With the emergence of the Yes Vote campaign, I’ll be voting Yes and hoping that every good-hearted person in this string who is considering a spoilt ballot will do the samee thing.

So there are defences when you’re playing some code, but it is still illegal. Just like all smacking was always illegal, but now there’s no defence because you were only hitting your sprog.

FF, I’m equally confdent, were against the repeal of Section 59. Smacking was already illegal, so techincally, at a stretch, you could argue they were against removing the defence for an otherwise illegal action, but that was far from their comments at the time and thereafter. If that was truly their position, they were pants at articulating it.

Both the current one re the right of parents to whack theor kids, and the firefighters one, were extraordinarily biased in their wording. And the sentencing one deliberatly confused two sepate issues in its wording,

The CIR law is an ass – we need to reform or repeal it. That might be something we could get the vast majority of Parliament to agree to do – let’s ask them.

I see that Lanmac (Ianmac?) suggested in Brian Edwards’ blog that the third option of spoiling your vote was possible.

I think it should be considered. The pro cannabis movement used to use it with prohibition votes. The number of spoilt votes will be recorded and publicised on the results website and should be reported by any media outlet doing its job.

Oh, I see what the problem is …

Obviously the “no” vote here is going to get 80% or more. For the reasons outlined by Deborah above I feel compelled to vote yes, but I do feel odd voting ‘against’ something that is says it is ‘for’ good parenting. The government should say that the referendum actually has little to do with changing the s59 law. Perhaps we will see some sort of amendment, although I think the law is OK as it stands. I hope we don’t get to a point where we’re saying “it’s OK to bash your kid this hard, but not that hard.”

Edit: I’ve just re-read my original post, and I think it need to make my point clearer. The question is of course complete rubbish and hence my thought about intentionally spoiling my vote in protest. I do think that the question serves the intent of those who organized the referendum very well – it will likely generate more outraged ‘no’ votes than if they had presented the same question in a much more fair and balanced form. The original post by Eddie is acting like the people who chose the questions are idiots – on the contrary, I think they are quite calculating.

What if the question was “Should beating kids into unconsciousness for giggles, as part of rational childrearing, be a criminal offence?”? I mean, you’ve immediately set a situation where beating kids into unconsciousness is assumed to be part of rational childrearing – so it must be good.

Government funds shouldn’t be spent finding answers to unproven hypotheticals.

Doesn’t the Crimes Act (or whatever the law is that makes it illegal to punch or tackle someone) make boxing and rugby illegal, or is there an exception loaded?

If there is an one, does that exception cover every instance where someone might have a legitimate reason for physical contact with someone that could be interpreted as an assault or similar under said Act?

There are common law defences of consent and implied consent to assault charges.

FF & their nutty co didn’t mind the original s59 in the slightest, and fought hammer, tongs, tooth and nail to keep it

Certainly some were happy with the current law, but Chester Borrow’s amendment was the popular compromise. If you go back and look, I’m confident you’ll find the Family First were fighting “hammer, tongs, tooth and nail” against a law banning smacking – not in favour of the then status quo.

If you have time for a quick question:
In your view is this simply a failure of those groups to understand how law works? Doesn’t the Crimes Act (or whatever the law is that makes it illegal to punch or tackle someone) make boxing and rugby illegal, or is there an exception loaded?

If there is an one, does that exception cover every instance where someone might have a legitimate reason for physical contact with someone that could be interpreted as an assault or similar under said Act?

Rex: also understood. Not sure about the conspiracy – a decent operator (i.e. one with the ability to be conspirational) would not have let the issu become so whopping in the first place.

Not sure multi-choice referenda could be anything but misleading either. If they gave a few options, it is still leading people into choosing one pre-determined option, and 100% of people who chose any option might have preferred some unstated option. It’s a tricky one

A set of options ranging from a return to the previous situation, the status quo, and a number (though a reasonably small number) of other options is quite feasible. After all, we’re not restricted to choosing between the myriad and complex policies of just two parties on polling day.

And the fact is, most of life’s questions aren’t black/white, yes/no.

A conspiracy theorist might say the enacting legislation was deliberately drafted in such a way as to ensure most referenda became a frustrating morass and a pointless exercise, thus enabling politicians to eventually declare them a waste of time… as if emasculating them by making them non-binding wasn’t sabotage enough.