Wednesday, May 23, 2007



And it's law

Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill was assented on Monday. It will now come into force on June 21st.

Posted by Idiot/Savant at 5/23/2007 11:19:00 AM

Labels:

9 comments:

It will now come into force on June 21st.

You'll be sorry when the seas boil and the moon turns the color of blood!

 Posted by Anonymous : 5/23/2007 11:40:00 AM

You'll be sorry when the seas boil and the moon turns the color of blood!

Oh will I?

I for one welcome our new Great Old One masters, secure in the knowledge that my brain will be eaten first. Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fthagn!

 Posted by Idiot/Savant : 5/23/2007 12:16:00 PM

I wonder how long it's going to be before everyone realises the scare-mongering nut-jobs were full of shit...I'm going to take great pleasure in watching that unfold.

I firmly believe they were never interested in 'freedom from the state'. If a person does not have freedom from violence the very concept of freedom is empty.

 Posted by Anonymous : 5/23/2007 12:56:00 PM

Ruth: Honestly, I don't think anyone will notice. And so the nutjobs will be able to scaremonger again.

If a person does not have freedom from violence the very concept of freedom is empty.

I agree. Unfortunately, those who opposed the bill were interestedonly in their own freedom, and not that of their children.

 Posted by Idiot/Savant : 5/23/2007 01:29:00 PM

Ruth,

I firmly believe they were never interested in 'freedom from the state'.

I'd ask you for proof of that assertion ... but I'm still waiting for the proof underlying your other wacky accusations, so I won't hold my breath.

If a person does not have freedom from violence the very concept of freedom is empty.

I'm quite keen to understand your reasoning here. Why is smacking a special case of force that parents may not use, when other types of force are acceptable?

For instance, consider the 'naughty chair' - confining a child by force to a chair as punishment. You're using force that would be illegal if applied to an adult, against a child, for the purposes of behavioural correction.

How is this use of force different to that involved a light smack?

 Posted by Anonymous : 5/23/2007 01:46:00 PM

Indeed, no-one will notice. Most parents will continue to smack their kids now and then, some will physically abuse them, some of those abusers will claim in court that the violence was "reasonable in the circumstances" as per the Act, and no doubt in a few of those cases the jury will agree - rather like it was before Bradford spent wads of our cash "fixing" it. Hooray! Another milestone in the history of irrelevant legislation!

 Posted by Psycho Milt : 5/23/2007 01:53:00 PM

CYFS will confiscate a few more children, it won't make the news.

 Posted by unaha-closp : 5/23/2007 02:47:00 PM

Psycho Milt,

You're forgetting of course that politicians on both sides of the debate now have a convenient scapegoat: the Police.

Those opposed to corporal punishment can blame the Police for refusing to prosecute, while those in favour can blame the Police if they do.

So, expect the poor, long-suffering Police to bear the majority of the heat when this issue next surfaces.

 Posted by Anonymous : 5/23/2007 03:40:00 PM

Given that Idiot has previously claimed that parents who smack are terrible violent yobbo nasties (I paraphrase), and he wanted the law to criminalise any form of violence towards children, including a light smack on the behind, isn't the idea that nothing will be noticed by the "scare-mongering nut-jobs" a problem?

Didn't Idiot _want_ the fundie-baby-beaters hauled in front of the court?

 Posted by Muerk : 5/23/2007 11:54:00 PM

Post a Comment

(Anonymous comments are enabled).