institutions of a free society are completely eradicated and full socialism is achieved.
Lenin expanded Marx’s dialectical analysis from its early focus on economic relationships to take in social and political relationships, thus widening the role of the revolutionary as a change agent. The task of the revolutionary was now to identify and exploit pressure points for dialectical conflict, thus undermining the legitimacy of the existing social and political order, and hastening the eventual triumph of socialism.
Society must be divided (with the help of useful idiots looking for opportunities to engage in moral preening) into “oppressor” and “oppressed” groups. Bradford’s wheeze of casting normal, loving parents as “oppressors” and children as an “oppressed” group requiring the intervention of an activist government is classic Marxist-Leninist dialectical tactics in action.
This undermines the family and replaces its determinative powers with that of the state. It also enables organised religion to be attacked and discredited for providing a philosophical base for the Judeo-Christian nuclear family model.
Think about it. In “Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State,” Engels wrote: “Within the family, man is the bourgeoisie, women and children the proletariat.” Marxist-Leninists therefore regard the family as the instition within which children are socialised into the hierarchical system of capitalist class relations, and thus a key target for dialectical attack.
To use terminology popularised by another well-known parliamentary leftard, Bradford is nothing but a “hater and a wrecker.”
AncientGeek
Well said.
One thinks that Simoen would have opposed the repeal of slavery, votes for women, the matrimonial property legislation, the homosexual reform bill etc etc.
Luckily there are people who think progressively eh ?
Actually I think that Michele makes my point… well in obverse. Good example of quoting – could you Pleeeassssseeeeee use links. I know you can do it – you’ve done it before..
Plagiarism could be considered to be a sin…
Michele you don’t need to hit children for no other reason then its wrong . It is poor parenting, does not need to happen, and sends the wrong message.
If one can “correct” misbehaviour without resorting to violence why wouldn’t you ?
You may not have noticed this but smacking hasn’t been banned. The only change in the law is that parents no longer have a get out of gaol free card for assaulting their children.
So, no – she’s not a hypocrite or hollow. You are for not understanding the law and then accusing someone else of your faults.
As I understand it – virtually every party in parliament voted FOR the repeal of s59…
And as I understand it, the bill only passed because Labour stripped its MPs of the right to vote their consciences, and John Key fondly imagined himself to have cut a deal mitigating its worst effects (he hadn’t – but Nat voters are generally such unthinking suckers that many are now fondly imagining he’ll repeal it once in power. How these people ever get to be the govt is beyond me). Our representative democracy has passed crap laws I won’t obey before now, so this is just one more – but I’d prefer it if they didn’t criminalise perfectly ordinary behaviour in the first place. Call it a quirk.
NB: Copeland did vote against – but only because reporters reminded him in the middle of his press conference that those bells he could hear were of some significance to the subject he was pontificating about…
You wouldn’t sign a ‘loonies’ petition with a name like psycho? 300,000 ‘loonies’ is a lot of votes Ms Milt.
So, you’ve learned not to leave a space in front of your punctuation, Dad4Justice? Clever – you’ll figure out how to use sock puppets effectively yet, by the look of it.
Grr – “You wouldn’t sign a ‘loonies’ petition with a name like psycho? 300,000 ‘loonies’ is a lot of votes Ms Milt” above should be in italics. It’s a quote from Lawyer Dude, ie Dad4Justice.
Test
Test
[lprent - junk warning - this is probably dad4justice under yet another alias. It is in his usual IP range and with the usual comment type.]
Tane, you say the petition is from the “religius right”. Do you actually know who constructed the petition? Clue: It wasn`t anyone from Family First. Obviously the cartoonist and most of The Standard bloggers arent aware of that.
Family First did not organize the petition.Provable fact.
[lprent - junk warning - this is probably dad4justice under yet another alias. It is in his usual IP range and with the usual comment type.]
Yeah, as I understand it the petition was organised by ‘Unity for Liberty’ or somesuch organisation fronted by Larry Baldock. I’m on their mailing list.
However, Family First have been the public voice on this issue and have spent tens (if not hundreds) of thousands on advertising against the Section 59 repeal. I imagine will have also been deeply involved in drumming up signatures for the petition. These groups don’t operate in isolation.
Er, dave… is there any sense in which Larry Baldock is not “the religious right?”