Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    4. The article claims that anti-smacking legislation may have played a role in the government's downfall.
    what is anti-smacking?
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  2. #2
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    what is anti-smacking?
    Laws against parents hitting their children to discipline/punish them. The previous NZ law allowed parents to use "reasonable force". This became contentious as some really hardcore disciplinarians had evaded prosecution by using this clause. The Greens introduced a bill to get rid of the exemption for "reasonable force".

    Initially Labour was to support the bill with National giving its members a conscience vote but a deal was struck in which police would have discretion to not prosecute in cases of "inconsequential" smacking. The amended version passed with full support of the Greens and both majors in May 2007. Without knowing anything about the issue I wonder if it would still have been on voters' minds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    It's interesting that the free-market ACT is now in government, while the Greens lost votes.
    Well, ACT's own performance was better than last time but much worse than in some elections before that; it is just their good fortune this time that National almost won outright and they were able to pick up the scraps and hence gain the balance of power.

    Not sure where you get "the Greens lost votes" from as their party vote (the one that matters most) was up from c. 120 K last time (5.3%) to at least 134 K (6.4%) this time and will probably rise further with the addition of postals.

    That said to only go up by that much given the extent to which Labour's vote collapsed is a poor result for the Greens.

    I shall observe ACT's performance with interest.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Laws against parents hitting their children to discipline/punish them. The previous NZ law allowed parents to use "reasonable force". This became contentious as some really hardcore disciplinarians had evaded prosecution by using this clause. The Greens introduced a bill to get rid of the exemption for "reasonable force".
    Did National promise to repel it?
    To me it sounds like:
    "you are responsible for your children behaviour, but do not have a power to correct it".
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  4. #4
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Did National promise to repel it?
    I would be surprised if they did given that they voted for the amended version.

    To me it sounds like:
    "you are responsible for your children behaviour, but do not have a power to correct it".
    It doesn't sound like that to me - firstly because there are other ways of "correction" and secondly because it allows authorities to ignore smacking if the smacking is "inconsequential".
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    ... it allows authorities to ignore smacking if the smacking is "inconsequential".
    That's the problem. IMHO, selective application of the law is one of the worst possible things imaginable. It makes complete mockery of "rule of law".
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Did National promise to repel it?
    Their compromise was regarded as a sell-out, for the reasons you stated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    That's the problem. IMHO, selective application of the law is one of the worst possible things imaginable. It makes complete mockery of "rule of law".
    And it also allows the authorities NOT to ignore inconsequential smacking. The child welfare Gestapo can be even worse, using this as justification for removing children from parents or foster parents. See for example these cases.

    Of course, the genuine abuses were already against the law, so the anti-smacking bill was just more nanny state encroachment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    To me it sounds like:
    "you are responsible for your children behaviour, but do not have a power to correct it".
    Same with schoolteachers: schoolkids are out of control, but you're streng verboten to discipline them, unless suspension (aka extra holidays) counts.

    ACT supported a referendum on this issue, and a petition for a referendum gathered 300,000 signatures, and Key criticised Clark for her delaying tactics on this. Not surprisingly it was a deeply unpopular bill being pushed by the Anointed in Parliament, given that a poll showed 85% against.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 09-11-2008 at 11:55 PM.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,539
    If Nationals are not stupid, they should repel the law and then brag about saving millions of tax-payers dollars (as referendum will not be required).
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    If Nationals are not stupid, they should repel the law and then brag about saving millions of tax-payers dollars (as referendum will not be required).
    ACT would support that. Also get rid of Kyoto.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  9. #9
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    That's the problem. IMHO, selective application of the law is one of the worst possible things imaginable. It makes complete mockery of "rule of law".
    I haven't seen the exact legislation but if that report of it was accurate (and with the mass media, one cannot take that for granted) then it would be better if it required police not to prosecute the inconsequential cases. I can't see why there would be discretion over it.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    14,206
    Why not allow the police to exercise some discretion? They do so a thousand times a day anyway.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    Why not allow the police to exercise some discretion? They do so a thousand times a day anyway.
    In short - they can put you in jail and let the guy next door go for exactly the same thing.

    If you smack your child, police does not have to prosecute you. But they can.
    Given that many parents smack their children, they are now at complete mercy of any official who might put them away if he wants to.

    That's how rule of law is replaced by rule of men.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    In short — they can put you in jail and let the guy next door go for exactly the same thing.

    If you smack your child, police does not have to prosecute you. But they can.
    Given that many parents smack their children, they are now at complete mercy of any official who might put them away if he wants to.

    That's how rule of law is replaced by rule of men.
    Exactly. This is why the new Government should repeal the law that gives police even the option of prosecuting smacking parents, and improve their action on real abusers who were already violating the law as it stood before this nanny-state legislation.

    Even worse, the child welfare Gestapo have taken children from smacking parents even after court acquittal.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I haven't seen the exact legislation but if that report of it was accurate (and with the mass media, one cannot take that for granted) then it would be better if it required police not to prosecute the inconsequential cases. I can't see why there would be discretion over it.
    Of course, but the leading proponents of this anti-smacking bill are zealots who believe there is no such thing as an inconsequential smack.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    14,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    In short - they can put you in jail and let the guy next door go for exactly the same thing.

    If you smack your child, police does not have to prosecute you. But they can.
    Given that many parents smack their children, they are now at complete mercy of any official who might put them away if he wants to.

    That's how rule of law is replaced by rule of men.
    What about shoplifting? Should a 4 year old kid who sticks a chocolate in his pocket be prosecuted? Or can the police use discretion?
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    What about shoplifting? Should a 4 year old kid who sticks a chocolate in his pocket be prosecuted? Or can the police use discretion?
    You need a complainant first. So the store or business would have to 'press charges', so to speak.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •