The mask slips

Written By: - Date published: 8:44 pm, June 22nd, 2009 - 102 comments
Categories: child discipline, referendum, scoundrels - Tags: , ,

The child beating lobby launched its “Vote No” campaign site today. They’ve worked hard in this campaign to present themselves as regular Kiwis standing up for common sense values, so I find it interesting they’ve chosen to decorate the front page of their campaign with this racist, sexist cartoon:

racistsexist400

The cartoon is clearly designed to undermine the petition’s opponents, but the only criticism it offers is to denigrate them based on their race and gender. Former children’s commissioner Cindy Kiro is presented as a crude racist caricature. Both she and Helen Clark are described as “wild wimmin”, a sign that the cartoonist and those who provide him with a platform are uncomfortable with the idea of women in power.

In fact, the entire narrative behind this cartoon is that women and ethnic minorities can’t be trusted with power. Note the race and gender of the people depicted hiding behind the box – they’re decent, law-abiding white males once again being persecuted by the wimmin and the Maoris.

You’ve got to wonder what kind of people would promote this sort of thing on the front page of their campaign site. Racist, sexist, reactionary bigots, that’s who. Are these the kind of people you want to line up with when it comes time to cast your vote?

102 comments on “The mask slips ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Redbaiter 1
    22 June 2009 at 8:56 pm

    “Racist, sexist, reactionary bigots, that’s who.”

    ..and proud of it..!!!

  2. Tigger 2
    22 June 2009 at 9:11 pm

    Is it my imagination or does the boy talking resemble a child version of John Key?

    By the way, I have to thank Simon Barnett for making that video on the website. The sight of him pedalling the ‘No’ lobby’s Kool Aid made me decide to increase my monthly donation to Barnardo’s…

  3. jcuknz 3
    22 June 2009 at 9:32 pm

    You make a ridiculous comment on the cartoon and on my monitor the kids look like a nice blend of mixed marraige similar to the wild women. Obviously you see in the picture what you want to see ratrher than what is there. I also like the Otago University study which found that smacked kids performed better in life. What the country needs to recover from the current recessiom

    • Eddie 3.1
      22 June 2009 at 9:41 pm

      If you’ve got an alternative analysis of the cartoon where it isn’t racist and sexist then I’m all ears. The kids, or whatever they are, are clearly pink, they’re the same skin tone as Helen Clark. You may want to get your eyes checked comrade.

    • jarbury 3.2
      22 June 2009 at 11:19 pm

      So to recover from the recession we need to be able to beat our kids? Nice logic jcuknz.

  4. the sprout 4
    22 June 2009 at 9:41 pm

    The Smack Your Kids Up lobby really are all class.

    Why does the figure beside the Helen character have a taiaha?

  5. mike 5
    22 June 2009 at 9:45 pm

    9 million bucks. Gee thanks labour – this mess could have been tidied up in 2009 but that would have resulted in a bigger thrashing eh?

    I bet Barnardo’s would love a small peice of $9’000 000 helen & co

    • Anita 5.1
      22 June 2009 at 9:50 pm

      Gee thanks labour this mess could have been tidied up in 2009 but that would have resulted in a bigger thrashing eh?

      Huh?

    • felix 5.2
      22 June 2009 at 10:09 pm

      Yeah that’s just a weird comment mike.

      I thought you were of the opinion that Labour got kicked out because of all this pc-gorn-mad nanny-state claptrap like the S59 repeal.

      Now you’re saying they would’ve got a “bigger thrashing” if they’d listened to you lot all along and left the law as it was. In 2009.

      Your last sentence, that I’m still parsing. My hopes for a result are not high.

      Maybe it’s time to have a wee break from the pipe eh mike?

    • Chris G 5.3
      23 June 2009 at 11:39 am

      So… why dont family fist suggest the $9 million goes to Barnados instead?

      After all… as simon barnett says on the ‘No’ website ‘We want to stop child abuse’

  6. gobsmacked 6
    22 June 2009 at 9:45 pm

    Last I checked, Cindy Kiro was not the Children’s Commissioner, and Helen Clark was not the Prime Minister.

    These people really do live in the past.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1
      22 June 2009 at 9:49 pm

      Unfortunately, they want us to live even further in the apst. They probably think feudalism is a good idea.

  7. Redbaiter 7
    22 June 2009 at 10:01 pm

    This reminds me of the mad Mullahs and their attacks on the Danish cartoons.

    • Eddie 7.1
      22 June 2009 at 10:10 pm

      That’s because this situation is exactly like that one Red. Quick, to the barricades! Western Civilization is under attack!

  8. Lew 8
    22 June 2009 at 10:07 pm

    Context is important. The rest of the cartoons in Stan Blanch’s gallery should give you plenty.

    L

    • Tigger 8.1
      23 June 2009 at 9:42 am

      Blanch seems to have some S&M fetish-thing going on…along with the homophobia, racism, misogyny and lack of drawing talent…

  9. Lew 9
    22 June 2009 at 10:16 pm

    Hey Eddie, I think one of me comments is in spam.

    L

  10. Redbaiter 10
    22 June 2009 at 10:24 pm

    Stan Blanch to the Gulag.

    • Eddie 10.1
      22 June 2009 at 10:32 pm

      Like I said Red, this post is the start of the downfall of Western Civilization. What are you doing pissing around here? You should be at the barricades defending freedom! Come on, what’s holding you back?

      • Chris G 10.1.1
        23 June 2009 at 11:41 am

        He will never. He’s an armchair ‘freedom’ fighter.

        • Spectator 10.1.1.1
          23 June 2009 at 6:07 pm

          That’s probably a little unkind. Thirty years ago, the likes of Reddie would have been incarcerated in some hell-hole like Carrington or Lake Alice. Today, Reddie’s more free than anyone in his position would have been at any time in the past: he’s even able to log on to the Internet, and all it’s costing society is one invalid’s benefit – a lot less than looking after him as a committed patient would have cost. More civilised all round, I think.

  11. Craig Glen Eden 11
    22 June 2009 at 10:34 pm

    This just reinforces why I wont vote on this referendum. This issue has created two polarized camps.
    One that proports to represent the average Kiwi who has smacked their child or does smack their child when raising them. But really these people are just Helen Clark haters who blame her for the single handed destruction of the family (Go figure how I am not sure). But really they hate her because they suspect she is a lesbian ( Like who cares if she is its none of mine or anyone else’s business).
    Then we have the other side which want to brand any one who does smack their child as child bashers ( which is just stupid). This is done in order to justify telling other people how to raise their kids which in my view is just as judgmental and narrow minded as the first lot.

    As some have identified this was one of three issues the Nats stayed out of while all the while stoking the religos on the right to attack Labour with the nanny state line. The sooner this law is addressed the better for all including the Nations children.
    However this referenda is not the right way to do it and is a bloody waste of money. Remember this issue has been used by the likes of Rankin for her own self promotion and I for one firmly believe the children of this nation should never have to suffer the horror of that woman’s face on our TVs or see her getting a single dollar more from the public purse.

    • Eddie 11.1
      22 June 2009 at 10:43 pm

      I don’t think all parents who smack their children are child abusers. But I do think the smacking lobby defends and enables abuse, and fully deserves to be called on it.

      Take a look at the advertising on their site.Their modus operandi has been to repeat the parent’s story uncritically and downplay their actions, even when they’ve pleaded guilty to assaulting their child.

      They have called repeatedly for Section 59 to be simply repealed, and while they may have made noises about some sort of compromise they were quite happy for parents like the horse whip lady to continue to enjoy legal protection to beat their children.

      Look at the way they defended Jimmy Mason and all the hysteria they whipped up, only for it to turning out he’d punched his kid in the head.

      There are a lot of decent parents who’ve been sucked in or made to fear the law because of this rhetoric. I don’t hold any grudge against them. But the beating lobby deserves to exposed for it is.

  12. Redbaiter 12
    22 June 2009 at 10:48 pm

    Seen this??

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pKp64xpqFW8/Sj8dKAOWJ1I/AAAAAAAAAZY/XGdb-FEAst0/s1600-h/Polishcartoon.gif

    The bourgeoisie swine who drew this, and his entire family, needs to go up against the wall right now..!!!

    • Zetetic 12.1
      22 June 2009 at 10:58 pm

      The homophobic bigot who drew that deserves to be mocked and roundly criticised. You seem to have a bit of an… interest.. in homosexuality Redbaiter. Certainly more than any normal person. Wonder what you want to do with that cartoonist up against that wall, Reddy.

  13. Greg 13
    22 June 2009 at 10:50 pm

    Two things I can’t stand.

    One. Anyone who claims the law has made criminals of ordinary parents. It hasn’t.

    Two. The ‘yes’ lobby that claims the ‘no’ lobby are child beaters. They aren’t. Its just emotive bullshit designed to insight.

    I’ll vote no. Not because the law has made criminals of ordinary parents, but becuase it is badly worded and ambiguous. It hasn’t made criminals of ordinary parents – but It could. However, I’m not proposing a return to the old law. What are your thoughts on the Burrows ammendment? Seems like a pretty good middle ground to me.

    • Zetetic 13.1
      22 June 2009 at 11:00 pm

      Greg. You want to stand beside the person who drew the cartoon above? You want to stand with the people who put it on their website? Fine. You’ll be known by your friends.

      • Greg 13.1.1
        23 June 2009 at 3:54 pm

        No, not really. Your quick to generalize all no voters as sexist racists. I’ll vote no for the reasons I outlined above. Not because I approve of the cartoon.

    • The Voice of Reason 13.2
      22 June 2009 at 11:01 pm

      Um, Greg, they acknowlege themselves that they want to beat children as part of good parental correction. They claim that the beating will be of minimal force and to make it sound better they call it smacking. But beating is what it is. Angry parents are not good parents.

      The great thing about the debate on the S59 repeal is that it has got a lot of ordinary parents to question if and when hitting their kids might be OK. Happily, more and more of them are choosing not to do it all. Not because of a possible arrest, but because they know good parenting doesn’t require violence.

      BTW, the word you were looking for was ‘incite’. Insight is when you think about the issue and decide to stop hitting your kids.

      • Craig Glen Eden 13.2.1
        23 June 2009 at 9:37 am

        (The voice of reason) To describe a smack as beating is emotive crap. While a smack might be part of the many parts of the discipline we used with or son you may not choose it for your child. Thats fine I understand that, but don’t try and tell me it is right or wrong. Thats not yours or anyone else’s place. The proof of the pudding is in the eating I love the young man our son has developed into.
        I watch others who don’t smack their children ( when small) and I think to my self that child is being badly emotionally abused.They don’t know what no means and Mum and Dad are lazy parents who sit on their arses saying don’t do that don’t do that, for infinitum.
        Then finally they say things like we will put you out in the car or you will go on the naughty step.This is emotional abuse as far as I am concerned and needs to be stopped. So it begs the question do we lock up emotional abusers as well.

        I notice that some bloke has pretty well got of with deliberately dropping his child who sustained serious injuries as a result.Thats just not right! Deliberately causing injury to a child deserves jail time and I am sure we all agree on that.

        • aj 13.2.1.1
          23 June 2009 at 11:32 am

          I’m still waiting for a definition of ‘smacking’ and ‘beating’. For most people this is completely subjective.

          As a consequence I will vote YES in the referendum

      • Greg 13.2.2
        23 June 2009 at 3:59 pm

        This issue seems to bring out quite a few emotive words doesn’t it. Beating? Beating is not part of good parental correction. Smacking can be though.

        I’m not convinced there is a correlation between parents who smack their children (note, not beat) and bad parenting. Anyone have some stats?

        Thanks for the grammatical help. I acknowledge it isn’t a strong point and will endeavor to improve in the future.

        • Kaplan 13.2.2.1
          23 June 2009 at 4:06 pm

          Isn’t that the essence of it? Smacking vs Beating/Bashing

          What the child bashers don’t tell you is that you could always be charged with assault for smacking but had the ability to defend your actions.

          The reality is no one was charged for smacking, and still isn’t. With the s59 change those that DO bash no longer have a legal defence they can pursue.

  14. Redbaiter 14
    22 June 2009 at 10:53 pm

    Greg-

    Ambiguous means having two meanings right??

    Could you please help me out here, and explain first-

    Meaning 1)

    and then,

    Meaning 2)

    Thanks in advance.

  15. millsy 15
    22 June 2009 at 10:56 pm

    Tell me RedBaiter, are you comfortable with children being thrashed with bits of wood, jug cords and pipes?

    Do you think women should not get the vote?
    Would you ban abortion and force it underground?
    Would you recriminalise homosexuality?
    Should solo mother be sterilised?

    • Zetetic 15.1
      22 June 2009 at 11:03 pm

      Don’t try to use reductio ad absurdum on Redbaiter. He reached absurd while we were still tying our shoelaces.

  16. Swampy 16
    22 June 2009 at 11:14 pm

    It’s all very simple. Sue Bradford is a meddler who wants to undermine the authority of parents in a family setting, and so cause further damage and more negative family statistics. She has taken aim at good parents, while doing nothing at all to address bad ones, of which we know there is plenty and increasing. Bradford is a communist who thinks children should be taken away out of the influence of their brainwashing parents and indoctrinated under the State’s care and ideology.

    The majority of people who campaigned on the No Vote side are ordinary hard working decent people and to portray them as the “child beating lobby” is a very extreme viewpoint. You may have strong views about the cartoons you have referred to but it does you no credit to turn back your outrage into extremist opinions about those who have campaigned for the No Vote side.

    Just to comment briefly on that cartoon
    – There is good grounds to suspect Clark’s penchant for appointing women to senior positions is ideological rather than on merit.
    – Kiro was about as good a choice as Christine Rankin, someone who obviously owed her appointment to her feminist-leftie credentials rather than merit. (The difference being Rankin at least was a household name, who had heard of Kiro before then)
    – Clark herself was not exactly a shining example of respecting public opinion. It all turned into another case of her ideology taking precedence in what turned out to be an extremely controversial move, with the Labour Party typically exploiting that controversy for political gain as they usually do.

    • Zetetic 16.1
      22 June 2009 at 11:17 pm

      So you think the cartoon is OK? Not sexist, racist, bigoted bullshit?

    • Craig Glen Eden 16.2
      23 June 2009 at 9:53 am

      (Swampy) The National Party voted for this law as well. Key was leader at the time, wheres the rant about the bad national Party with their social engineering.

      Oh and in case you forgot Key has said he is not going to change a thing as a result of the referendum. Oh bugger I guess that means you wont be voting for granddad/sleazy state National Party in the next election.

    • aj 16.3
      23 June 2009 at 11:38 am

      11:14am

      “There is good grounds to suspect Clark’s penchant for appointing women to senior positions is ideological rather than on merit”

      lol same as Paula Bennett then?

  17. millsy 17
    22 June 2009 at 11:24 pm

    Youre a fucking child beater Swampy. A FUCKING CHILD BEATER. Bradford detests violence and you condone it. I bet you love the cries of your child as you belt it with the jug cord, and you are proud of yourself when you see those welts appear.

    If parents dont want to be criminalised they should stop hitting their kids. Simple.

  18. Swampy 18
    22 June 2009 at 11:25 pm

    Oh Eddie, I really expected nothing more than this kind of post. A racist, sexist cartoon, eh? Such a simplistic analysis. I read this site sometimes, when I’m bored and have got nothing better to do. Not often. Seriously, do you people really have any idea how you lost the election? Could it be that people were really getting sick of Helen Clark’s nanny state, and perhaps this cartoon accurately reflects that. Somewhere somehow along the line the fact that Helen Clark led Labour to an election defeat has to sink in.

  19. millsy 19
    22 June 2009 at 11:27 pm

    Swampy,

    Do you think it is OK for a good parent to hit their child with a jug cord, punch it in the face, tip it out of a chair, push it, strangle it, waterboard it? Come on say you like to beat children up, you like to threash them good and propper, you love getting out that jug cord and thrashing it, because it gives you power, and turns you on.

    Tell me, do you orgasam when you smack your child? Is it a turn on, does it make you feel hot?

  20. millsy 20
    22 June 2009 at 11:29 pm

    No, Swampy, the cartoon reflects the fact that their are certain people in this country who hate ethnic groups, women, children, maoris, gays, poor, people and will do nothing more to have them shoved into ovens.

    People like you who want to kill gays.

  21. millsy 21
    22 June 2009 at 11:30 pm

    Why do you condone racism Swampy? Do you want to see niggers piss in seperate toilets?

    [lprent: I’d suggest that you read the policy. ]

  22. Eddie 22
    22 June 2009 at 11:35 pm

    Millsy, dude, settle down. I’m not one for banning but you’re crossing the line here.

    • Duncan 23.1
      22 June 2009 at 11:47 pm

      I saw that one. The account sounds politically motivated to me, it is an ACT candidate telling the story and the guy did plead guilty. I’d be keen to see a case with the full details rather than a self-interested account by the smacking crowd.

      The one case we have seen the full details for is Jimmy Mason, and it turned out he’d punched his kid in the face. The smackers had been promoting this guy as a victim for months.

    • Zetetic 23.2
      22 June 2009 at 11:51 pm

      great comment by Cactus Kate on that post:

      Cactus Kate said…
      There is no justice, just us.

      Yeah, and no-one’s listening to you Cactus.

  24. Swampy 24
    22 June 2009 at 11:39 pm

    Really Mr Mills, you are factually incorrect to put it mildly. The truth is Bradford and the rest of the Greens are opposed to any form of force, they are opposed to nuclear weapons, to a military of any substance, as long as it is on the side that opposes their chosen ideology of communism. They tend to go pretty quiet when people point out that communists use force against their opponents. Remember, Keith Locke supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I bet you Bradford has been to Cuba and that she didn’t say anything about force and violence against political dissidents and opponents of the Communist government there.

    Now getting back to the topic, this campaign is really about Sue Bradford taking aim at a community of people who she doesn’t like, the Christian community because we all know that the charge in the No Vote campaign is being led by a number of prominent Christian leaders. The Helen Clark government did more to alienate that community than any other government in the last 30 years. I’m going to be charitable and assume that the only things about that cartoon that really matter are its depictions of Helen Clark and Cindy Kiro in a negative or farcical way. I think that going on about it being racist and sexist are really throwaway lines, predictable but not actually substantial in any way.

  25. Redbaiter 25
    22 June 2009 at 11:42 pm

    “Bradford detests violence”

    Bradford went to Communist China and came back saying what a wonderful place it is.

    http://www.friendsoftibet.org/main/execution.html

  26. millsy 26
    22 June 2009 at 11:44 pm

    And what is wrong with opposing force? Surely peace and non-violence is good, but for people like you, thats too much, because you love hitting children.

    Tell me, do you prefer the fist, or the jug cord? I suppose the jug cord is good for leaving nice stinning welts. and its just the right length, and used right, the plug end can draw blood.

    (BTW: Cubans enjoy a better standard of health care than the USA, but people like you want people to die if they dont have money.)

  27. millsy 27
    22 June 2009 at 11:47 pm

    By the way Sampy, Christians are full of hate, and have no problems with using violence? Plus they burn people because they have nerve to say that the earth revolves round the sun. Plus they hate gays.

    Christian belive that a magical pixie made us and told them that being gay/black/female/a scientist/young is bad.

    If I could, I would burn that shitty bible of you in front of your face.

    • grumpy 27.1
      23 June 2009 at 3:23 am

      Gotcha!!!!

      Millsy is a gay/black/female/scientist/young. Obsessed with it.

      For a supposedly non violent person your posts reek of it.

    • Craig Glen Eden 27.2
      23 June 2009 at 10:02 am

      Millsy don’t blame the Bible or group Christians as all the same.Some Christians are full of hate sadly I agree, but your little rant has made you look not much better to be honest.

      • Inventory2 27.2.1
        23 June 2009 at 2:11 pm

        Craig – Millsy’s rant has made him look worse than the most rabid fundamentalist Christian IMHO. People in glasshouses and all that …

        [lprent: definitely put himself on my watch list. ]

  28. Zetetic 28
    22 June 2009 at 11:49 pm

    Don’t get too worked up millsy. Scum like Swampy and Redbaiter aren’t worth getting worked up over. Mock them. It’s all they’re good for.. And the ‘no’ campaign has just put a gun to its own head with this cartoon.

  29. Swampy 29
    23 June 2009 at 12:06 am

    The supposed benefit of the law change pushed through by Bradford is out of all proportion to the cost. This law change has been on the cards since Labour first took aim at corporal punishment in schools. The law there is a blunt instrument, the gross impact of that (along with other situations) simply being to discourage men from taking up teaching as a profession. This law change in the case of Section 59 ignores that there are very few cases where the reasonable force defence is actually allowed, and that smacking actually does no harm at all in the vast majority of situations where it is practiced.

    Also I think people are concerned about the huge increase in the powers of CYFS in recent years, particularly under Helen Clark’s rule, despite the fact that CYFS have no ability at all to address the problems as they are the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, then you really have to ask why we need legislation such as this because it only affects a handful of cases.

    The real background to this is fairly simple. People really believe that Helen Clark and Sue Bradford wanted to make an ideological hit against a group of people in society that they loath and despise. Just give the State’s agencies, CYFS and the Police, increased powers, which is the thin edge of the wedge. The police are there to enforce the law, not to take sides. They will prosecute because they can. CYFS will roar in like the cavalry because the law says they can. So long as they can get a conviction who really cares about anything else. If you secure a conviction who cares if you have wrecked a family in the process.

    It is this kind of ideological king hit mentality that people are really questioning when it comes to Sue Bradford bringing her Bill to Parliament. Most people see it as pure ideology because the Bill took aim at a vast majority of situations where no harm is being caused, in order supposedly to plaster over a few cracks where one or two people who might actually be causing harm might have escaped conviction. You really have to question whether the supposed amount of good that this Bill did is actually outweighed by the huge amount of harm caused, or waiting to be caused.

  30. Swampy 30
    23 June 2009 at 12:09 am

    I really don’t understand how trivial some of the comment in this debate is. I really don’t get why people calling me or my friends “scum” is supposed to be worthwhile in a discussion like this.

  31. Swampy 31
    23 June 2009 at 12:10 am

    How do I stop being moderated or does everyone get moderated here now, do I have to sign up for something new or is it just that I don’t post often enough.

    [lprent: I suspect that you’ve had a previous moderation episode. I’ll have a look and see if you should be removed from the auto-moderation ]

    [lprent: check http://www.thestandard.org.nz/going-backwards/#comment-136550. I put moderation on you because you were simply dumping comments in without bothering to engage with anyone else, and there were simply too many comments. That is trolling in my book. Leaving you in moderation until I’m sure that you’ve cleaned up your act. It appears that the delay will help your writing. ]

  32. Irascible 32
    23 June 2009 at 4:39 am

    The irrationality of the let’s return to the old law petition which permits chastisement with flagellation and more than a “light smack” is revealed in the crudity of the cartoon.
    Their argument has been so far undermined by its use that any rational anaylsis of their position would lead the reader to oppose the Rankin position as irrational.

  33. fugley 33
    23 June 2009 at 7:24 am

    D4J, you’re banned. Piss off.

  34. Pascal's bookie 34
    23 June 2009 at 7:43 am

    What do y’all reckon the sign on the door means?

    A “P” FREE OFFICE

    I’m guessing he’s dogwhistling ‘parents’ and ‘pakeha’.

  35. jcuknz 35
    23 June 2009 at 8:15 am

    The proposal is that we give them sensible discipline not abuse. The anti-smacking lobby completely mis-represent the majority of the reformers position.

  36. vto 36
    23 June 2009 at 9:20 am

    ha ha, that cartoon could be straight off the pages of The Standard (with different similar labels)

  37. vto 37
    23 June 2009 at 9:27 am

    Have to agree with Swampy here.. “People really believe that Helen Clark and Sue Bradford wanted to make an ideological hit against a group of people in society that they loath and despise.”

    Folk here go on about certain less favourable attributes of the ‘rabid right’ etc etc. Well, similarly less favourable attributes of the left get on the goat of people too. Swampy hits one of those attirbutes on the head.

    It really is an ugly waste-of-time war between two chunks of society. It is one of those classic situations where communication between the two would expose their similarities and no doubt resolve things. Lordy knows how tho. And blogs certainly dont help – in fact they exacerbate..

    • Maynard J 37.1
      23 June 2009 at 9:52 am

      What is the group that Bradford and Clark loath and despise, vto and swampy?

      Parents? The religious right? Child Beaters? Families? Good hard working kiwis?

      Take your pick – either you think they hate a very large section of society, or they have deliberately pissed off a large section of society in order to make an ‘ideological hit’ on a very, very small target.

      Clark never struck me as one to cut off her nose to spite her face; I think that is a very unlikely driver behind this, though you may well be right that “people” believe this, however misguidedly.

      More likely would be the fact that the amendment was a violation of human rights and we would be up the creek with the UN if we had specific legislation to enable acts of violence against children.

      • vto 37.1.1
        23 June 2009 at 1:08 pm

        The part of society that tended to often disagree with Clark Bradford et al MJ. The ‘clash’ between effectively ideologies is exposed on this issue. It has also imo been exposed on the civil unions issue, um meat pies in schools issue. Etc.

        Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying who is right. I am just agreeing with Swampy that the perception (reality) of some was that Clark et al had a loathing etc of people of certain views on how society should operate and the govts role in that. That loathing etc was exhibited by, for example, Cullen’s bitter nastiness at times and also by Bradford, or her supporters, referring to parents who smack as child-beaters.

        • Pascal's bookie 37.1.1.1
          23 June 2009 at 1:14 pm

          At the time though many of Bradford’s opponents were saying that the Timaru riding crop case was fine, and that the law didn’t need changing. There were groups handing out leaflets giving instructions on how best to correct your child using paddles and straps. That their rhetoric has since changed doesn’t change what they were then.

        • Maynard J 37.1.1.2
          23 June 2009 at 3:21 pm

          Well these people, vto, must be pretty damn small in number. I thoroughly disagree with your Cullen comment but will delve no further given it is wildly off topic. Can not remember Bradford calling the vocal opponents child-beaters, but accept it may have happened (actually that might have been the title of a press release, now that I think about it) but having defined that group, I think you discredit the claim – that Bradford and Clark and Kiro and whoever else anyone feels like lumping in there did this to get at people they loathe.

          Get rid of Mccoskrie and a couple of others and this would not have been an issue – remember the reaction came after support of the law in the House.

          They (bradford et al.) would not support the law just to spite people they loathed, when they would have had no reason to do so at the time. It was the distortion of the law into the ‘anti-smacking debate’ in the first place that led to this messy debate.

          Your argument (well swampy’s) has a circular error – they made the law to get at the people they do not like because of their reaction to the law.

          I would not accuse the government of being so vindictive either, but I am an optimistic type.

          • Swampy 37.1.1.2.1
            16 July 2009 at 2:31 am

            “Anti smacking bill” is the term Bradford’s own party used to describe their law change campaign.

            If you look at the folate acid issue with Bread you’ll see that Labour want the stuff put into the bread to help an infinitessimaly tiny number of people. Similarly Labour wanted the Section 59 changed in order to stop an extremely small number of cases that went through the courts each year in which Reasonable Force was justified as a defence.

            The issue is not about whether smacking is good or bad parenting per se. It is, apparently, about whether Bradford and Clark can gain brownie points with a bunch of crooks called the United Nations.

      • Swampy 37.1.2
        25 June 2009 at 10:56 pm

        Who cares about the UN unless you are planning a future career with them?

        That group, “the religious right” who have been criticised at all turns by Labour.

  38. Below Standard 38
    23 June 2009 at 9:52 am

    Turns out you’ve already banned for life. Goodbye.

  39. Freedom 39
    23 June 2009 at 9:53 am

    As mentioned above, you have previously been banned for life. Using another handle doesn’t change that.

  40. millsy 40
    23 June 2009 at 10:22 am

    If parent dont want the cops and/or CYPS to come round, then they shouldnt hit their kids. Simple. I am sick and tired of people who think hitting kids is some right. Force against young people should be banned. If I saw swampy hit their kid, I would give them a good threashing to show them what it felt like.

    • Maynard J 40.1
      23 June 2009 at 10:38 am

      There are people who would give you a good thrashing for ‘telling them how to raise their kids’. That makes you as stupid and rabid as them.

      Being rabid contibutes nothing to this debate, nor does threatening violence towards someone who is making an honest attempt to express their views, no matter how much you disagree.

    • Swampy 40.2
      16 July 2009 at 2:26 am

      Isn’t that just a bit hypocritical. You are claiming something worthwhile is achieved by giving someone “a good threashing” (sic). That’s what smacking is supposed to achieve. By the way, force for preventive purposes is explicitly authorised under the law.

  41. appleboy 41
    23 June 2009 at 10:38 am

    can redbaiter and its ilk please explain how it’s Ok to hit a child as a form of communication when it’s a crime to (A)(hit a child at school and (B) hit an adult, anywhere. Pro hitters logic appears to be that it’s somehow the location of the hit that counts – at home anything goes?? Also care to explain why a child should have less human rights than an adult??

  42. Murray 42
    23 June 2009 at 11:18 am

    While I am not a fan of Sue Bradford. There is far too much violence against children still occurring in NZ. I think many parents haven’t the intelligence to determine what good parental correction is so maybe we should err on the side of the kids and vote No

    • Maggie 42.1
      23 June 2009 at 11:28 am

      Hang on, Murray, if you are “erring on the side of the kids” shouldn’t you vote “Yes”?

    • Lew 42.2
      23 June 2009 at 11:28 am

      Murray, your argument doesn’t seem to match its end point. Can you explain the reasoning a bit more?

      L

      Maggie, snap : )

    • Murray 42.3
      23 June 2009 at 11:33 am

      Sorry My mistake, The question is misleading. I meant yes

      • Maggie 42.3.1
        24 June 2009 at 9:24 am

        The question is not confusing. I have that on the best authority. Karl du Fresne (aka Curmudgeon in the Dom Post) says it isn’t confusing and that most New Zealanders know it isn’t confusing and that’s good enough for me.

        So it must be just me and Murray who find it confusing.

        My first thought was that I don’t consider smacking to be good parenting so I should vote “Yes”.

        Then I thought that I don’t consider a parent who simply gives a child a light smack on the rump should be criminalised so I should vote “No”.

        Then it occurred to me that all the “No” votes will be used by Family First as an argument to bring back Section 59 and I definitely don’t agree with that, so I should vote “Yes”.

        I am now toying with the idea of writing “this question is bullshit” on my voting paper and sending it back.

        • Swampy 42.3.1.1
          16 July 2009 at 2:22 am

          “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

          What is ambiguous or confusing or a problem? Simply put it refers to smacking as a part of good parental correction (i.e. parental correction carried out by good parents). The whole question is aimed at whether it is reasonable to criminalise good parents when their parenting is not creating society’s problems. Sue Bradford has set out for her own puerile reasons to criminalise these people when they are not the ones causing child abuse problems.

  43. Maggie 43
    23 June 2009 at 11:25 am

    Some of the arguments used on the “Vote No” campaign site are really confused. The stories told on their horror posters are more complaints about what is considered to be an overreaction by CYFS or the Police, rather than directly against the change in the law.

    Family First takes the position that we should be concentrating on stamping out child abuse, and no-one could disagree with that. FF says it supports “working with families where children are at risk of physical, emotional abuse and neglect……”

    Great idea. But FF neglects to even attempt to address an obvious question: How do you identify such familes? Normally abusive, neglectful parents don’t dob themselves in, their activities are reported by someone else. In the most dreadful cases of child abuse, such as Nia Glassie, people outside of the abusers MUST have known at least something of what was going on, yet said nothing.

    Years ago my toddler son was rushed to hospital with a fit (turned out it was a reaction to an ear infection). He was an active kid, always rushing everywhere, frequently falling over, picking himself up and rushing on…..his legs were always covered in minor bruises.

    The doctors treating him noticed this and questioned me pretty intensively. They were obviously satisfied with the answers and nothing further was done.

    I didn’t object to their questioning, I understood why they were doing it. I was impressed they took my boy’s welfare so seriously.

    Parents approached by CYFs and the police need to try to see the bigger picture. Hard to do, I know, when you are feeling like you are under the microscope and your parenting skills are being challenged.

    • Killinginthenameof 43.1
      23 June 2009 at 2:18 pm

      I assume Family Fist would suggest you start with the browner ones?

    • Swampy 43.2
      16 July 2009 at 2:17 am

      The answer to your question is a pretty simple one. Family First’s supporters believe the Labour Party has an innate bias and antagonism towards the conservative Christian community which makes up the majority of the FF membership. It’s not hard to get from that to a point where CYFS might be instructed by its masters to turn their attention disproportionately towards Christian families. Smacking is well known as being a practice championed, particularly, by conservative Christians.

  44. Murray M 44
    23 June 2009 at 12:54 pm

    millsy has my vote for Minister of Social Welfare, Minister of Maori Affairs, and Minister of Pacific Island Affairs. This would give him/her the opportunity to direct the accusations he/she makes in a constructive direction.

  45. Swampy 45
    24 June 2009 at 10:51 pm

    “The mask slips
    Published by Eddie on June 22, 2009 at 8:44 pm in child discipline, fuckwits and referendum.92 CommentsTags: cindy kiro, helen clark, section 59. ”

    What is this new category for? Who is a fuckwit?

    • Swampy 45.1
      25 June 2009 at 10:52 pm

      Now, that question was actually for the moderator. I know you must have read it. Isn’t it a reasonable question and can’t you tell me what it means?

    • felix 45.2
      25 June 2009 at 11:15 pm

      I’m no mod but I think I can help to answer your questions.

      What is this new category for?

      I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s for posting about fuckwits. It’s definitely not a new category though.

      Who is a fuckwit?

      Lot’s of people are fuckwits, Swampy. You may sometimes know them by the questions they ask.

  46. Andy 46
    25 June 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Eddie.

    Ever heard of something called political cartoons?

  47. Swampy 47
    16 July 2009 at 2:05 am

    Clearly your article is intended to distract from the substance of what this campaign is about, and to draw attention away from the clear fact that you really have very little substance against the campaign concerned.

    It’s up there in the same league as Sue “Own Goal” Bradford claiming the petition question is worded confusingly. The question is so unambiguous, isn’t it? “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand”? What is confusing about that?

    I’m just hanging out for all the people who claim that smacking is not a criminal offence, to explain why they want to make it one when they vote Yes or tell everyone else to.