The March for Democracy will be held
1.30pm Sat 21 November, Queen St Auckland
Official Website : www.themarch.co.nz
More details to come
The ad campaign so far….
The March for Democracy will be held
1.30pm Sat 21 November, Queen St Auckland
Official Website : www.themarch.co.nz
More details to come
The ad campaign so far….
Barnardos Labels Marchers ‘Ignorant’!
In an incredible outburst, Advocacy Manager for Barnardos Deborah Morris-Travers, who ran the Yes vote campaign at the recent election, has written to the NZ Herald and attacked the upcoming March for Democracy, saying that the march will ” mobilise the ignorant “! This is an example of the lack of respect that some government funded organisations and some politicians and ex-politicians have for the democratic process and the voice of NZ families.
It is ironic that Morris-Travers was a Minister of the Crown complements of a change in the voting system from FPP to MMP that less people voted for than voted in the anti-smacking Referendum.
If you want a reason to march , stand up against being labelled IGNORANT simply because you want a democratic country that listens to the voice of NZ’ers, and you want to tackle real abuse – not real parents.
March to call for action on smacking referendum
NZ Herald Oct 27, 2009
A march to protest the Government’s lack of action following the so-called anti-smacking referendum has been announced today. Colin Craig, an Auckland businessman said the march is about democracy and the government has so far ignored the majority of referendum respondents who voted against the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act. …Family First director Bob McCroskie said his group wanted to tackle “rotten parents” but the repeal of Section 59 was not the answer. “A bad law is still a bad law even if law abiding citizens follow it,” Mr McCroskie said.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10605638
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10605777
Got a comment on this issue? Email feedback@familyfirst.org.nz
PUBLIC MEETING TONIGHT
Section 59′
Tonight in Hamilton , (and next week in Dargaville) you’re invited to a continuation of a series of meetings around the country….
Speakers
* Bob McCoskrie – Family First – Target Real Child Abuse, Not Real Parents ( HAMILTON ONLY )
* John Boscawen – ACT MP – Promoter of the Boscawen amendment, previously the Chester Borrows amendment
* Larry Baldock – Kiwi Party – Promoter of the Referendum
Also invited are the local Members of Parliament.
HAMILTON
TONIGHT 7.30 p.m.
Hamilton Central Baptist Church, 33 Charlemont Street, Hamilton
CLICK HERE FOR MAP OF LOCATION
DARGAVILLE
Monday 12 October, 7.00 p.m.
Dargaville Town Hall, 37 Hokianga Road, DARGAVILLE
CLICK HERE FOR MAP OF LOCATION
Campaign4Democracy |
Meetings coming up with John Boscawen, Bob McCoskrie and Larry Baldock in Tauranga, Hamilton, Dargaville, Lower Hutt and Bucklands Beach We are still working on finalising many aspects of the Campaign4Democracy and therefore do not have our logo and templates for communication ready as yet. This short update will give you some useful information though I trust. Two weeks ago at the Family Forum hosted by Family First, John Key accepted questions from the floor and you can hear those and his replies by clicking below. Don’t worry about a little feedback noise at the beginning as it comes right after a minute or so. My question to him is about number 3. John Key Q & A Two quotes from his answers are interesting. “There is 13 prosecutions where there has been some form of physical abuse but in those cases the advice I have had is that even if the old sec 59 law was in place those prosecutions would still have taken place.” John Key. If you are familiar with the cases you will know that this is nonsense, but if his advice was accurate, it begs the obvious question, Why did the law need to be changed then? “All I can tell you is if we went back and changed the law this is what I think would happen. There would be a very intense debate in NZ and those that are opposed to smacking could run a very ferocious campaign and at the end of that process right or wrong, some people would feel quite differently about it.” John Key This quote indicates that the PM is well aware of how violent, intolerant and agressive the non-violent positive parenting types can be when they don’t get their own way. A bit like children really! More meetings coming up with John Boscawen, Bob McCoskrie and myself will be; Hamilton Thursday 8 October, 7.30 p.m at Hamilton Central Baptist Church 33 Charlemont Street. Dargaville Monday 12 October 7.30 p.m Venue TBA (not including Bob) Lower Hutt Thursday 15 October 7.30 p.m Venue TBA Bucklands Beach Monday 19 October 7.30 p.m Venue TBA Perhaps you can recomend them to your friends if they live in those areas. Larry Baldock objectid=10600928 |
Hi All,
Public meeting in Christchurch concerning the Anti-Smacking Law, see below for details.
Unity for Liberty encourages all folk to attend these public meetings when they are in your area, I attended the first meeting in Auckland and found it extremely rewarding.
If you are able could you please forward these details on to any friends who may be in the area.
Regards
Craig Hill
021746113
We have organised our next Public Meeting;
John Boscawen has challenged Clayton Cosgrove to attend. 27000 voted No in his electorate of Waimakariri and 16000 voted for him in the last General election… John is also inviting Kate Wilkinson, the National List MP.
The details are
Monday 21 September, 7.30 p.m. St. Bede’s College, Performing Arts Centre, 210 Main North Road, Papanui, Christchurch City
John Boscawen, ACT M.P., David Garrett, ACT M.P., Larry Baldock, Leader of the Kiwi Party and Referendum Organiser. Other speakers to be advised.
For details of future meetings
Email kbridgman@xtra.co.nz
Or phone 09 531 5531
8 September 2009
Smacking Panel Must See the Real Evidence
Family First NZ is welcoming the appointment of Nigel Latta to the s59 Review Process but is concerned by his comments that he will not be meeting with any lobby groups.
“Nigel Latta has said ‘I did not agree with the original law change. I also voted no in the referendum. I do not believe that a parent smacking their child, in the ‘common sense’ understanding of what that means, should be subject to criminal prosecution or investigation’. That is a breath of fresh air, completely politically incorrect, and suggests that he will represent the concerns of NZ parents when he reviews the effect of the law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“However, we are hugely concerned that he ‘will not be meeting with, corresponding with, or entering into discussions with, any lobby groups’. Family First has been documenting substantive evidence of good families being investigated and prosecuted as a result of the law, and it is essential that Latta meet these families and view the evidence.”
“If the Review committee is simply going to view reports of the police and CYF, which have attempted to mask the real effect of this law, then nothing will be achieved and we will be back to square one – a flawed law rejected by NZ’ers but marketed by government groups.”
Family First is inviting Nigel Latta to meet parents negatively impacted by the anti-smacking law.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10593810&pnum=0
4:00AM Saturday Aug 29, 2009
By John Armstrong
No matter what spin the anti-smacking brigade puts on last week’s referendum, the result is still mind-boggling.
The referendum’s opponents have naturally sought to downplay the 88 per cent “no” vote as not unexpected, arguing that people were confused by the referendum question which was anyway heavily loaded to increase the “no” vote, while only 56 per cent of eligible voters actually bothered to return their ballot paper.
However, the turnout was marginally higher than that recorded in the first MMP referendum in 1992.
In some electorates, it was as high as 66 per cent, which is the same level as that registered in the Maori electorates at the last general election and not all that far short of overall turnout, which in recent elections has hovered around the 80 per cent mark.
The assumption of voter ignorance is the typical sort of patronising claptrap used by the liberal elites to conveniently explain away something that disturbs their comfort zones.
Faced with predictions of mass confusion following the introduction of GST in the 1980s, a Labour MP at the time noted most people had no problems filling out a TAB betting slip which was equally complex.
Ditto with the smacking referendum. Voters understood exactly what they were doing. Politicians ignore the outcome at their peril.
Those in National’s senior ranks are most definitely taking note. The highest “no” votes were registered in provincial and rural seats held by that party.
Once it was clear that the turnout was going to be much higher than predicted, the Prime Minister ensured he had a response prepared. This amounted to more monitoring of the existing law to ensure it is working as intended.
That was obviously not going to satisfy the referendum’s organisers, who were seeking the repeal of the relevant section of the Crimes Act.
While Sue Bradford’s amended initiative remains the law, National has taken on board the message from the referendum that voters are drawing a line in the sand against any more measures which might be termed liberal, socially progressive or nanny state-ish.
In marked contrast, National’s reform agenda for the economy and social service delivery is meeting little resistance. For example, Bill English has now mentioned on several occasions three dreaded words that usually spell political death – “capital gains tax” – without his world caving in.
That is not to say the Finance Minister is about to bring in such a tax.
But the lack of opposition is emboldening the Government to move faster on the economic front than it might otherwise have done, another example being National’s willingness to allow mining of minerals on parts of the Department of Conservation estate.
National’s shift to the right in such policy areas is one reason there is less concern within the party about Act’s current muscle-flexing over the anti-smacking law and Maori seats on the Auckland “Super City” Council.
Act is clearly seeking to fill a gap left on the right by John Key’s relationship-building with Maoridom and his unwillingness to ditch the anti-smacking law.
If nothing else, the politics surrounding the latter is proof there is a God – and that he or she has a sense of humour.
How else to explain the private member’s bill promoted by Act’s John Boscawen, which allows parents to give their child a “light” smack for corrective purposes, making it onto Parliament’s order paper for debate.
The odds on the measure securing the sole spot available were a staggering 28-1 against. Beating those odds in the ballot of private member’s bills – plus the timing just days after the referendum result – suggested divine intervention.
The Prime Minister is said to have been torn initially between voting down Boscawen’s bill and allowing it to go as far as being scrutinised by a select committee.
The referendum result weighed heavily on Key’s mind. However, it is understood that colleagues who had previously been supportive of legalising smacking argued for Boscawen’s bill to be killed as swiftly as possible.
They and Key did not want the public distracted by what would have been a lengthy sideshow as MPs grappled with the complexities of defining what was acceptable and not acceptable in terms of a “light” smack.
National is relaxed about Act getting a pay-off in the polls from Hide appearing principled by saying he would resign his Local Government portfolio rather than steer legislation through Parliament with which he could not agree.
Act has struggled to register above 1.5 per cent support since the election, while backing for National is up to 10 percentage points higher than the party got at the ballot box last year.
While Act appears to have decided to be less supine in its four-way relationship with National, the Maori Party and United Future, it has to ensure it does not overreach itself and become the docked tail wagging a very large National dog…….
To read the rest go to:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10593810&pnum=0
31 August, 2009
Well, I thought you would have all had enough press releases and heard and seen enough of me in the media last week that another CIR update until now would not have been necessary.
However, now we do need to answer the question, where to from here?
I will be busy preparing this week for our Kiwi Party Conference this Saturday in Christchurch and I would be greatly encouraged to have any of you join us there. For details click here Conference details and registration.
You may recall my comments in response to criticism over my involving the Kiwi Party in the referendum around the time of the elections last year, when I said that ultimately the only way we will get the law changed is if we have 61 MPs elected that will be prepared to vote to change it. I think that reality may now be clearer.
The drawing of John Boscawen’s members bill from the ballot last Wednesday, only one day after the final results of the referendum was amazing. Some media commentators described it as miraculous, or divine intervention, but sadly it seems that more intervention is going to be needed after the Prime Minister and leader of the opposition buried it less than five hours after seeing the light of day.
I have had discussions with a number of people already about possible action and I would very much like to hear your opinions.
Another petition to force a referendum that would have to be held either before or at the next general election would, in my opinion, be the best way forward. Of course this requires an enormous effort and is not something I can do alone as you all know better than anyone.
We are prohibited from seeking another referendum on the same topic by the CIR Act for a period of 5 years, but the issue has now become one of democracy in the minds of the 87.4% that voted ‘no,’ so perhaps we should use a question like “should a referendum seeking to change a law already passed by parliament be binding?”
The press release I sent out today was really a tongue in cheek statement aimed at those who claimed our question was misleading and confusing when they attacked the connection between ‘good parenting’ and ‘smacking.’
When you have to explain a joke it probably means it wasn’t as funny as you thought!
On Friday I will be running some radio ads nationwide to say thanks to all those who participated in the referendum and made the no vote so successful. I will seek feedback from everyone through the www.4democracy.co.nz website on some of the possible responses we can make to the Prime Ministers rejection of the referendum result.
Because it takes between two and three months to get a CIR petition question approved by the Clerk of the House it may be wise to begin the application as soon as possible even before we have gained sufficient responses to know how much support we have.
I do not want to act alone nor independently, but I know from past experience that sometimes you can’t wait until you have enough volunteers and money before you start out, otherwise nothing gets done.
Please drop me an email if you have any thoughts,
Warm regards,
Larry Baldock
PS. I have just received an invitation to appear on Russel Brown’s TV 7 current affairs show this Thursday evening at 9.10pm for a panel discussion with Brian Edwards. If you want to watch it is free to air TV 7 and Sky digital channel 97.
The Kiwi Party
Press Release
Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock said he is thinking about collecting signatures for another Citizens Initiated Referendum petition.
Mr Baldock said this time the question might be “Should Members of Parliament as part of good governing ignore a referendum with 87.4% support of the people?”
Asked whether he thought this would have widespread support Mr Baldock said, “almost certainly! Because so many were frustrated about democracy being undermined by the Prime Minister the huge task of collecting more than 300,000 signatures would be made easier than last time.”
“However there is always the risk that after obtaining sufficient signatures again to force a referendum, and achieving a huge ‘No’ vote, there may be some who will complain that the question is confusing, loaded or misleading.
“What is good governing they will ask, and how can anyone ‘really’ know what the voters ‘really’ mean?
After all, how can anyone know what ‘good governing is’ since New Zealanders have not seen it for such a long time!”
Ends
Contact
Larry Baldock
021864833