Vote Yes slideshow

Written By: - Date published: 10:31 am, May 27th, 2009 - 8 comments
Categories: child abuse - Tags:

The Vote Yes campaign is about preserving s59 of the Cirmes Act, which gives children the same right as adults to not be assaulted. More information here.

[just a couple of quick suggestions to the Vote Yes people: ‘Vote yes, for a law that’s working’ is a bad slogan, it doesn’t exactly stir the passions. Try ‘Vote yes, stand up against child abuse’ or something. On your flyer, the best message is “a yes vote will protect children” but in a printed copy the dark background image makes it nearly illegible. Also, too many words and too legalistic]

8 comments on “Vote Yes slideshow”

  1. toad 1

    Great stuff – good to see you getting the Vote Yes message out Eddie.

    Meanwhile, the latest revelations about one of the prominent “no” voters show that regardess of Christine Rankin’s expertise at providing policy advice re families, she’s pretty good at looking after her own.

    • r0b 1.1

      At the risk of thread jacking, that link of toad’s should be read by all. I don’t give a damn about Rankin’s private life, but the “looking after her own” link describes despicable behaviour.

      On topic, thanks Eddie for the info on Vote Yes.

  2. Ianmac 2

    I thought that a universal spoiling of Ballot papers might have been a good response but now go for the Yes vote. (Yes. Mr Mason should be criminalised for punching his son.)
    It does seem a bit murky thanks Toad re rankin apparently rorting through Dancing With the Stars. I wonder how many would have voted for her had they known who was benefiting?

    • Rich 2.1

      I intend to either not bother or spoil my ballot.

      I disagree with the concept of CIRs, I disagree with the question and I believe that rights of children not to be abused are fundamental, even if a majority thinks otherwise.

  3. dave 3

    From that link

    “And the two people employed by For the Sake of our Children were Christine Rankin and her son.

    That implies just two people worked for that trust – the above two people. I know that is false.

  4. Jasper 4

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

    Well, it’s already law that it isn’t. A light smack isn’t a criminal offence. A smack is. No one I know understands how the hell the Clerk of the House let this question go through.

    1) What is a Smack? Is it with your hand or with a horsewhip?
    2) Whats the difference between a light hand smack and a heavy hand smack?
    3) If “No” is voted, then National will look like bumbling fools as they try to explain their way out of this one.
    4) If “No” is voted, it’s hardly a binding referendum
    5) If “Yes” is voted, it’ll shut up Bob McCrockoshit for good a while

    There have been comments on other boards that the referendum question is “should a light smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” which may be why some in the Labour Party are advocating a “No” vote.

  5. randal 5

    hey look here.
    I am a tuff guy with a hardly davison, orange transam, a replica 87 winchester an a cellphone.
    I know what is wrong wif da world and it starts with children who nedd discipline.
    lots in fact.
    whip em good

  6. toad 6

    Jasper said: No one I know understands how the hell the Clerk of the House let this question go through.

    That is one of the problems with the CIR Act, Jasper. Someone wording a referendum question can do so in the most biased and/or ambiguous manner and the Clerk has no ability to address this.

    As Mike Moreu suggested in a cartoon, the outcome would be very different if the question was worded:

    Should beating your children with horsewhips, metal pipes and timber studded with nails be illegal in New Zealand?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts