After the 1990 referendum when 70 percent of respondents voted for MMP Mike Moore said the people had not spoken they had screamed.  What can we say about the anti smacking referendum?  The people did not scream, they shrieked!  The difference is that Jim Bolger listened but John Key chooses to interpret a shriek as a whimper.  According to him and I quote, 1.6 million New Zealanders, “still have some concerns and want a high degree of comfort”.  It is not concern or comfort Mr Key should be addressing but all those ‘No’ boxes containing a big tick.

The issue now goes well beyond to smack or not to smack.  It’s about our democracy.  Correct me if I am wrong, but we have never given our prime ministers a mandate to ignore us, but to represent us.  The received wisdom holds that democracy is supposed to heed the will of the people.  A condescending attempt at appeasement demeans the clear will of the electorate. 

The instances when politicians have used their imagined mandate to act against the public will and common sense are now legion.  Lowering the legal drinking age and then giving the liquor industry the green light to concoct and advertise an array of teenage elixirs was breathtakingly irresponsible.  Privatising the telecom industry and power grid without ensuring there would be effective competition and significant re-investment defies comprehension.  Insult has followed injury.  We have now saddled our younger generation with an unbridled drinking culture we actually wanted to harness and allowed excessive profit taking by key industries. 

Unless John Key acts decisively on the anti-smacking legislation we can all cry bitter tears for our democracy.  It will have become a charade.  When elected representative deny the will of the people by hiding behind the law the time to make citizens initiated referenda binding on government has come.

But that is only half the story. Pointing the bone at our elected representatives is just one side of a tarnished coin.  We need to look at ourselves.  The old adage that we get the government we deserve reminds us that we are responsible for its quality.  If we fail to protect our interests we can hardly complain when our ancient democratic rights are ignored.  Perhaps after 800 years another King John needs to be dragged to Runnymede.

At a time like this two historians lurking in the back pages of history need to be lifted out and dusted off.  Professor Alexander Tyler, writing three centuries back and Sir Arnold Toynbee, who completed an epic study of 21civilisations some 70 years ago, would not be surprised by today’s events.  Tyler concluded that nations pass through an eight stage process, lifting themselves out of bondage to grasp liberty and abundance before sliding back into subjugation.  He traced this downward spiral through complacency to apathy and then dependency.  From there the path back to bondage is only a short hop.

Toynbee identified five states that defined a civilisation in decline – truancy, abandon, guilt, drift and promiscuity (not of the sexual kind).  He concluded that civilisations mark their demise with an uncritical acceptance of just about anything, over indulgence in distracting entertainments and a self defeating attitude bedded in a sense of powerlessness.  The fact that Tyler and Toynbee were separated by centuries and yet reached similar conclusions is truly spooky. 

If our elected representatives at either the national level or local level can get away with dismissing the will of the people or denying us an effective voice we have to ask some serious questions about ourselves.  Are we too distracted by entertainments, too complacent, too fatalistic to critically examine the state of our nation?  Are we too apathetic to fight for real change?  When our governing institutions rely on legislation or policy weapons to say you do what we want or we will make you, we have a problem. If we append to that a national psyche wedded to a nanny state we have dependency.  If we then add to this mix a government that thinks it can do what it wants despite the rest of us we don’t have democracy any more.  All that is left is a looming bondage and the spectral shadows of two dead historians who saw it coming because it has happened before.  

Published with permission of author Chris Salt.

Source: Nelson Mail 5 September 2009

Recent Articles on the Issue from NZ Herald

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-smacking-debate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10595856

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10596584

The Rt. Hon. John Key might be very astute on financial matters but he appears to have little idea how the law should work in a true democracy. He will not be Prime Minister forever. Another government might tell the police to ignore his instructions and enforce the law as it is currently written.

John Boscawen’s Private Member’s Bill is almost identical to an amendment to the Bradford bill that Key was very much in favour of. If there was a referendum on the question of keeping the existing law or going back to the original Section 59, the Society is sure that the majority of New Zealanders would vote for a law change. Granted, there were a handful of doubtful verdicts which the jury may have got wrong over a period of about 15 years prior to the law change. However, the law did not need changing. But that is now history.

ACT’s John Boscawen bill is a genuine compromise and certainly a lot better than a law that the Prime Minister described today on Radio Live as “a complete and utter dog’s breakfast”.

The Referendum about the so called “anti-smacking” law (the name which Sue Bradford herself originally gave to her Bill) is really about how children should be corrected according to former MP & now President of the Kiwi Party Gordon Copeland.

“Smacking and taking a child to time out are now criminal acts in New Zealand’ said Mr Copeland. “But only when they are used for the purpose of correction that is to rebuke or punish, in order to improve a child’s behaviour”.

“At the heart of this debate therefore there are really two questions.
Firstly do children need to be corrected?”

“Most of us would answer this question with an emphatic “yes”. However  some would just as emphatically answer “no” because they believe that children are  born virtuous and will automatically, as if by instinct, grow up to become unselfish & loving adults!  I believe, with the wisdom of the ages, that  both children & and adults need to be corrected.”

“Secondly should parents be permitted by law to smack or take their children to time out as part of good & loving parenting?”

“I believe that the answer to this question is also yes. Note that, consistent with the Referendum question, the qualification is that we are here talking about these correction techniques used by good parents. I am not saying that hitting with a jug core or locking a child in a dark room are acceptable correction techniques, because they are not! Those are the actions of bad parents who need to be corrected (there’s that word again) by the law of the land”.

“Are we capable of making that distinction clear in law? Of course we are and we should. The training, education and correction of children, accompanied by large lashings of love & good fun, are the central tasks of parenting. Simply stated that is what good parents do!”

“When it comes to correction parents should have the freedom, under the law, to use a variety of ways to achieve the outcome which they seek, namely an improvement in behaviour, in ways which are appropriate to the circumstances & age of the child. This includes appropriate verbal correction, smacking, timeout and as the child grows older, grounding & the loss of privileges. Parenting on a day by day basis is never one dimensional.”

“I believe that these decisions must be made by parents and by parents alone! The State has no role to play and it is wrong for politicians to outlaw smacking and the use of time out in these circumstances. They have no mandate to do so. This matter was not widely raised in the 2005 Elections.  The issue made its way onto the floor of Parliament through a private Members Bill.”

“The claim that smacking and time out should be criminalised to bring the correction of children into line with the correction of adults is a fallacy.”

“We correct adults through fines, community service and prison sentences but none of these apply to children for the simple reason that they are children! The law always has & always will make that distinction.”

“I’m delighted that there is to be a Referendum on this issue and the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand” is crystal clear. Let’s use the opportunity to deliver a message to the Beehive which politicians will ignore at their peril because this issue really is for the sake of our children, our grandchildren & all generations to come.”

Gordon Copeland is a former MP who left United Future to become an Independent because of his strong opposition to the criminalisation of smacking and time out for the purposes of correcting children.
Contact: 
Phone 04 388 9805
Cell 027 472 6998

Ian Harris tells us (“Honest to God,” Dominion Post, [Dominion Post. Saturday July 11, 2009. Page B5], reproduced at the YesVote website at http://yesvote.org.nz/2009/07/17/the-bibles-harsh-view-rejected/) that we should reject the “harsh views” on child rearing found in the Bible.

Mr Harris, unfortunately, joins many of those who promote the criminalisation of good parents by muddying the waters. He notes, for example, that someone who defends the right to use physical discipline also believes that children (like adults) are sinners. He then announces that since “progressive” Christians (by which he seems to mean those who no longer accept Christian theology) realise that this is based on an antiquated view, we should likewise reject the right to use physical discipline and we should criminalise those who do.

Read the full article here.

Do you think that adults who are taken to court for hitting a child should be let off if they say they were disciplining the child?”

……. The kids had to push 1 if they should be let off 2 if they think they should not be let off, 3 if they don’t know and 4 to hear the question again. Just over half said they should not be let off. Many probably didn’t understand what ” let off” meant- ……..Nor is it clear whether “adults” included strangers.

They interviewed stressed kids who called the What’s Up hotline, a hotline for kids to talk about anything they wish, including abuse. While the kid was waiting to speak to a real person, they were given an automated message with the above question. That’s a little like asking turkeys on the 15 December whether they are looking forward to Christmas. There was only a 10% valid response rate.

Barnardos’ media release [on their 'research' - used to promote their Yes Vote Campaign in the Citizen's Initiated Referendum] says it asked kids about whether adults should be able to claim a legal defence for assault. They lied. They asked if adults should be let off. But if these adults are not parents or caregivers of the smacked kid they never had a legal defence [to be let off], ever. Let off means a case is dropped or they’re discharged without conviction – not merely being found not guilty. The Barnardos release also says:

Importantly, many of the callers suggested that parents should be let off with a warning or community service if they perpetrated low levels of violence against children.

How many? well, just one actually! The report provides all comments provided by the kids – quoting just 10 children, although it does provide some statements that counsellors said the kids had made. But ONLY ONE said parents should be let off with a warning, and NONE said parents should be charged, let alone prosecuted or have community service.

Barnardos should really stop lying to the media.

For more go to : http://big-news.blogspot.com/2009/06/barnardos-ask-kids-about-smacking-and.html

 They followed the initial contact with a lawyer’s letter threatening legal action. The Barnardo’s lawyer said to Maclachlan that her clients rights were violated by him purporting to be an employee of Barnardos, to officially speak for it and represent its view. Maclachlan sought legal advice and after an exchange of letters, Barnardos decided to proceed no further.

 The YouTube Title and Description for the video are as follows:

 NZ Correction Referendum: Vote Yes? No! SATIRE

BEWARE. WARNING. SATIRE. COMEDY. Renton Maclachlan conducts an in-depth, enlightening, and entertaining interview with Dennis Morris-Traveler of Baanaadoze and spokesperson for the Yes Vote campaign…

See at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfrwuBxc5w8

 For those with a more serious frame of mind wanting concise information explaining why they should vote “No” (and NOT “Yes”) in the forthcoming Citizen’s Initiated Referendum (CIR) … view Maclachlan’s other videos on YouTube.

The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ – ‘What it says!’ – your ‘unemotional’ guide to Section 59

‘Renton Maclachlan brings a brief, clear, unemotional, analysis for Kiwis of Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-correction law’. See it for yourself and find out what it means! Be confused no more! And vote ‘NO!’ in the referendum in August!’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxiYobjbeO4

The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ – ‘Why correction is needed.’
‘Renton Maclachlan brings a clear and concise, fast paced, in your face yet unemotional, analysis of the worldviews behind both the old and the new Section 59s.’
http://www…youtube.com/watch?v=HsnT8ul2f28)

Green MP Sue Bradford is infuriated that both John Key and Phil Goff have told the media that they will not be voting in the forthcoming Citizens’ Initiated Referendum (CIR) dealing with the ‘anti-smacking law’, because, like her, they consider the question being put to the public is silly, ambiguous and renders the CIR exercise pointless and a complete waste of tax-payers’ money. She is incensed that these politicians are not supporting her expensive “Vote Yes” campaign to retain the anti-smacking law she championed and is distressed that their decision not to vote might convince some who intend to support the “Yes” vote, that voting is a complete waste of time. 

On the one hand Bradford tells the New Zealand public that the referendum question is so ambiguous and silly that it renders the exercise pointless and on the other hand she craves, indeed pleads with them, to vote “Yes” in support of the legislation she championed. This is blatant hypocrisy. The tragedy is that she doesn’t comprehend that it is. She is even prepared to publicly criticise two gentlemen – Key and Goff – with years of collective experience in managing and disciplining their own children – for exercising their right not to vote in the CIR.

The Society commends Mr Key and Mr Goff for taking this incredibly bold and brave stand not to vote as it will assure all New Zealanders that politicians like them really do want to hear the genuine opinions of ordinary New Zealanders on the subject, rather than their own, possibly self-serving ones. This ever-so gracious and noble move on their part to sacrifice their own privilege to exercise a democratic right in deference to that of the general public, is so very laudable (we’re being facetious if you haven’t noticed!). It is reminiscent of the bold and brave actions of great field commanders in time of war – such as Hannibal – who chose to forgo the privileges of rank to eat the maggot-infested food dished out to ordinary soldiers and sleep next to the field latrines with his men.

New Zealanders must grasp that Super Commanders Key and Goff are genuinely and intensely interested in the views of the common folk who sacrifice their lives on a daily basis for the children of this land. That’s why they have not sought to discredit an instrument of democracy – the CIR – just days before it is to be unfurled. It would be unconscionable for such men of such superlative integrity to pour scorn on their country’s flag prior to it being unfurled or after it is flying. That’s why, they have said nothing whatsoever that would denigrate, discredit or demean or call into question an instrument of democracy – the CIR – (one they were actually instrumental in setting up) …. Yeah right!

Family First NZ says that the Law Society has admitted that the anti-smacking law has made no difference to NZ’s unacceptable rate of child abuse. Chair of the Family Law Section of the Law Society Paul Maskell was asked on a radio interview this week whether the law has done anything to reduce child abuse from the perspective of the legal profession. He responded ‘we haven’t noticed any change at all…The change in law really has made no difference’. He agreed that abusers don’t even know what the law is and don’t really care.

“This is backed up by an online poll of 3,829 people on the NZ Herald website yesterday which showed that 89% believed that the anti-smacking law had had no effect on child abuse, Curia Market Research in March where 77% believed that the law change would not reduce the rate of child abuse, and 87% of respondents on a littlies.co.nz website last year who felt the law was ineffective,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. For more, see below (Family First Media Release 21 May 2009. www.familyfirst.org.nz).

“The underlying issues identified by UNICEF and CYF – including drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown and dysfunction, and poverty and stress – continue to be ignored. Green MP Sue Bradford admitted that the law was never intended to solve the problem of child abuse.”

“We want the problem of child abuse tackled but it’s time we got realistic about the causes, and the actual families at risk,” says Mr McCoskrie. “People who opposed the law simply want some honesty in the debate, and laws targeted at the real causes.”