Anti Anti-Smacking Bill Petition Doing Well

The petition to force a referendum to overturn Sue Bradford’s Anti-Smacking Bill is ahead of target.

With one week to go, the petition has well over the 286,000 signatures needed to force a referendum, but is going for a safe buffer.

From Family First


LET’S PUT IT BEYOND DOUBT!

Thanks to the efforts of people like you, there IS going to be a Referendum at the upcoming general election on the extremist anti-smacking bill which has targeted good parents and has failed miserably to target the real causes of child abuse.

The reason we have ‘upped’ the target?

In the last petition demanding a referendum (Norm Wither’s 1999 law and order referendum), almost 60,000 signatures were disallowed by the Clerks who check the validity of the signatures. While we don’t expect anywhere near as many disqualified signatures, it is beneficial to have a ‘buffer’ of signatures! Submitting well over the legally required 286,000 signatures would also drive the point home that this legislation is hugely unpopular and ineffective. (that’s why we originally set the target as 300,000).

We believe the politicians need to listen to the voice of the NZ public on this issue.

Thanks for your support. It has been a phenomenal ‘team’ effort.

Congratulations to Family First for a superb effort.

Share:

Author: Admin

Related Articles

12 thoughts on “Anti Anti-Smacking Bill Petition Doing Well

  1. Hi Anon,

    You will need to go to
    http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/petition.html

    Then sign the top petition and the bottom one.

    The top to get a referendum on the ‘anti-smacking’ law and the bottom one to get the Government to address child abuse in the right way without criminalizing all good parents.

    Then send it to,

    C/o CIR
    P.O. Box 9228
    Greerton, Tauranga

    And please have it sent by Monday the 24th.

    Thankyou very much,
    Simeon

  2. Laws in capitalist parliaments are crude social implements. In the case of the ‘anti smacking bill’ there is a sense of
    intrusion into private family business.
    That said, there are times when a parliamentary law is the better of the social options on offer. The Homosexual Law Reform Bill was one, and Bradford’s bill is another.
    The raising of children is, in reality, a social thing and kids are not our private property.
    In my view, hitting a person smaller and much younger than yourself is an unproductive and shitty cowardly thing to do. Especially when the deal is that the struck person may not hit back.
    Hitting children is much more about frustrated adults letting off steam than about guideance and correction.
    As a teacher and a parent I register my disgust at and absolute opposition to the hitting of children.

    Don Franks

  3. Don says

    “The raising of children is, in reality, a social thing and kids are not our private property.”

    That’s the guts of our difference Don.

    To me , the right to smack, while important, is secondary.

    My kids are most definitely my private property. My family is the mostimportant property I own in this world.

    That’s why I am so vehemently opposed to the anti-smacking bill-it reduces parently ownership and responsibility for children and gives the state more say in family life.

    I oppose any form of the socialisation of children, the most important private property and individual can own, outside of his or her own life.

  4. People choose to have children, therefore they are the parents responsibilty alone.
    Society did not have them and parents do not have to have them. Raising children is not “a social thing” but being responsible for your own actions.

  5. Smacking isn’t ‘hitting’ Don. If you cannot tell the difference, than perhaps you should not have access to Children?

    EXOCET

  6. Kia ora Trev

    “My kids are most definitely my private property. My family is the mostimportant property I own in this world.

    That’s why I am so vehemently opposed to the anti-smacking bill-it reduces parently ownership and responsibility for children and gives the state more say in family life.” (Excuse me it is called Repeal of Section 59 which gave people the right to hog tie, horse whip etc their children, are Family First your mates too?)

    Vomit, vomit, vomit. I remember blokes like you talking exactly the same way about the Domestic Violence Act….passed by the Nats. What I do in the privacy of my own home is nothing to do with the state….I remember men saying that back then. Have we got over that now? I don’t think so. Back in those days it was also fine to rape your wife. (Conjugal rights etc etc) And now you are saying that your family are your private property, you “own” them and you can deal to them as you wish. Children are not property, neither are their mothers. What you are saying is that you own your children and your wife ..that is really sick.

    Huhana

  7. “Smacking isn’t ‘hitting’ Don.”

    Lets run the scenario that the legislation is reversed or repealed, now, pop over next door and smack your neighbours kids, say, a good 10 around the posterior, and see if you get charged with assault or not. See if the judge really gives two shakes of a mules asshole whether or not you think its a smack or a whack or a hit.

  8. God told Moses that he intends to “smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast” (12:12) So I think all ACT voters should join Family Firsts next biblically inspired referendum – legalised infanticide.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.