Opponents march against the bill - Key and National do not gain any traction - too scared to make waves! Government is being consistent even if they are out of kilter with public opinion.!
Hundreds march against anti-smacking bill
Email this storyPrint this story Updated 3:40PM Wednesday March 28, 2007
Anti-smacking bill protesters march into Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The Smacking Debate
Public opinion says 'no', but Clark and Cullen say 'yes'
Both sides of the smacking argument
Your views on the smacking debate
Hundreds of people, many with children, marched through central Wellington and Christchurch today in protest at Green MP Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.
An estimated 2000 protestors braved a wet, wintry lunchtime in Christchurch to march from Victoria to Cathedral Square.
In Wellington, placard-carrying demonstrators marched from Civic Square at midday, headed for Parliament where MPs were due to continue debating the bill this afternoon.
Before the march started there were verbal clashes between pro and anti supporters of the bill but police quickly stepped in to defuse any trouble.
One observer estimated that the anti-smacking bill protesters numbered more than 500.
Prime Minister Helen Clark earlier confirmed Labour was discussing with other political parties the possibility of introducing Sue Bradford's private member's bill as a Government bill.
That would see the bill go to a vote within days rather than weeks. The move follows Labour's decision to withdraw a bid to have the bill heard under urgency.
Showing posts with label anti-smacking bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-smacking bill. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Anti-smacking bill comes under attack from the public...
Anti-smacking bill comes under under attack from the public!
The New Zealand Government has apparently backed down a little by not forcing Parliament into urgency to debate the anti-smacking bill as a public backlash mounts againts the proposed legislation.Leaders of the minor parties were contacted by the leader of the House of Representatives that the Government was withdrawing its request for urgency, which would have forced Parliament to sit until the legislation was passed.The decision was made because of opposition to the bill and research which shows that an overwhelming number of New Zealanders oppose the Greens bill outlawing physical punishment, which opponents say would open the floodgates to prosecutions for smacking children.The bid for urgency was causing too much angst among the various minor parties which the Government was having discussions with.There are calls to make it a real conscience vote, not forcing MPs to vote on party lines, on both sides of the political divide.Opinion polls claim that about 80% oppose the bill which could be unforceable. It is also claimed the proposed legislation was not necessary - as police cannot get successful prosecutions under existing laws because case precedents have been developed so parents who assault their children with things such as riding crops can get off scot free, there are suggestions to amend existing laws.The bill returns to Parliament tomorrow for further debate. The result of the bill does not appear cut and dried as it did just days ago.
The National Party opposition is not really gaining much traction because the bill is under immense public pressure at present.
The New Zealand Government has apparently backed down a little by not forcing Parliament into urgency to debate the anti-smacking bill as a public backlash mounts againts the proposed legislation.Leaders of the minor parties were contacted by the leader of the House of Representatives that the Government was withdrawing its request for urgency, which would have forced Parliament to sit until the legislation was passed.The decision was made because of opposition to the bill and research which shows that an overwhelming number of New Zealanders oppose the Greens bill outlawing physical punishment, which opponents say would open the floodgates to prosecutions for smacking children.The bid for urgency was causing too much angst among the various minor parties which the Government was having discussions with.There are calls to make it a real conscience vote, not forcing MPs to vote on party lines, on both sides of the political divide.Opinion polls claim that about 80% oppose the bill which could be unforceable. It is also claimed the proposed legislation was not necessary - as police cannot get successful prosecutions under existing laws because case precedents have been developed so parents who assault their children with things such as riding crops can get off scot free, there are suggestions to amend existing laws.The bill returns to Parliament tomorrow for further debate. The result of the bill does not appear cut and dried as it did just days ago.
The National Party opposition is not really gaining much traction because the bill is under immense public pressure at present.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Anti-smacking bill to become law in a month...
Anti-smacking bill to become law in a month...
The anti-smacking bill which has created controversial debate in New Zealand, should be passed into law within a month after it received support from the minority Maori Party's four MPs.Opinion polls and talk back shows appear not to support the bill. Opponents have claimed it will take away parents rights to discipline their children. Proponents say it is necessary but will still give enough for parents to protect their children from themselves.A mother rang up a talk back show crying because she can only control her seriously ADHD affected son by giving him a smack; timeout doesn't work and he trashes the room when he is there on his own. Many children like this boy just don't understand what is said to them!Filebusting by an independent MP has only delayed the inevitable it seems - he introduced 5o amendments that had to be debated and voted on. This bill is to become law!Police chiefs are in the process of setting guidelines on how they will handle complaints about parents smacking children - the parents will have to be charged with assault if police accept there are charges to answer.
PM's change of heart creates some adverse comment. John Key's comments typically insipid.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The Greens anti-smacking debate and bill...
Greens MP, Sue Bradford has certainly opened a can of worms with her anti-spanking bill. She is either condemned for taking parents rights away from them in disciplining their offspring, or she is congratulated for having the courage and intestinal fortitude to put the way New Zealanders discipline their children onto the political agenda and platform. Who is right?
Ms Bradfords solution to the scenario where New Zealand has been accused of being one of the most dangerous places for children, has been to put forward a bill to repeal a certain section of the Act that allows parents reasonable force to discipline their children. Its purpose has been described as sending a signal that the use of force against children is not acceptable. Its effect will be to outlaw smacking. Police will have to prosecute anybody who broke the law. No assurances can be given that it won't happen. But will the law become an ass?
There will not be a flood of prosecutions of bewildered parents to the courts, because most incidents of parents disciplining their children will be behind closed doors anyway. The occasional case of parents losing their cool in supermarkets will be just that, an isolated case. However those parents who beat their children with whips,bamboo sticks, hosepipes, pieces of wood and other articles are actually more likely to be prosecuted now that disciplining of our children has become a public debate, and rightly so!
Don't condemn Ms Bradford and the Government who may support her bill at the third reading in a few weeks time, just be grateful that our childrens interests have been considered and debated on the national stage. Just remember this, also, that it is never right or legal to assault adults in public ever, even if they are playing up and making a total pest of themselves in a supermarket or a public bar somewhere!
Finally, we have to ask ourselves the following question: Is teaching children that violence is an acceptable solution to problems in anybody's interests? Perhaps Sue Bradford's stimulated public debate has already caused many parents to personally think about their own disciplinary methods towards their own children. Ms Bradford is not an ogre or threat to society, she is a politician who has never sought physical force of any degree to discipline her own five children. Does she deserve personal threats? Of course not! Those people who have taken such a negative reaction towards their perceived right to physically discipline their children have a few issues of their own to sort out!
Incidently, the state of California and its residents are having their own particular debate about banning physical force against those children who are under three years of age!
Ms Bradfords solution to the scenario where New Zealand has been accused of being one of the most dangerous places for children, has been to put forward a bill to repeal a certain section of the Act that allows parents reasonable force to discipline their children. Its purpose has been described as sending a signal that the use of force against children is not acceptable. Its effect will be to outlaw smacking. Police will have to prosecute anybody who broke the law. No assurances can be given that it won't happen. But will the law become an ass?
There will not be a flood of prosecutions of bewildered parents to the courts, because most incidents of parents disciplining their children will be behind closed doors anyway. The occasional case of parents losing their cool in supermarkets will be just that, an isolated case. However those parents who beat their children with whips,bamboo sticks, hosepipes, pieces of wood and other articles are actually more likely to be prosecuted now that disciplining of our children has become a public debate, and rightly so!
Don't condemn Ms Bradford and the Government who may support her bill at the third reading in a few weeks time, just be grateful that our childrens interests have been considered and debated on the national stage. Just remember this, also, that it is never right or legal to assault adults in public ever, even if they are playing up and making a total pest of themselves in a supermarket or a public bar somewhere!
Finally, we have to ask ourselves the following question: Is teaching children that violence is an acceptable solution to problems in anybody's interests? Perhaps Sue Bradford's stimulated public debate has already caused many parents to personally think about their own disciplinary methods towards their own children. Ms Bradford is not an ogre or threat to society, she is a politician who has never sought physical force of any degree to discipline her own five children. Does she deserve personal threats? Of course not! Those people who have taken such a negative reaction towards their perceived right to physically discipline their children have a few issues of their own to sort out!
Incidently, the state of California and its residents are having their own particular debate about banning physical force against those children who are under three years of age!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)