Thanks to everyone who sent an encouraging note re the ‘Open Letter to Sue’. That feedback was really appreciated. My apologies for any delay in getting replies out so far.
Just a quick update on developments on the debate so far.
Radio Waatea have organised a debate tonight (Thursday 13 August) with Sue Bradford and I for one hour from 9pm. You can check out the frequency or how to listen on line if you are outside their broadcast area by going to their website, http://www.waatea603am.co.nz/
The plan is to also take questions from listeners after the debate and their free calling number is 0800 4 603 603 for those who live out of Auckland, and 257 0603 for those living in Auckland.
I have also been contacted by CTV in Christchurch who are keen to host a televised debate for one hour. At the moment they are making contact with Sue. If it goes ahead it will be able to be broadcast also on Sky channels and YouTube.
More information on Friday after we hear the latest update on the numbers from the Electoral Commission.
Family Integrity #460 — Before you VOTE in the Referendum consider this:
Greetings
Before you vote in the Referendum please consider these items below.
1. Letter to the Prime Minister asking him to withdraw the Referendum:
In the interests of saving our country most of the estimated $9 million to complete the referendum, Sheryl Savill, the petition proposer, and myself would withdraw the referendum, (as per Sec 22A (1) of the CIR Act 1993) in return for an agreement by yourself to amend the current sec 59 of the crimes Act in the following way.
Delete the following sub clauses from the amended Sec 59,
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1),
Barnardos has rubbished a Youtube video posted by a local man about the “anti-smacking” referendum, saying it was a desperate attempt at a smear campaign.
The controversial referendum, to be held between July 30 and August 21, on the so-called anti-smacking legislation, will ask Kiwis to vote yes or no to the question, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
Porirua resident Renton MacLachlan, who opposes the legislation, posted a political satire about the topic on the popular website Youtube earlier this month.
Supporters of the law, Barnardos, took exception to the video in which Mr MacLachlan conducts an ‘in-depth’ interview with a fictional Barnardos employee (also played by Mr MacLachlan) called Dennis Morris-Traveler, spokesperson for the ‘yes vote’ campaign.
“I’ve been a supporter of parents’ rights to raise their own children for some time,” he told Kapi-Mana News.
“Barnardos and all other organisations like them who support the bill are saying that every parent that has ever smacked their child to discipline them – that’s most parents in New Zealand – is a child abuser. I think for an outfit like Barnardos to step into a public arena and label all these parents child abusers is outrageous.”
The organisation asked Mr MacLachlan to remove the video upon legal advice that its rights had been violated by him purporting to be an employee and expressing views that were not necessarily its own.
Every Child Counts project manager Deborah Morris-Travers, the real spokesperson for the yes-vote campaign, said the video was a desperate attempt to boost the opposition’s campaign.
“We here at Barnardos strongly believe that children should not be harmed and we support the safety of children. We’re not about using dirty, defamatory tactics for our campaign. They know that they’re going to lose this referendum and that this legislation will stay the same. The video is evidence of just how desperate they are really getting.”
Mr MacLachlan rejected her sentiments and said she was “whistling in the dark”.
“Consistently for years 85 per cent of people have rejected their arguments and for her to say it’s a desperate attempt is over the top.” He said Barnardos was one of several organisations he alluded to in the clip and feels they over-reacted.
“It was ridiculous. Anyone with half a brain could see that it was meant as a comedy. Spoof and satire are pretty well covered under freedom of speech law so I went ahead with it.”
Sent: Thursday, 25 June 2009 11:37 a.m. Subject: Posted now on Scoop
MEDIA RELEASE
25 June 2009
SPCS
“Barnardos drop legal threat re ‘Vote No’ CIR Video”
A stunning satirical video posted on the YouTube website that lampoons the arrogant, ‘professional’ “we know best” “YesVote” child ‘experts’, who hate the thought of the majority of NZ parents voting “NO!!” to Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law in the forthcoming CIR, has got up the noses of Barnardos officials. They formally contacted the author and star of the video, a Mr Renton Maclachlan from Porirua, who interviews a fictitious Mr Dennis Morris-Traveler – spokesperson for the Vote Yes lobby group… Barnardos demanded that he immediately remove his offending video from YouTube. They also contacted YouTube directly to try and get the video removed
Thursday, 25 June 2009, 11:21 am Press Release: spcs
25 June 2009
Satirists for Section 59 Debate
“Barnardos drop legal threat re ‘Vote No’ CIR Video”
A stunning satirical video posted on the YouTube website that lampoons the arrogant, ‘professional’ “we know best” “YesVote” child ‘experts’, who hate the thought of the majority of NZ parents voting “NO!!” to Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law in the forthcoming CIR, has got up the noses of Barnardos officials. They formally contacted the author and star of the video, a Mr Renton Maclachlan from Porirua, who interviews a fictitious Mr Dennis Morris-Traveler – spokesperson for the Vote Yes lobby group… Barnardos demanded that he immediately remove his offending video from YouTube. They also contacted YouTube directly to try and get the video removed.
They followed the initial contact with a lawyer’s letter threatening legal action. The Barnardo’s lawyer said to Maclachlan that her clients’ rights were violated by him purporting to be an employee of Barnardos, to officially speak for it and represent its view. Maclachlan sought legal advice and after an exchange of letters, Barnardos decided to proceed no further.
The YouTube Title and Description for the video are as follows:
NZ Correction Referendum: Vote Yes? No! SATIRE
BEWARE. WARNING. SATIRE. COMEDY. Renton Maclachlan conducts an in-depth, enlightening, and entertaining interview with Dennis Morris-Traveler of Baanaadoze and spokesperson for the Yes Vote campaign…
For those with a more serious frame of mind wanting concise information explaining why they should vote “No” (and NOT “Yes”) in the forthcoming Citizen’s Initiated Referendum (CIR) … view Maclachlan’s other videos on YouTube.
The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ – ‘What it says!’ – your ‘unemotional’ guide to Section 59
‘Renton Maclachlan brings 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!’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxiYobjbeO4
The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ – ‘Why correction is needed.’
‘Renton Maclachlan brings a clear and concise, fast paced, in your face yet unemotional, analysis of the worldviews behind both the old and the new Section 59s.’ http://www…youtube.com/watch?v=HsnT8ul2f28 )
It’s a concise, fast paced, in your face yet unemotional, analysis of the worldviews behind both the old and the new Section 59s.
It has already drawn somewhat intemperate comments…I anticipate more…J’
Watch this for your own benefit and PLEASE forward this email – or the link – on to as many people as you like, and encourage them to do the same. If you have a website where it could suitably be posted, go ahead and embed.
Also…immediately underneath the youtube video screen on the left is a five star system for rating the video. It would be nice if you could rate it as you see fit…if you watch it…
———————————————————————-
Just a reminder about the earlier video posted several weeks ago, now entitled:
‘The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ PART 1 – and the referendum – your ‘unemotional’ guide to Section 59’