The ACT Party placed ths ad in the Sunday Star/Times supporting a referendum to overturn the anti-smacking legislation.
David Farrar at KiwiBlog posted about it yesterday.
Here are some positive comments from the resulting thread.
James W Says:
Well I like it.
At least there’s a party standing up for keeping government out of our lives. I still can’t get over the fact that National voted for it.
Ross Nixon Says:
ACT is NOT supporting a christian conservative cause.
ACT is supporting democracy!
The liberal party. That would be the party that doesn’t think the govt should tell us how to spend our money, or how to behave on matters of moral conscience. This fits exactly – there is research suggesting that an occasional smack is a reasonable part of good parenting, there is research suggesting it isn’t. It isn’t the government’s place to legislate on this, it is a choice for parents. It is exactly a liberal issue.
you are enttiled to your opinion. Now let’s look at the facts. This legislation was opposed by anywhere between 70% and 96% of the electorate as indicated by polls at the time. In anyone’s language that constitutes a majority, and one that the politicians should take note of. I have collected many signatures for the CIR that we are aiming for and my personal experience (along with other petition collectors) is that 90% of the people we approach are publically willing to sign (meaning signature, name and residential address). Many signatories are not Christian, some do not smack their children, and some support the Greens. In other words, this is an issue that cuts across the political divide, and makes your claim of what is a “conservative Christain cause” unapplicable.
I’ll be quite interested in your defintions of “small subset”, “ever reducing” and “majority of society” once we have the referendum.
Finally, putting the ad in the SST, which as you say has a centre-left leaning editorial position is possible proof that this is an issue that crosses the political divide (or maybe they are just cheaper because they have lower advertising rates, but then that wouldn’t be relevant for ACT now, would it). Or do you think Rodney is just stupid (in which case did you ask him why he did?)?
you misunderstand what liberal means on this issue. Freedom of choice for parents is a liberal concept…i.e. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression. Note the “freedom of action”
James W Says:
February 4th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Yea PP, i’m not sure you understand the term “liberal” in the european sense of the word (classical liberalism). PaulL has it right. It’s about less government. It’s about letting people make their own choices based on their own morals and not having an overgrown state do it for us.
Yup ACT is supporting democracy. Something which is very hard to come by in NZ.
“ACT is the party for smacking your kids. Nice move”
Typical lefty blinkered comment. ACT does not support smacking, ACT supports a parents right to choose how to raise their children without nanny state interfering. As such they are the only party that comes close to being liberal.
I can only hope the rest of the Bradford Bunch have the same blinkered view of this issue as it goes forward and that they stick to their wee guns on principle – it will make things so much easier. This is a very good political move for ACT – and the issue resonates enormously with so many parents that he could ride the position to the 5pc and beyond. ACT will be the only party of any credibility with this take – and all those people who care more about this one thing than anything else (and there are many) will be really tempted to go ACT.
Act have my party vote (at the moment) – and they come out with some decent policies on education and welfare control – then they will keep it.
However they will have to work hard as national are certainly on the rise.
Lesson from last parliament – the bloody greens did more to hurt this country than lanour did to help it. We certainly have a tail wag the dog problem at the moment.
And the anti smaking bill is going to cost labour dearly.
Parents are liable if little Johnny goes on a criminal rampage and smashes up 10 cars.
Parents are liable for hospital bills if little Johnny hurts himself and goes to hospital.
Parents are liable if they have the temerity to restrain little Johnny with a little force.
The State cannot abide any person daring to use force to chastise their child, or to defend themselves from harm, or to protect their property. We are supposed to roll over like defenseless, supine slugs and wait for the State and the Police to ride in and solve all our problems. It’s not a healthy way to develop a robust nation.
I believe the antismacking issue will be on the agenda for National at their retreat.
Frankly, as a parent, it is quite frightening that NZ’ers now constantly have to look over their shoulder in case one of their fellow countrymen dobb them in. This isn’t the NZ I grew up in. No wonder so many are leaving.
ACT stands on principle on this issue. Rodney and Heather voted against Sue Bradford’s anti-family bill when it came before Parliament and have been consistent in their opposition since.
People, who believe the state should stay out of families, should support this petition and party vote ACT in this year’s election.
8 thoughts on “ACT Gets Support For Pro-Family Stand”
The ENTIRE point of repeal of S59 was that it was previously legal to beat your kids – the fundies were able to turn it into “the anti-smacking bill”. And you’ve been hooked in by the fundies too. I believe in liberty, but not the liberty to assault kids.
The point I raised is that you and the act party are trying to enable parents to hit their kids legally.
Lets not fudge what the legislations about.
Trevor, the point I raised (top of page)raises the issue of ACT’s jumping into bed with the Christian equivalent of the Taliban. Family Firsts motives for a return of cororal punishment (per the Sciptures) is not the same as your & mine (individual rights) I am not confusing the issues at all. It is you who chooses to ignore this politically expedient arrangement. Paul.
Last 3 anons.
As you well know, but choose to confuse, corporal punishment is not the same as beating.
Keep the debate to the subject-don’t try and talk about something I haven’t even raised.
Act party standing up for the rights of adults to hit their kids.
You wouldnt hit an animal but your kids thats another matter entirely.
Kia ora Trev
Do you remember the history of the Domestic Violence Act? (Nat Govt passed that Act) Or were you too young? Repeal of Section 59 is exactly the same. I remember men in the 80’s in this country saying “what I do in the privacy of my own home is nothing to do with the State” So it was OK to beat your wife….. So it’s OK to beat your kids. I don’t think so!
Good ol Trev, standing up for the liberty of kids to get bashed with rubber tubing again (like was legal under section 59). Why you want to stand up for kid-bashers is beyond me.
Whilst supporting the principals of letting parents make decisions on discipline I will not be signing the petition and urge all ACT Supporters to look at the tenants of Family First. ACT is the party founded on individual rights & responsibilities. This is the contrary position of Family First who want to introduce some sort of Old Testament regime & tell us what we can and can not do according to their readings. Family First is the antithesis
of ACT and this is a marriage made in hell.