Beastly

57 comments on “Beastly ”

• Comments are now closed

1. higherstandard 1

   25 August 2008 at 9:41 am

   A zoo ?

   Looks more like parliamentary question time to me !
2. Phil 2

   25 August 2008 at 9:46 am

   Overheard outside the Baboon enclosure at Wellington Zoo;
   “Eugh, what’s that thing dangling down between it’s legs?”

   Overheard at Singapore Zoo;
   “Ooh, look at that Chimpanzee carrying its baby on its back… just like a kangaroo!”

   Anthropology FAIL
3. Paul Campbell 3

   25 August 2008 at 10:05 am

   Anthropology?
4. Savage 4

   25 August 2008 at 10:07 am

   I remember when cartoons were funny.
5. Steve Pierson 5

   25 August 2008 at 10:10 am

   Anthropology?

   zoology, perhaps?

   ‘interestingly’, the ‘thing’ hanging between the baboon’s legs was probably not its ‘thing’ but its scrotum – other apes are relatively modestly endowed compared to humans (gorillas are the size of a pencil, ‘hung like a gorilla’ is an insult in parts of africa) but have much larger testes. other apes also have bones in theirs. sorry, just thought you might be interested
6. Steve Pierson 6

   25 August 2008 at 10:12 am

   Savage was that back in the 1970s when Bromhead was a leading cartoonist, a sexist bigoted one?
7. Phil 7

   25 August 2008 at 10:17 am

   Bah, science fail for me…

   Steve, the breadth of your knowledge for useless information is astounding
8. Savage 8

   25 August 2008 at 10:47 am

   Nah Bromhead is about as funny as knee-surgery. I myself like Tom Scott. Have a read of ‘The Unauthorised Version – a Cartoon History of NZ.’

   Sexism and bigotry can be very funny.
9. Fisker 9

   25 August 2008 at 10:49 am

   Helen Clark: A lot of people aren’t comfortable with beatings but they don’t want to see, you know, stressed and harassed parents, you know, pulled in by the police because they, they smacked a child.

   Bob McCroskie: So you do not want to see smacking banned?

   Helen Clark: Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature.
10. coge 10

    25 August 2008 at 10:55 am

    I don’t get it. Is that meant to be Clark giving Mallard a clip around the ear?
11. Pascal's bookie 11

    25 August 2008 at 10:59 am

    And why is that guy wearing Charlie Brown’s jersey?
12. lprent 12

    25 August 2008 at 11:09 am

    Fister: There was a point to that comment? That is exactly what Helen said (and for that matter what the cartoon said).

    Doesn’t mean that parents shouldn’t be judged by the police and the judiciary for using excessive force. Removing s59 allowed that to happen for some of the really abusive parents who were hiding behind their interpretation of ‘reasonable’.
13. lprent 13

    25 August 2008 at 11:27 am

    Fister:

    Helen Clark: A lot of people aren’t comfortable with beatings but they don’t want to see, you know, stressed and harassed parents, you know, pulled in by the police because they, they smacked a child.

    Looked at that quote again. Looks like you only see what you want to see. Why didn’t you highlight the bit I did above?

    You like hitting kids with lumps of timber? Or your fists ?
14. exbrethren 14

    25 August 2008 at 12:46 pm

    I think I should be able to smack and kick my kids.

    Also thump my wife if she gets lippy and doesn’t have my dinner on the table when I expect it.

    And shoot my dog if it barks when it shouldn’t.
15. dad4justice 15

    25 August 2008 at 1:31 pm

    Does Aunty Helen smack the crap out of her Teddy Bears?
    Exbrethren, is your real name Chris Farter? Pooh you stink, wipe it please.
16. Phil 16

    25 August 2008 at 1:35 pm

    How did that man ever work out the mechanics of breeding?
17. George Darroch 17

    25 August 2008 at 2:19 pm

    If I did that at the Wellington zoo I’d get thrown out by the speaker!
18. dad4justice 18

    25 August 2008 at 2:46 pm

    George, wooden leg would throw another hissy fit and peanuts would fly everywhere again.
19. ropata 19

    25 August 2008 at 4:22 pm

    a) children are not reasonable adults
    b) children need protection and boundaries
    c) children sometimes run wild and need forcible restraint and correction

    labour’s solution to the above: create a police state and criminalize 90% of parents.

    piss off noddy
20. RedLogix 20

    25 August 2008 at 4:38 pm

    ropata,

    I think you may not have realised that when repeal of S59 legislation was passed over a year ago now, there was included specific guidance that effectively exempted ‘transient and trivial’ assaults… ie what most people would be comfortable calling a smack.

    I would be interested to know why you think this exemption is not sufficient for your purposes?
21. Matthew Pilott 21

    25 August 2008 at 4:41 pm

    RedLogix, it’s probably because he believes 90% of parents hit their children with such force that it would not be described as ‘transitory an trifling’. If you believe that, you probably think children need a good hiding, and that this really is a police state. Maybe it’s just ill-informed hyperbole, but it is rather sickening.
22. dad4justice 22

    25 August 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Redlogix and Matt Pill – is the anti smacking bill a pathetic attempt at addressing our appalling child abuse statistics? It’s a bit like putting a band aid on a festering wound! At least we are GOLD MEDALISTS in infanticide due to the culturally sensitive pc crap adopted by an out of step government and disgraceful police force. Shame on Labour because the evidence is bloody sickening.
    Every politician has blood on their insidious hands. The blood of slain vulnerable children, for example the Kahui Twins, etc…etc…. the list is endless!!!!!
23. Savage 23

    25 August 2008 at 4:49 pm

    The Kahui Twins – the list is endless…. That’s just one there mate. Endless would be lots more than that.

    Can’t hit a man
    Can’t hit a woman
    Can’t hit an inanimate object and cause damage
    Can’t hit a dog

    Children? Yeah lets hit them.

    I agreed with the repeal of s59 before it happened but now that I look back it seems a big mistake. It has caused a lot of damage to this government.It was the Greens that set it in motion –

    Sue Bradford isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed and I don’t think she really thought about all the blowback that a policy change like this might make.

    Congratulations on that Sue. Now NZ is polarised into two extremist camps about this issue. Children are still getting thumped. Imbeciles like Simon Barnett and dad4justice are coming out of the woodwork telling people how its their right to beat the love of God into their children.

    This looks like the issue that will push the public into the hands of Mr Key.
24. dad4justice 24

    25 August 2008 at 4:52 pm

    How many kids you got savage mongrel and the list , oh yes, CYFS helped murder Coral Burrows, how long ago was that retard savage git ? Have another drink Ruth !!
25. mickysavage 25

    25 August 2008 at 4:56 pm

    Dad4justice

    Researchers have done a study of European nations and guess what, they found a direct correlation between nations that allowed physical correction and high violent death rates for children. Brutalising in the name of “correction” is a problem.

    A recent police report indicated that a total of 4 (yes 4) new prosecutions had occurred within 6 months because of the bill. One was diverted, three remain to be resolved.

    It is pretty obvious that the bill has nothing to do with our child mortality rate. If you want to do something about our child mortality rate support the Bill and don’t support the beating of kids …
26. Lew 26

    25 August 2008 at 4:56 pm

    D4J: “Redlogix – is the anti smacking bill a pathetic attempt at addressing our appalling child abuse statistics?”

    No, not in the short term. This is a common misconception. The S59 repeal was an attempt to de-ligitimate violence in society, thereby making all forms of violence (including child abuse) less socially acceptable; and to provide certainty to those prosecuting child assaults, so they can do so without fear that the defendants will mount a spurious defence based on the Timaru Riding Crop precedent (or others like it).

    L
27. dad4justice 27

    25 August 2008 at 5:01 pm

    Get real Lew, forget the riding crop as scum use hammers to bash kids too death. Oh that’s right have a Hui and make an alibi.
    This country doesn’t care about our children and it’s beastly that we don’t respect our most valuable assets.Save the snails and whales but forget the kids !!!!

    Proud to be kiwi – yeah right!
28. Savage 28

    25 August 2008 at 5:03 pm

    Now now dad4justice. No need to resort to silly name calling.

    That’s two cases you have named now – hardly endless.

    It was Steven Roger Williams that killed Coral Burrows, not CYFS.

    You can’t go on blaming the government and government agencies for the acts of others dad4justice. Have you ever had a really good long look at yourself and thought about what has made you into such an angry and abusive person?
29. Lew 29

    25 August 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Savage: I think you’ve hit on something here, but haven’t quite got the emphasis right. I agree with your analysis that the bill has polarised the electorate and given undue credence to D4J and associated nutters, but it’s not Sue Bradford’s job to run damage control for the government over her own private member’s bill. As far as she’s concerned, members (or parties) voted for or against it of their own free will, and good on them for supporting it.

    Labour are the ones in the gun here, for adopting this bill in apparent contravention of their own leader’s statement, for whipping their members when other parties allowed a party vote, and especially for failing to play the symbolic issues at stake here properly – allowing the debate to be framed as `criminalising good parents’ rather than `protecting the most vulnerable members of society’.

    So while I believe it’s good law and will remain materially unimpeded for the future, referendum or not, in a sense the government deserves to lose this election for its handling of this issue; and National deserve to win it for Key’s masterful stroke of playing both sides – appeasing the smackers with good rhetoric and an attempted compromise, and supporting the bill anyway when the compromise was spurned.

    L
30. Lew 30

    25 August 2008 at 5:07 pm

    D4J: But the fact remains that the authorities were reluctant to prosecute child assaults by parents because the Timaru Riding Crop case could be used as a defence (and was used, quite effectively, to gain acquittal in a number of cases). This means that many potentially winnable child abuse cases weren’t even brought to trial because the police didn’t want to risk scarce resources, money and public goodwill on losing cases.

    Is that good? Isn’t it good that police can now bring all winnable child abuse cases to trial without fear of losing due to precedent?

    L
31. dad4justice 31

    25 August 2008 at 5:09 pm

    “Have you ever had a really good long look at yourself and thought about what has made you into such an angry and abusive person?”

    Several Christchurch judges would disagree with your mental frothings you cowardly creep. Have another stiff one Ruth red face.

    Lew – proud of our child abuse stats are you? Good on ya mate give yourself a whipping with a riding crop.
32. Lew 32

    25 August 2008 at 5:14 pm

    D4J: It’s just pointless trying to discuss anything with you, but then, I ought to know that by now. Speaking of frothing, you’ve been doing a lot of it lately, even by your own foamy standards.

    Say it, don’t spray it.

    L
33. higherstandard 33

    25 August 2008 at 5:14 pm

    Lew

    you might be interested at some stage that the debate still goes on in other countries as I expect it will in NZ.

    http://www.festivalofpolitics.co.uk/business/research/pdf_res_brief/sb02-102.pdf

    I’m still of the opinion that the vast majority on both sides of the debate want what’s best for children and despise child abuse.
34. Savage 34

    25 August 2008 at 5:17 pm

    A cowardly creep am I? I take that as a compliment from a keyboard tough-guy such as yourself dad4justice.

    No laws are ever really going to protect those children in need. There are things that might lessen the amount of child abuse occurring – but it will never stop.

    I don’t really see why you are so upset. If you told me a little bit about yourself and your situation then I might have some sympathy.
35. higherstandard 35

    25 August 2008 at 5:18 pm

    And in d4js defence if anyone could prove to him that the repeal of S59 will save any young lives from the plague of abusive parents I’m sure he’d be the first to support it.
36. Lew 36

    25 August 2008 at 5:19 pm

    HS: “I’m still of the opinion that the vast majority on both sides of the debate want what’s best for children and despise child abuse.”

    I entirely agree. The trouble is that their causes tend to be polarised by the extremists on either side, and the symbolic issues take precedence over the practical issues to the point where people lose sight of what should be done because they’re too busy taking up a place in one trench or the other.

    Edit: “And in d4js defence if anyone could prove to him that the repeal of S59 will save any young lives from the plague of abusive parents I’m sure he’d be the first to support it.”

    How can it be proved if it’s not given a chance? D4J is arguing it shouldn’t be given a chance. Whether passed or not, this would always have been a case of one side arguing `oh, if we’d just done it my way things would have been fine’. Any discussion of the matter on these grounds is simply getting foamy about a counterfactual – not very productive in either case.

    L
37. dad4justice 37

    25 August 2008 at 5:20 pm

    I help many parents within the judicial system and I detest child abuse in ANY shape or form.
    Must cook tea for my daughter.
    Goodbye!
38. Savage 38

    25 August 2008 at 5:23 pm

    Never cook when you are angry dad4justice – your meal will turn out very bitter.
39. Lew 39

    25 August 2008 at 5:27 pm

    Savage: Sounds like your advice could be shortened to `never cook’ in this case.

    L
40. ropata 40

    25 August 2008 at 5:30 pm

    Can’t blame d4j too much — the Standard and others repeatedly (and dishonestly) use silly hyperbole on this issue. FWIW the cartoon ironically illustrates some things that Kiro, Bradford and co. fail to recognise: that children can be naughty monkeys. But Labour seems to live on a different planet where it is imagined that all children are angelically innocent.

    [lprent: Read the Rules. Address it to a person, not to the machine, because programs don’t have opinions (as you should know, your site uses the same one). There are about 14 post writers and innumerable commentators here – address whoever you want to disagree with. The posters here would have problems agreeing on all topics. ]
41. dad4justice 41

    25 August 2008 at 5:31 pm

    Sorry Savage Ruth – I couldn’t resist one more dig. If you think that some anonymous internet person can make me angry then you don’t know much about me. Must go, fish pie and Monkeys brains for tea. Haha 😉
42. Lew 42

    25 August 2008 at 5:35 pm

    ropata: “But Labour seems to live on a different planet where it is imagined that all children are angelically innocent.”

    They presume no such thing. They simply believe that children – like all other human beings – should not be subject to systematised assault, ever, for any reason; guilty, innocent or otherwise.

    L
43. higherstandard 43

    25 August 2008 at 5:36 pm

    Ropata

    You forget it is Sue Bradfords bill not Labour’s – Helen Clark called it right first time with her comment as above from lprent.
44. randal 44

    25 August 2008 at 5:38 pm

    heck I suppose beasts dine everynight on hot tongue and cold shoulder
45. RedLogix 45

    25 August 2008 at 7:32 pm

    I see ropata eventually returns; but noteably fails to answer the very simple question I asked him.

    I have to conclude that he does not want to answer it.

    No laws are ever really going to protect those children in need. There are things that might lessen the amount of child abuse occurring – but it will never stop.

    Contrary to what people imagine, laws do not stop crime. The only thing that stops crime is when people are too ashamed by their own consciences to commit the act.

    The purpose of the law is two-fold. One is to punish and deter, but more importantly, it serves to set boundaries and standards..
46. Brett Dale 46

    25 August 2008 at 8:28 pm

    Who do I think of Michael Cullen and Trevor Mallard when I look that cartoon??
47. Savage 47

    25 August 2008 at 8:47 pm

    Laws are big clumsy things that will only on occasion be of use to a child in an abusive home.

    The bill was introduced with good intentions but has been hijacked by rightist idealogues, pro-family nut-jobs, scaremongering newspaper editors and rabid talkback hosts.

    Violence against anyone is a bad thing. The use of force in parenting is a shortcut remedy to poor parenting. If mutual respect is there between parent and child then there will be no need for smacking. How do teachers cope with over thirty children in a class with no option of violence against the students?

    “The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.”

    David Friedman
48. Pascal's bookie 48

    25 August 2008 at 8:56 pm

    Lew, Didn’t National also whip it’s MP’s after ‘the amendment that didn’t change anything’ was added? But like you say the point of this debate is symbolic. The substantive debate is over, the anti smackers won and the law won’t be changed.

    The whole saga has been bad for Labour, the Greens, and the left in general, but if wasn’t this it would be something else. It’s all very well being evenhanded but when all’s said and done, the Nat’s know it’s a good law, they voted for it, and like the Civil Unions or any of the other base enragers, they have no intention of changing it. Partly because there would be an equally damaging backlash against them if they did, from the other direction.

    The Nat’s followers and surrogates (but not so much the Party itself) are happy ranting about these things because they are easy propaganda points that keep a small sector energised. But that’s the only point of the exercise, and they’ll keep at it for years.

    It’s akin to the religious right in the States on abortion. Talk, talk, talk, collect bucketloads of money and campaign assistance but for gawds sake never seriously challenge the legislation. ‘Cause then you lose the benefit of the propaganda. Which is money and a cheap stick to beat your opponents with. Symbolically of course.

    Essentially they are encouraging the anger of a segment of the population, but they have no plans to calm then down by addressing their complaints. It’s pretty shitty stuff in view. But I don’t know how the LP or the Greens can combat it.
49. Savage 49

    25 August 2008 at 9:17 pm

    They don’t combat it. They just do some thinking before enacting legislation that might be turned into an almighty weapon to lever them out of government.
50. ropata 50

    25 August 2008 at 10:36 pm

    Redlogix:
    I think you may not have realised that … there was included specific guidance that effectively exempted ‘transient and trivial’ assaults
    Is that so? In that case what was wrong with Chester Borrows’ amendment?

    I would be interested to know why you think this exemption is not sufficient for your purposes?
    My ‘purpose’ is concern for the welfare of children and families, and the potential for abuse by government agencies.
51. RedLogix 51

    25 August 2008 at 11:21 pm

    Mathew Pilot corrected me above, I should have used the words “tifling and transitory”… which still to my mind defines ‘a few open handed smacks on the bottom that might leave a red mark, but not bruising’. Does this exemption put your mind at rest? And if not, why not?

    All laws have the potential to be abused by govt agencies. Do you propose getting rid of all of them for this reason? I didn’t think so. If a govt or it’s agents misuses the powers we give them, then that is a political problem entirely separate from the question of child abuse.
52. Fisker 52

    26 August 2008 at 1:46 am

    lprent: You like hitting kids with lumps of timber? Or your fists?

    Oooh nasty! All I did was point out Clarke’s volte-face on the issue.

    By the way, the answer to your question is, of course, “Mu”. http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/M/mu.html
53. lprent 53

    26 August 2008 at 3:10 am

    Fister: Don’t avoid it – there was no volte-face. You just didn’t bother to read the whole quotation. Read it again. This time ask yourself what the difference is between assault and discipline.

    Then you may (but I am always an optimist) actually understand where she was drawing the distinction between Beating and smacking.

    Then attempt to understand the changes to the Act. The police still have the discretion to decide which they consider constitutes an assault.

    The only difference is that the judges can’t be stymied by parents that consider beating a child with a riding crop, a lump of timber, fists, etc as being ‘reasonable’.

    I don’t think that any of the ones I listed are. Do you? Where would you draw the line? Define your ‘mu’ – don’t just use it to avoid defining what you consider is reasonable.

    BTW: I started in the anti-s59 reform side. I didn’t see why the bill was required (I was a shit of a kid myself). The opponents of s59 reform convinced me otherwise. What some considered as reasonable in the way that they raised their kids appalled me. The legal situation got interesting after I read some of the judgments where s59 was raised as a defense made me realize how daft the old law was. It came down to deciding what is ‘reasonable’. The short answer is that it wasn’t definable without listing all of the limits. It is simpler to let the police decide as they are closest to the coalface.
54. dad4justice 54

    26 August 2008 at 6:32 am

    Indeed Lynn, the politicized police and the dangerous CYFS idiots are working at the coalface in the Aunty Helen mine of corruption. Arrest that father,destroy family loyalties because they’re so hard to control said H2, go girls go!!!
55. yl 55

    26 August 2008 at 9:40 am

    PB
    “And why is that guy wearing Charlie Brown’s jersey?”

    lol
56. bill brown 56

    26 August 2008 at 9:46 am

    ‘a few open handed smacks on the bottom that might leave a red mark, but not bruising’

    How many is a few?

    How big is the red mark allowed to be?

    How soon after correction is the red mark measured?

    How soon after correction is bruising checked?

    Define a bruise, how small can the blue patch be before it’s no longer a bruise?
57. ropata 57

    27 August 2008 at 12:10 pm

    This article in the Press cleared up a lot of misconceptions — The Standard should blog it!

    Despite what people think, New Zealand *does* let parents smack their children in four defined circumstances, writes JOHN CALDWELL.

    Certainly the use of “reasonable force”, including “smacking”, is now prohibited for the specific purpose of “correction” – a concept which had never been crystalline in its clarity. However, strikingly, the use of “reasonable” parental force against a child, the age of whom is left undefined, was declared to be permissible in four new circumstances.

    These circumstances were (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounted to a criminal offence; or (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS