The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ and the referendum – your ‘unemotional’ guide to Section 59

A brief, clear, unemotional, analysis for Kiwis of Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-correction law’. See it for yourself and find out what it means! Be confused no more! And vote ‘NO!’ in the referendum in August!


4 responses to “The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ and the referendum – your ‘unemotional’ guide to Section 59”

  1. Mrs Dianne Woodward Avatar
    Mrs Dianne Woodward

    So sensible Sue says Sue’s smacking law was never about the real issue of child abuse but we STILL have a Families Commission driven by ideology rather than listening to families. I’m thankful that daily RADIO LIVE’s John Tamahere tackles topics with commonsence and curtesy then on the 19th April SUE REID’S NZ Herald News Article on Abuse addressed honestly and factually what 85% of us feel also she clearly explains this 2 year old child discipline law. What a back lash from a journalist who resents this fully-funded government driven anti-violence campaign pushed along by Jan Pryor who now tells us positive parenting should never include a smack. WHY CAN JAN not get it, NO SMAK A BRAT, this NEW LAW a FlAW, a light smack for the purpose of correction CRIME, 200% increase in PARENTAL investigations JAIL IN TIME. Smacking is not Bashing and is just one of the tools a parent can use while training their toddler.

  2. Mrs Dianne Woodward Avatar
    Mrs Dianne Woodward

    John Key’s shown true leadership in Christine Rankin’s appointment.Paula Bennett has done well yet again and deserves thanks for listening to us and making such good decisions in todays appointments. A fiesty, unPC, commonsence, straight up, walk the talk kind of person who shows No Fear of speaking her mind is just what is needed in high places so its certainly encouraging she got a top job,we also have Radio Lives John Tamahere advocating on behalf of ordinary people thank goodness. Therefore its great that now parents can relax just knowing Christine can finally be the practical mouthpiece Kiwi children need.The Families Commission has never ever once listened to 90% of the ordinary caregivers in our country and all Peter Dunne Done was Destroy Democracy, Devasted Dunne’s angry today 12th May 2009, now he too knows how the majority of us felt 2 years ago when 113 MPs pushed through Dunnes Labour Party ideology we’ve heard much more from him today than we ever heard in the whole time this anti-smacking debate started by the Greens in 2003. Family First factually give us updated evidence of persecuted parents presently which Judith Collins promised to investigate. Chester Borrows amendment would clarify what reasonable force is he had all the answers years ago because a smack does not bruise or maim our precious children.

  3. Personally it is not abusive to give a toddler/young child a open handed smack (usually on a nappy padded bum)to stop it for getting itself maimed or worse still killed.
    It doesn’t scar or mar them in anyway maybe a little hurt pride and a quick cry at the time but at least they are still alive and will thank you in years to come.
    A quick open handed smack doesn’t constitute abuse but rather discipline particularly to a young child who doesn’t understand “no” or “don’t touch you will get hurt” eg burnt, electricuted, bitten or even run over

Leave a Reply

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