SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.
Mason’s assault conviction quashed – NZPA
A Christchurch musician has successfully had his conviction for assaulting his four-year-old son quashed by the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court said today there would be no retrial ordered.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10685029 [Read more…]
In an opinion piece from the Nelson Mail (5 Sept. 2009) entitled – “King John ignores the shrieks at his peril”, Chris Salt, former police inspector and Riwaka tourism operator looks, at the question: What can we say about the ‘anti-smacking law’ referendum? Chris holds a masters degree in public sector management and takes a keen interest in issues related to social justice and the role of government…… Chris Salt wrote……
After the 1990 referendum when 70 percent of respondents voted for MMP Mike Moore said the people had not spoken they had screamed. What can we say about the anti smacking referendum? The people did not scream, they shrieked! The difference is that Jim Bolger listened but John Key chooses to interpret a shriek as a whimper. According to him and I quote, 1.6 million New Zealanders, “still have some concerns and want a high degree of comfort”. It is not concern or comfort Mr Key should be addressing but all those ‘No’ boxes containing a big tick.
The Prime Minister acknowledged this morning on Radio Live that the current Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 – the so-called anti-smacking legislation promoted by Green MP Sue Bradford – is “a complete and utter dog’s breakfast”. He made this comment in an interview with Michael Laws on RadioLive at 11:40 AM today Friday, 4 September 2009.
The Rt. Hon. John Key might be very astute on financial matters but he appears to have little idea how the law should work in a true democracy. He will not be Prime Minister forever. Another government might tell the police to ignore his instructions and enforce the law as it is currently written.
Kiwi Party Press Release 28 July 2009
The Referendum about the so called “anti-smacking” law (the name which Sue Bradford herself originally gave to her Bill) is really about how children should be corrected according to former MP & now President of the Kiwi Party Gordon Copeland.
Dr. Glenn Peoples responds to liberal Ian Harris.
Ian Harris tells us (“Honest to God,” Dominion Post, [Dominion Post. Saturday July 11, 2009. Page B5], reproduced at the YesVote website at http://yesvote.org.nz/2009/07/17/the-bibles-harsh-view-rejected/) that we should reject the “harsh views” on child rearing found in the Bible.
Mr Harris, unfortunately, joins many of those who promote the criminalisation of good parents by muddying the waters. He notes, for example, that someone who defends the right to use physical discipline also believes that children (like adults) are sinners. He then announces that since “progressive” Christians (by which he seems to mean those who no longer accept Christian theology) realise that this is based on an antiquated view, we should likewise reject the right to use physical discipline and we should criminalise those who do.
Read the full article here.