Saturday, August 22, 2009

Democracy Mum says it all

Copied from Democracy Mums comments at Kiwiblog.
Because no one can really say it better.

An Open Letter the Prime Minister

Dear Mr Key
There are two things in my life that I value above all else. My children and our democracy. My children are a little older now and no longer need to be reminded with a gentle smack from time to time, (when all other options have failed) the difference between right and wrong. They are growing into fine young adults of whom my husband and I are immensely proud. Our democracy on the hand, still feels like it has some valuable lessons to learn.

Last night the people of New Zealand told your Government exactly what it thought of Sue Bradford’s legislation.

The result was a resounding NO. 87% people believe that good parents should not be criminalised for giving their children a light smack as part of parental discipline. The same type of smack that you now admit you also gave your children when they were little.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2776861/Key-says-no-to-changing-smacking-law
During the last general election 45% of voters turned out to support your Government which means the NO vote for this referendum has enjoyed unparalled support from people across all party affiliations. The people of New Zealand have spoken with one voice.

Sue Bradford would have us believe, that the referendum has no credibility because no one understood the question in the first place. But the New Zealand people are not stupid and figured out which way to vote and cast their ballots accordingly. Substantially more people turned out for this referendum than any of last year’s local body elections, and more than twice those who voted on the firefighter’s referendum.

So what will you do now?

I do not want to hear “comforting words from cabinet”I along with the rest of 87% of voters expect a law change.

Every day in my community I see harassed young mums, with pre-schoolers, in the supermarket, taking older children to school. Sometimes despite their best efforts, their little ones throw a tantrum, or will not get into their car seats. As a direct result of this legislation these mothers are now too frightened to given their children a light smack, for fear of being reported to CFS by some ‘well meaning’ bystander.

This is the unintentional impact of Sue Bradford’s law. It is being felt throughout the country in every electorate, your own included where over 90% voted against this legislation. The law is wrong and it needs to be changed.

Just as micro-chipping dogs, did nothing to reduce vicious dog attacks, this law in its current form will do absolutely nothing to reduce New Zealand’s appalling rates of child abuse. The people who are killing our children on what now seems a weekly basis are not the mums and dads who lightly smack their children.

Mr Prime Minister. You have proved yourself to be a fair and compassionate leader. You are well liked and work hard on behalf of our country.

Aristotle, (a man who knew a thing about democracy) once said“Even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered.

Please listen to what the people of New Zealand have said and give parents back their peace of mind and focus instead on the real causes of child abuse in our country.

22 comments:

Grant said...

Lou, was about to post this myself but you beat me to it, ya bugger.
G

Lou Taylor said...

The early bird catches the worm G.
Maybe we should invite DM to post here.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Yes, I have to agree. No amount of mooching in cabinet will do. It's time to be decisive Mr Key.

Here's the reason.

"....now too frightened to given their children a light smack, for fear of being reported to CFS by some ‘well meaning’ bystander."

Inventory2 said...

Lou - we've said similar, but perhaps a little more concise

http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/08/memo-to-john.html

WAKE UP said...

90% of the people were against this bullshit when Sue Bradford initiated it, and they STILL are. It was bad law then and it still is - and you know what bad law does to a country.

Redbaiter said...

Nice letter, but let's face it. Key ain't listening.

He's firmly in the thrall of the epseudo liberals and Progressives who advise him and reign supreme in National.

And that being so, he will go on betraying the middle class. Mainly because you allow it.

Anonymous said...

"....now too frightened to given their children a light smack, for fear of being reported to CFS by some ‘well meaning’ bystander."


All the better to keep the Law then. Seems to me the law is working well. After all, we all believe that raising the countrie's children is all our responsibility, don't we?

Anonymous said...

My children, my responsibility, your children your responsibility, that is until either lots of children or child infringes someones else's rights.

Lou Taylor said...

Raising children is first and foremost a parent's responsibilty.

Dickheads like you anon add nothing to society. But take away much.

Farmer Baby Boomer said...

"Nice letter but lets face it. Key ain't listening."
I suspect you are right Redbaiter. Even though, deep down, I'm hoping that when Key returns from Oz he will listen to the likes of Democracy Mum and Inventory2 (see link in IV2 comment above.) I think Key will get quite a few communications like those.
But I suspect you are right because he's reminding me of the Nats we voted out in 1999. The ones that didn't listen on issues like botched power supply reforms, the right to know if food was GM/GE, and the removal of our lifetime drivers licences.
Shame really.
Lou Taylor - Thanks for posting Democracy Mum's letter.

KG said...

"After all, we all believe that raising the countrie's children is all our responsibility, don't we?"

NO WE FUCKING DON'T!

Anonymous said...

Well said D Mum.

I see all the bloggers are bagging John boy but feckin hell wait until Monday when he outlines his view and plans.

He did not get where he is by being wrong with his gut feelings.

If he does not listen then give him heaps and I will be giving him a bucket full.

Meantime think about the bitches that created this dog's breakfast and must I remind you one of the biggest bitches refused to put the question to us on the 8th Nov 08.

Uncle has cost us $9m for nothing and it did not even save her arse.

Also remember she paid for her new job with our money.

Blue Coast

Redbaiter said...

This on top of Maori seats on the Auckland Council.

Utterly disgusting.

Key and the Nationals are just traitors.

Get Brash back before this gutless please everybody stand for nothing coward ruins the country.

WAKE UP said...

RedB: Thanks for mentioning Brash. What happened to him remains a disgusting stain on New Zealand's political history, and the dignified way he has carried himself since remains a a stark contrast to the intellectual pygmies in the present (and immediate past) Parliament.

Anonymous said...

The key point is that 1.4 MILLION PEOPLE voted for the law to be changed.

That's 60% of all eligible voters.

This is more than any other referendum.

It is more than any other government in the history of New Zealand. ever


It's not a question of key playing fucking politics (hell the other 40% are voting 7% green and 33% labour anything, so it costs him nothing)


It is now a matter of democratic and consitutional legitimacy. I think neither side expected anywhere near 1.4 Million people to vote no.

Legally, the referendum is non binding.

Morally, Key must change the law or lose the right to govern. No question.

Bogusnews said...

What an absolute pearler of a letter!

Can't say anything else really.

Anonymous said...

nothing really will change as the govt dont like to be told what to do

Simon said...

Ummmm .. what's the point of a light inconsequential smack? Hardly effective. For there to be any point at all, the blow should hurt, and NOT be inconsequential. I mean, the very point of a smack in the context of what you're talking about is that it IS consequential, and that it DOES hurt.

Just wondering.

So, since you're now calling for a law change, how many naonmetres of force should be applied, using precisely what technique, to comply with this new law? Hmmmmm?

KG said...

"So, since you're now calling for a law change, how many naonmetres of force should be applied, using precisely what technique, to comply with this new law? Hmmmmm?"

Since the answer to that appears to be rocket science to people such as you Simon, I have a suggestion:
Ask yer fucking granny and great granny! They seemed to be able to work it out just fine, even if retards such as you can't tell the difference between a smack and a good belting.

Anonymous said...

you can't tell the difference between a smack and a good belting.


I can't tell the difference between a smack and a good belting - hell, kids need a good belting from time to time.


But I can tell the difference between a good belting and child abuse.


Borrowing billions more on the national debt, for example. That's child abuse.

Anonymous said...

what's the point of a light inconsequential smack? Hardly effective. For there to be any point at all, the blow should hurt, and NOT be inconsequential.


Couldn't have put it better myself, Simon.

ZenTiger said...

what's the point of a light inconsequential smack?

What's the point about threatening to smack if bad behaviour continues?

Actually, that works for me most of the time. Kind of ruins the theory a little, because even a light smack can be very effective.

Let me guess, we can't make threats to an adult, so threatening a child with some kind of punishment is illegal now?

Actually, come to think of it, subsection 2 of s59 makes even that technically illegal.