"In Parents We Trust"

This is why it’s good to be an ACT supporter rather than a wet Nat.

ACT people don’t have to swallow tons of PC crap from their own party.

Go John Boscawen-you da man!

Press Release by John Boscawen MP
ACT New Zealand

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen today expressed disappointment at Prime Minister John Key’s announcement that, regardless of the result of the upcoming anti-smacking referendum, there would be no change to the law.

It is unfair for Mr Key to make such a dismissive statement before the referendum has even been held. Referendums are an important part of many democratic countries’ legal systems – frequently used to decide important questions of public policy and as such ACT supports the upcoming referendum,” Mr Boscawen said.

“With all the recent media attention it would be a shame if the issue of how the question is worded overshadows the real issue that needs to be addressed.

“The anti-smacking law was promoted as the answer to New Zealand’s shocking rates of child abuse and resultant deaths. This has not happened – and over the past two years since the controversial anti-smacking law came into effect a total of 13 children have been killed as a result of child abuse in New Zealand.

“Child abuse was already illegal before the anti-smacking law was passed. Abusers were already breaking the law, and they continue to do so – yet, as a result of the anti-smacking legislation, good parents who lightly smack their child for the purpose of correction are now technically criminals.

“While the police have discretion not to prosecute, the reality is that the parent is breaking the law. How can this Government expect the public to have respect for the laws it passes when it condones the police not enforcing them.

“Contrary to what some would like us to believe, the vast majority of New Zealand parents are decent and loving – and, as such, do not need the Government butting in and telling them how to raise their children.

“That is why I have introduced my Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill – which I hope will be drawn in the ballot tomorrow. Parents should be trusted to raise their children into the successful and upstanding citizens that we want them to be.” Mr Boscawen said.

New Zeal Good point John. Even if few parents have been prosecuted for smacking so far, a hefty majority are stil secretly breaking the law and bringing the law into disrepute.

I regard this issue as more important than any other of ACT’s platforms-Three Strikes, School Choice, Lower Taxes, RMA Reform etc.

If a parent doesn’t have full authority over their own children, what hope is there for society?

I trust virtually any parent in the land further than almost any bureaucrat.


Author: Admin

Related Articles

16 thoughts on “"In Parents We Trust"

  1. "The fact that you believe children have different rights to adults means you cannot argue honestly about this Exocet."


    This has little to nothing to do with 'rights'. A child cannot reason as an adult.

    "Because children do not have responsibilities – say property, you and your right wing friends believe they have less rights than adults.

    I think that is a disgusting point of view and find it quite abhorrent."

    Way to misrepresent my POV or way of thinking. Under the law a parent is legally culpable for the child's conduct. Therefore, yes Adults have more resonsibilities than kids. Deal with it.

    The rest of your pathetic arguments have already been comprhensively demolished, so I'll not waste my time further!


  2. I'm not a child, so you wouldn't give me a light disciplinary smack. Unless you have a fetish for it.

    "Your and Trev's response seems to have been that children are property"

    Um, wrong. Show me once where that has been stated, implicitly or explicitly. After that failed exercise, read through the thread, then again, then again, then shoot yourself through the head.

    "its up to the parent to decide what to do with them"

    Hey! You've got something right, but it's not for the reason that they're "property." Try again.

  3. actually anon, if an adult tresspassed on you property they could get a light disciplinary smack and it wouldn't be assault.
    If an adult was behaving in a manner dangerous to others they'd get a light disciplinary smack too, and it wouldn't be assault.
    If they were stealing they'd be smacked, detained and even caged { oh the cruelty!}, and it wouldn't be assault. force can have a legitamite use.

  4. If I gave you or anyone else a light disciplinary smack it would be assault, furthermore section 59 was used to acquit parents who did far more than give a light smack.

    My argument is that children deserve to be free from the threat of physical violence. Your and Trev's response seems to have been that children are property so its up to the parent to decide what to do with them. I disagree with this entirely but we are obviously coming from completely different places philosophically.

  5. Perhaps if you bothered to distinguish the difference between a light disciplinary smack and outright assault, you wouldn't get your knickers in a twist quite so often. This has nothing to do with property. This is to do with the vile, loathsome Green Party and the witch-like Sue Bradford being taught a lesson – to stay out of politics and legislature. That you fail to distinguish between either – and that the Greens are the third largest party in the country, in fact – speaks volumes. But then, moral equivocation of everything is the left's strongpoint.

    "Get lost right wing prick"


  6. Yes I am comparing handicapped to children, physically assaulting either is inexcusable and in our current system is a criminal offence.

    Neither may be as legally responsible for their actions as an adult but both should be free from assault.

    Get lost right wing prick

  7. So you're comparing the handicapped to children now? lolololol, you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? And yes, responsibilities do come with rights and vice versa, and children have responsibilities. Get over it, Marxist.

  8. Trev, responsibility does not imply rights, someone who is mentally handicapped or severely disabled may have few or no responsibilitys but they to are entitled to the right to feel safe from assault.

    A child may not own property or whatever it is that makes you consider someone fully human but that does not mean they are not entitled to be free from assault. And thats what this law comes down to.

    Frankly I find the idea that they do not have the right to be free from assault because they are your "property" disgusting. Its is exactly the same attitude which in the past to justify assault of women and slaves.

  9. "children do not have responsibilities"

    lolololol. When I was a child, I knew what my responsibilities were: behave sensibly, ask politely if I wanted something, remember my please and thank yous and to wash my hands after I took a shit. Clearly you must have been a right prat as a child, something that would have been easily remedied with a short, sharp, open-palmed smack to the backside.

    And yes, they do have less rights than adults. They are as not mentally, physically and (tragically for leftards, all of whom are paedophilic) sexually developed as adults and are unable to reason and think and look after themselves on the level of an adult. Simple, basic biology. Why do leftards deny it?

  10. Kids certainly have rights-minedo-but parents have more. just like we have more responsibilities.

    Until the age of majority I own my kids.

    They are my charges, my responsibility and my property.

    No ifs, no buts.

    I love them-the state doesn't.

    If you don't own your kids-you don't deserve them.

  11. Second Anon I think you sum things up well.

    Because children do not have responsibilities – say property, you and your right wing friends believe they have less rights than adults.

    I think that is a disgusting point of view and find it quite abhorrent.


  12. "Look out everyone! The fire-breathing rich and powerful are coming to administer punishment to the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen! RIGHTS RIGHTS RIGHTS but don't even think about responsibilities plox."

    Get over yourself, please. Also, children are not adults. Biology sez so. But then biology tends to be the enemy of leftist sociology, doesn't it?

  13. The fact that you believe children have different rights to adults means you cannot argue honestly about this Exocet.


  14. As someone who voted Nat, I couldn't agree more with Mr Boscawen. I'm greatly frustrated at the National leadership's positioning on this, the referendum, and on their measure of how to determine whether a law should be changed.

  15. The fact that you confuse grown adults (deliberatly IMHO) with children mean that you cannot argue honestly about this Anon.


  16. Act – fighting for the rights of the rich and powerful.

    "If an employer doesn't have full authority over their own worker, what hope is there for society?"

    "If a employer doesn't have full authority over their own servant, what hope is there for society?"

    "If a slave owner doesn't have full authority over their own slave, what hope is there for society?"

    The issue is about the right of a child to feel safe, attitudes towards servants and slaves have changed and it has been recognised they have rights, perhaps its a bit much for you to see that children also have rights. Or perhaps children dont count in your libertarian agenda.

Leave a Reply

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