Posts Tagged ‘Blogs’

The opponents of the anti-smacking law outnumber the supporters of ANY New Zealand government

Saturday, August 22nd, 2009

I (Beretta Blog) spotted this over at Kiwiblog today:

  1. 1,420,959 – Voted no to treating correctional smacking as a criminal offence
  2. 1,053,398 – 2008 Voted for National when they won the election
  3. 935,319 – 2005 Voted for Labour when they won the election
  4. 838,219 – 2002 Voted for Labour
  5. 800,199 – 1999 Voted for Labour
  6. 701,315 – 1996 Voted for National

This certainly puts the lie to the claim that the referendum is irrlevant or that it was ignored because of an alleged bias in its presentation. The reality is, just those who voted NO outnumber the supporters of any political party that has won an election in this country. Then add the 200,000 or so who voted in the minority, and you’ve got one heck of a popular and representative referendum!

Let’s now sit, watch, and see what our Prime Minister is made of.

No Defences Permitted for the Accused

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

From:  http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/no-defences-permitted-for-accused.html

No Defences Permitted for the Accused

In, The referendum campaign is underway, No Right Turn’s Idiot/Savant gives an excellent example of an argument we see coming up a lot in the debate around the upcoming referendum on smacking. In addition to trotting out the standard ad hominem, that everyone who supports the reinstatement of the old section 59 of the Crimes Act is a “child-beater,” I’d like to examine the emphasised part:

Over the next month I expect to see a succession of unhinged press releases from the child-beaters claiming that the law somehow impinges on their religious freedom or has caused the widespread persecution of parents. It does nothing of the sort. What it has done is prevent parents who punch their children in the face or beat them with a soup ladle from claiming a defence of “reasonable force”. And that is unequivocally a Good Thing. The only people who oppose that are people who wish to abuse children in that way – and we should treat them with the contempt they deserve.

Essentially Idiot/Savant here claims the parent in his example are guilty, apriori, and as such, when they go to trial, they should not be able to attempt to raise a defence. The problem is that the whole point of having a trial is to determine guilt or innocence. Even when it seems pretty obvious, trials are still necessary and the right to due process still applies. This right to due process includes, alongside the presumption of innocence, a right to raise a defence, no matter how stupid or implausible, and have the court assess it. The importance of this concept can be summed up by Blackstone’s Ratio, “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”[1]
Supporters of the anti-smacking law do not seem to get this. This ‘claiming a defence’ issue has been raised a lot ever since Sue Bradford first began promoting her bill to remove the old s59 defence, of reasonable force for the purposes of correction, from the Crimes Act. If you read the Vote Yes site, if you read the media releases and the articles and listen to the interviews you will hear it a lot.
Of course what Idiot/Savant, Bradford, the Vote Yes people, et al miss is that there is a world of difference between claiming a defence and succeeding in doing so. The court is not stupid and the people making the determinations of guilt or innocence in our courts are normal, everyday people. If it is so obvious to all of us that hitting a child across the face with a soup ladle is child abuse, and it is obvious to all of us, a court, made up of people like us, is not going to rule that such an action is an example of reasonable force.
The 34 reported cases on the old s59 are readily available in any law library and if you read them, instead of the media reports and politicians and websites and blogs, you will see time and time and time again child abusers failing in their attempts to raise the defence of reasonable force. The majority resulted in convictions and the few that did not were more often than not due to things like it not being proven who abused the child – which is terribly sad for the child, but you can’t just convict anyone so that you can chalk up a conviction! Wrongly decided cases are a fact of life. Just like doctors making mistakes on the operating table, just like us making driving errors. We should try very hard to ensure that these do not happen but to remove a defence entirely and risk the prosecution of the innocent is not the answer. Besides, some of the cases cited in the media as being wrongly decided were not even cases where s59 was raised, other defences like self-defences were in play… shall we remove self-defence as defence?

The contempt for due process does not stop here; statements like Idiot/Savants that, “The only people who oppose that are people who wish to abuse children in that way,” show that he is willing to accuse anyone of being a supporter of child abuse because they support the right of an accused to a fair trial.

Chilling. Basically once accused of something heinous, one should not be allowed to defend oneself and anyone who disagrees is morally on par with a child abuser.

There is another patently obvious flaw in Idiot/Savant’s argument; removing the defence doesn’t just prevent people who seriously abuse children from raising the defence it also prevents the wrongly accused from being able to raise it. However, without defences there is no way of separating the two. I am not speaking here of those who can stand up in court and honestly state ‘I did not touch my child,’ such accused could plead ‘not guilty,’ I am speaking of those who end up in court for smacking their children, not hitting them with soup ladles across the face; I am speaking of those who with an open hand, lightly, smack a child on the bottom once, not out of anger or in the midst of rage but in response to disobedience on the part of child. Such people cannot plead not guilty if accused of assault, they have no legal defence if they end up before a court. To remove legal defences from people innocent of child abuse to ensure that the net catches everyone is wrong.

Hat Tip: HalfDone
[1] William Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1760).

BIG NEWS Report: Barnardos asks kids about smacking, and lies about the research”… Why? In order to promote their VoteYes Campaign?

Friday, July 3rd, 2009

Barnardos have been interviewing New Zealand children by phone to see what they think about getting smacked. The question they asked:

Do you think that adults who are taken to court for hitting a child should be let off if they say they were disciplining the child?”

……. The kids had to push 1 if they should be let off 2 if they think they should not be let off, 3 if they don’t know and 4 to hear the question again. Just over half said they should not be let off. Many probably didn’t understand what ” let off” meant- ……..Nor is it clear whether “adults” included strangers.

They interviewed stressed kids who called the What’s Up hotline, a hotline for kids to talk about anything they wish, including abuse. While the kid was waiting to speak to a real person, they were given an automated message with the above question. That’s a little like asking turkeys on the 15 December whether they are looking forward to Christmas. There was only a 10% valid response rate.

Barnardos’ media release [on their ‘research’ – used to promote their Yes Vote Campaign in the Citizen’s Initiated Referendum] says it asked kids about whether adults should be able to claim a legal defence for assault. They lied. They asked if adults should be let off. But if these adults are not parents or caregivers of the smacked kid they never had a legal defence [to be let off], ever. Let off means a case is dropped or they’re discharged without conviction – not merely being found not guilty. The Barnardos release also says:

Importantly, many of the callers suggested that parents should be let off with a warning or community service if they perpetrated low levels of violence against children.

How many? well, just one actually! The report provides all comments provided by the kids – quoting just 10 children, although it does provide some statements that counsellors said the kids had made. But ONLY ONE said parents should be let off with a warning, and NONE said parents should be charged, let alone prosecuted or have community service.

Barnardos should really stop lying to the media.

For more go to : http://big-news.blogspot.com/2009/06/barnardos-ask-kids-about-smacking-and.html

Our ratings among New Zealand blogs – June 09

Wednesday, July 1st, 2009

Our ratings among New Zealand blogs – June 09

FROM:  Open Parachute blog http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/nz-blog-ranks-june-09/

For more information about these ratings check out the link above at Open Parachute..

KiwiSmithFamily is rated in the 101-150 blogs in New Zealand.
The Home Education Foundation and Family Integrity come in at 150-200.
These sections are in alphabetical order.

Total Rank

Change

Name

Rank

Links

RSS subs

1

0

Kiwiblog

1

1

1

2

0

Public Address

2

4

1

3

0

frogblog

3

2

13

4

0

The Standard 2.02

4

3

16

5

1

Not PC

5

7

11

6

3

TUMEKE!

7

12

17

7

-2

No Right Turn

31

9

3

8

0

The Dim-Post

10

21

13

9

-2

The Inquiring Mind

18

14

53

10

0

Whale Oil Beef Hooked

53

5

46

11

1

Halfdone

14

17

61

12

5

MacDoctor Moments

17

25

51

13

12

MandM

16

21

10%

14

-3

Auckland Daily Photo

46

12

38

15

-2

No Minister

6

50

34

16

5

Open Parachute

12

41

41

17

6

The Wellingtonista

30

52

5

18

-4

Liturgy

51

16

46

19

-4

In a stange land

47

28

24

20

39

Life is not a race to be first finished

34

51

9

21

13

Cactus Kate

9

79

10

22

8

Kiwipolitico

20

33

77

23

-5

Beatie’s Book Blog

40

35

36

24

4

Wellington Daily Photo

50

23

35

25

-9

Jack Yan: The Persuader

72

11

43

26

-2

The Fundy Post

60

24

22

27

-7

New Zeal

25

59

24

28

-10

Nelson Daily Photo

48

10

108

29

-7

The Hand Mirror

15

85

12

30

-4

New Zealand Conservative

8

46

101

31

-4

The visible hand in economics

13

31

148

32

7

Allthings2all

130

8

27

33

-2

Ethical Martini

26

45

69

34

27

Offsetting Behaviour

37

55

39

35

-2

Liberty Scott

35

57

44

36

9

Stephenfranks.co.nz

43

47

46

37

-1

Hot Topic

27

53

74

38

-3

Keeping Stock

22

69

62

39

-10

Derek’s blog

100

37

6

40

new

Artichoke

123

30

3

41

6

Hitting Metal With A Hammer

44

38

85

42

1

Lindsay Mitchell

24

63

81

43

19

Silent running

66

6

182

44

-2

Clint Heine and Friends

31

73

64

45

12

Big News

19

62

127

46

-9

sustain:if:able kiwi

69

28

83

47

-15

Capitalism is bad

177

15

21

48

-10

Radical Cross Stitch

41

111

7

49

new

Lively

61

42

86

50

22

Knowledge Workers

28

61

122

51

4

Media Law Journal

66

66

31

52

19

Educational Origami

10%

84

22

53

-3

Oswald Bastable’s Ranting

28

87

74

54

new

A cat of impossible colour

52

86

33

55

-14

Homepaddock

11

130

40

56

-10

Christchurch Daily Photo

73

39

93

57

-6

from the morgue

92

49

57

10%

-4

Reading the Maps

68

68

49

59

-19

Poneke’s Weblog

36

132

8

60

-7

Just Left

57

102

15

61

-13

Object dart

97

60

45

62

26

Educating the dragon

78

83

20

63

-14

Anti-Dismal

33

110

65

64

-20

Barnsley Bill

20

127

65

65

-9

Pacific Empire

96

40

96

66

2

Anarchia

127

27

90

67

35

Red Alert

95

32

145

68

-16

Pundit

82

19

185

69

new

Teaching Sagittarian

64

67

99

70

-3

Put ‘em all on an island

82

80

55

71

4

John Key

48

70

139

72

new

Signposts

42

105

81

73

-13

Christchurch City Libraries Blog

125

72

29

74

-10

En Avant

102

77

49

75

-17

The Hive

98

95

28

76

-10

roarprawn

38

108

115

77

-9

Evolving Newsroom

82

120

24

78

new

Contradiction

157

47

76

79

-14

Kotare

137

94

19

80

-10

Policy Blog

126

36

154

81

-7

Greenpeace New Zealand Weblog

65

43

233

82

new

Adventure into romance

143

34

149

83

-20

Greg’s Blog

148

90

29

84

-4

NewZblog

117

65

101

85

new

Luddite Journo

79

89

113

86

0

Einstein Music Journal

56

97

146

87

new

Robyn’s Secret Passage

113

109

37

88

-15

ACT New Zealand blogs

92

26

289

89

-8

Bowalley Road

112

99

71

90

-13

Bioblog

55

81

219

91

-15

Prodigal Kiwi(s) Blog

89

150

18

92

-10

Greenflame

139

74

108

93

30

Liberation

63

153

51

94

-15

Samuel Dennis

45

124

174

95

6

CORE

104

93

131

96

-3

Art and my life

140

92

94

97

-8

Webweaver’s world

135

122

59

98

-15

Monkey with typewriter

54

160

84

99

-15

Bits on the side

175

75

121

100

8

Say Hello

110

101

132

101 – 150

Against the current
Alliance Party of New Zealand
Aotearoa: a wider perspective
Auckland Blog
Beautiful Monsters
Being Frank
Blessed Economist
café pacific
Canterbury Atheists
Christian News NZ
Daily New Zealand News
Dave Gee: Life from Right Field
Education investigation
Eye of the Fish
Fighting talk
g.blog
get the skinny:[from skinny]
goNZo Freakpower Brains Trust
Hamilton Daily Photo
Henry
Humanitarian Chronicle
Joe Hendren
Karl du Fresne
KiwiSmithFamily
Lefthandpalm
Love in a tent
Micky’s muses . . From the antipodes
Mulholland Drive
NZ Blogosphere
PM of NZ
Put up thy Sword!
RobiNZ Personal Blog
SageNZ
Semper Vita
Sharing the addiction
Socialist Aotearoa
Stargazer
Su’s Sound Bites
Tauranga Daily Photo
TBR.cc
the gossip
The Republican Movement of Aotearoa new Zealand
The sound of butterflies
The world according to Misha
theSection59Blog
This is halfpie
Thoughtspurs
Unity Blog
whoar.co.nz
Workers Party

150 – 200

A Sensitivity to Things
Alf Grumble
Ali’s blog
All embracing, but underwhelming
Bill English
Blogging it real
Brian Edward’s Media
Canvassing for opinion
cbmilne33
Contra Celsum
Cr!key Creek
dad4justice
definitive
Developing the mind of Christ
Distractions
ragonsingDer
Dunedin Public Libraries news and reviews blog
Ellis in Wellyland
ereport
Family integrity
Funerals and snakes
Genius
Home Education Foundation
I see red
ki ta himi titiro
Leigh Blackall
Lunchbox
Manaia Kindergarten
Maori Party
Naketa’s Blog
Neil Stockley
Nevermind
Not quite perfect
NZ Conservative
Opposable thumb
People Points
Physics Stop
Planet NZ Tech
Prog blog
rob’s blockhead blog
simon.net.nz
Spleen
Stanselen
Star Studded Super Step
The Fairfacts Media Show
Thinking Matters Talk
Truth Seeker
Turning the supertanker
United Future
Website.net.nz

201 – 370 (Check out the link at the top of this post to see theses rates and more…)

A great post from darrenrickard.blogspot

Monday, July 7th, 2008

A great post from darrenrickard.blogspot

http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/07/param-namemovie-value.html

Helen Clark stares down the barrel and lies

I don’t usually post You Tube stuff here but this one is a gem of a home video. From Gyon Espiner from TV One news from last year.

Ms Clark says in similar words that, she would never like to see good parents live in fear of someone knocking on their door should they correct their child by giving them a wee smack.

That to pass a law, such as the anti smacking law, would be “defying human nature”, and Labour just would never do such a thing.

She in fact was caught out lying, again, but this time it was on video!

Now we shouldn’t be surprised about Ms Clark and her stance on smacking kids for “corrective purposes”, because she was part of a government in the 1980s that removed corporal punishment in schools that has led to violence and bullying in schools today and it just keeps getting worse.

Ironically it is one of Clark’s poster children for the anti smacking law, Cindy Kiro, that was last week looking into an initiative to “help” curb bullying of teachers and children on Helen’s behalf.

I don’t care what people say, I still can’t fight the feelings against pure logic when one tries to “fix” a problem that one created in the first place.

The repeal of section 59 will have similar consequences that the removal of corporal punishment from schools has.

Frankly, if you don’t get that, then you are thicker than Sue Bradford on Mogadon.

Related Political Animal reading

You can take the family out of South Auckland
Sue Bradford strikes out, Again
Helen Clark kicks democracy below the belt
Anti smacking referendum gets the votes
Sacha Cobern’s letter to NZ Herald Editor
Cindy Kiro gets violent
Anti-smacking law puts young boy at risk
Mallard in Court
Trevor Mallard’s anti violence advert
Duck Season Extended: Mallard must go

Blog:savethehumans-Do We Need More Smacking?

Tuesday, May 27th, 2008

Do We Need More Smacking?

From:

http://savethehumans.typepad.com/weblog/2008/05/do-we-need-more-smacking.html

Few parents are keen on smacking as a first resort form of punishment, but as a useful threat or for an immediate impact most parents keep it in reserve, especially for younger children.

Smacking has perhaps been banned in New Zealand. I say perhaps because there is widespread opposition to the new law (some 80% against) and therefore the law has little credibility.

Smacking is of course not child abuse. It has its role in discipline as it has for 1000s of years of parenting.

Is it just me or has the number of child abuse cases risen since the law was passed? Criminals and bullies often operate by transferring the blame for their actions to others. Could it be that these child abusers have decided that they are no longer responsible for their children, but can leave the discipline to others? Do they then get frustrated with the child and lash out?

Parenting is not easy, and it requires consistency, calmness, plenty of sleep, sufficient gin, a genuine love of children and everything they do, plus a sense of humour. Mother Theresa would not qualify. Yet many of the child abusers we see are incapable of holding down a job, incapable of organising their human relationships (constantly fighting with girlfriends, friends and family) and functioning in society only in a very limited way.

How do we expect these dropkicks to be good parents? Obviously we can’t. The solution may be to accept that fact, and stop tarring the rest of us with the faults of a few. Another idea would be to stop actively funding the underclass where this sort of abuse happens. Fighting child abuse without fighting for stable two-parent families (where the siblings all have the same parents) is silly. Hansel and Gretal taught us that step-parents often care less.

Also, why are very young children or babies suffering so badly? Obviously babies can be very annoying. They get in the way of your lifestyle by waking you up in the middle of the night. Very young babies don’t give a lot back, t least until 4 months or so. But do some parents see newborns as ‘not real’, just a thing that hasn’t become a human yet? A candidate for late term abortion? Younger people are not so sentimental about children either.

There is of course no point in smacking a baby, it is just cruel and pointless since babies really have no idea about free will. I can’t remember at what point children can have some control over their behaviour (that a parent must influence) but I suppose it is around 2 years of age. So smacking as discipline simply isn’t a factor with the recent cases we have seen. No court would agree that smacking a 3 month old is reasonable.

Of course the other explanation for child abuse is that some people are scumbags. Perhaps we should just leave it at that. Child abuse is illegal and immoral. It was illegal and immoral before parliament’s recent ideological burp. But if Sue Bradford, who promoted the law, was hoping that an attempt to criminalise smacking would fix the problem, she has been proven wrong enough times that we should regard all further ideas from that quarter with fullsome suspicion.

The law should be repealed.