Dr Seuss’s guide to John Key on CIR

  

The Society has contacted the famous children’s book author Dr Seuss for comment, following today’s sensational media reports that Prime Minister John Key has compared the wording of the forthcoming ‘smacking law referendum’ (CIR) to those of his imaginative iconic ”green eggs and ham” children’s stories.

 

Dr Seuss, speaking from his apartment on 97th Street, lower Manhattan, New York, said:

 

” In my humble view, few New Zealanders who know their ABCs should find difficulty understanding your Citizen’s Initiated Referendum [CIR] Question ‘Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?’”.

  

 

 

 

 

 

1. Should the withdrawing of desert treats from a child on the odd occasion by a parent as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand? (Yes or No).

 

2. Should confining a child to their bedroom on the odd occasion as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand? (Yes or No).

 

Just in case you find these questions “a bit ambiguous and could be read a nunber of ways” (your words) my assistant Horton Ph.D. (Cornell) has provided some assistance to you. He states:

 

“Both the removal of desert and confinement of a child to a bedroom are used by some parents as part of “good parental correction”. Clearly few would suggest that the parents who use such grossly restrictive and cruel sanctions should warrant police investigation of the parent and their actions be treated as a criminal offence. I suggest you should answer “NO” to both questions 1 & 2 rather than refrain from answering because you claim the questions are silly and ambiguous. You may not agree that such sanctions constitute what you, in your superior wisdom consider to be “good” parenting, however that does not mean that you can or should judge those who use them, as child abusers, deviants or criminals.

 

“Likewise with the smacking law question. Smacking - involving reasonable force in the circumstances – by its very nature is NOT violence if adminuistered for the purpose of correction…. I sugggest you answer “NO” to the CIR question. To call all smacking violence and worthy of of criminal investigation is absurd. It’s like the strident catchcry of an extreme sick feminist who says that all sex is rape.”  

 

Mr Key, given your intense and overwhelming interest, as claimed in the media, in hearing what ordinary “Joe & Joey Blog” New Zealanders think about the subject raised in the CIR, I suggest you refrain from comparing the CIR question on smacking law to my books on ham and eggs. If you persist in doing do so I will immediately take legal action against you for defamation. You may think that such comparisons are an imaginative and smug way of influencing the outcome of the referendum and/or buying favours with the Ham & Eggs Party and their political bedmates, but it is my humble view that in persisting with your ham-fisted PC- posturing you will indeed have, ham, greens and eggs all over your face, following the outcome of the CIR. How do I know? you may well ask. Answer: Horton told me so!

 

“Sometimes dear sir, the questions are complicated and the answers are simple”.

Reference: See “PM lays into “smacking’ referendum.

 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0906/S00230.htm