Hiting out at the beaters
So the pro-smacking brigade isn't taking it lying down.
Opposition to the child discipline bill was pretty much rendered null and void by National-Labour compromise allowing police to use discretion in taking action on a light smick-smack-paddy-wack, paving the way for it to pass into law in Parliament last night.
However, on the day of the vote opponents showed they weren't going to take it on the chin or the bottom or any other favoured corporal punishment spot.
Peddling their line about how not wanting to spare the rod will effectively turn good parents into criminals (to me the answer to that one is simple - keep your hands to yourself) they have launched a petition to force a referendum on the issue.
Currently as long as you can get 300,000 people to sign up to a petition you can have a referendum on anything.
Want a vote on free beer, just get 300,000 dipsomaniacs to sober up enough to put pen to paper.
However the referenda are non-binding so don't get your hopes up just yet.
Anyway, the criminalisation of parents is a smokescreen put up by the people who don't want to lose their god-given right to hand out summary justice to their offspring.
Once they found a way to couch their opposition that didn't make them sound like abusers they latched on to it like rabid dogs.
It's scare-mongering and bullying, just the sort of thing you'd expect from those who use force and intimidation as a means of control.
That's why it came as no surprise to me that the prospect of not being able to deal out state-sanctioned violence on their children upset one opponent f the bill to the extent that they threatened its author, Sue Bradford, with violence.A
Advertisement for the cause didn't come better than that one.
Opposition to the child discipline bill was pretty much rendered null and void by National-Labour compromise allowing police to use discretion in taking action on a light smick-smack-paddy-wack, paving the way for it to pass into law in Parliament last night.
However, on the day of the vote opponents showed they weren't going to take it on the chin or the bottom or any other favoured corporal punishment spot.
Peddling their line about how not wanting to spare the rod will effectively turn good parents into criminals (to me the answer to that one is simple - keep your hands to yourself) they have launched a petition to force a referendum on the issue.
Currently as long as you can get 300,000 people to sign up to a petition you can have a referendum on anything.
Want a vote on free beer, just get 300,000 dipsomaniacs to sober up enough to put pen to paper.
However the referenda are non-binding so don't get your hopes up just yet.
Anyway, the criminalisation of parents is a smokescreen put up by the people who don't want to lose their god-given right to hand out summary justice to their offspring.
Once they found a way to couch their opposition that didn't make them sound like abusers they latched on to it like rabid dogs.
It's scare-mongering and bullying, just the sort of thing you'd expect from those who use force and intimidation as a means of control.
That's why it came as no surprise to me that the prospect of not being able to deal out state-sanctioned violence on their children upset one opponent f the bill to the extent that they threatened its author, Sue Bradford, with violence.A
Advertisement for the cause didn't come better than that one.