Politicians attempts to attack the question and to threaten to disregard the result of the referendum has actually had the opposite effect. Not because people like the referendum they don't and think having it is waste of time and money. One its not binding and secondly section 59 (the smacking bill) should have never seen the light of day or made into law or in the first place. Thats why the majority of New Zealander's that can be bothered will vote NO to this stupidly worded unnecessary costly referendum. It has rarked up parents that see the government has taken away yet another parenting choice away from them without their consent. By making good parents criminals for choosing to spank there own children when they deemed it necessary. Its more about the nanny state taking away their personal parenting responsibility of being good parents for the sake of a few bad parents that beat their children regardless of any law. Beating a child has always been against the law.
Good parents never abuse their children or anyone else's. But will sometimes spank a child for bad behaver. And still deem it necessary to have that choice if required. The referendum does not give that choice and the law takes away that choice. By voting NO in the referendum will at least send a message to government that the laws is an ass.
Rusty Kane
Leader The People's Choice Party of New Zealand
Friday, August 14, 2009
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Poor Mums Happy Dads.
Poor Mums Happy Dads.
The anti-smacking bill when it becomes law, will be great for Dads who in the past have been used by Mums to be the last bastions of discipline in the home at the end of the day.ie: "Wait tell Dad comes home".I like most Dads hate coming home after a long days work and then have to discipline their children, for something the mother had deemed necessary for a child's disobedient or bad behavior during the day.It didn't happen very often .as it was a last resort tool used by the mother to discipline the children , if the children continued with their disobedient or bad behavior. The threat of the words "Wait tell Dad comes home" was usually enough to sort out the child's behavior. Our children knew what that meant, Dad would indeed support and backup their Mum, and carry out the discipline.I like most Dads never did like that disciplinarian responsibility as parent and father it hurts us emotionally, and I do hope Mums understands that mine and all Dads responsibilities in this area have now been lifted by the government. Mums will now have to sort things out themselves.Don't "Wait tell Dad comes home". Dads will not be able to add anymore to what Mums are already doing to discipline their children. Dads can now support Mums with their need for timeout and therapist's in the future.
The anti-smacking bill when it becomes law, will be great for Dads who in the past have been used by Mums to be the last bastions of discipline in the home at the end of the day.ie: "Wait tell Dad comes home".I like most Dads hate coming home after a long days work and then have to discipline their children, for something the mother had deemed necessary for a child's disobedient or bad behavior during the day.It didn't happen very often .as it was a last resort tool used by the mother to discipline the children , if the children continued with their disobedient or bad behavior. The threat of the words "Wait tell Dad comes home" was usually enough to sort out the child's behavior. Our children knew what that meant, Dad would indeed support and backup their Mum, and carry out the discipline.I like most Dads never did like that disciplinarian responsibility as parent and father it hurts us emotionally, and I do hope Mums understands that mine and all Dads responsibilities in this area have now been lifted by the government. Mums will now have to sort things out themselves.Don't "Wait tell Dad comes home". Dads will not be able to add anymore to what Mums are already doing to discipline their children. Dads can now support Mums with their need for timeout and therapist's in the future.
Smacking Bill
Smacking Bill
Sue Bradford's smacking bill should be a conscience vote for all MP's is not. Labour and the Maori Party dictating to their MP's that they vote for the bill, even if some of their MP's are against the bill. Local Labour MP Harry Dynhoven would be one of the MP's voting for the bill. But if aloud to vote with his conscience Harry would vote against the bill, and the bill would not pass. If Harry's feels so strongly with his conscience, then Harry needs to stop the excuses, he can stand up to his party, he can go with his conscience, and he can say no, by crossing the floor. And those in his electorate who feel the same way, you now have two weeks to tell him so.
Rusty Kane
Sue Bradford's smacking bill should be a conscience vote for all MP's is not. Labour and the Maori Party dictating to their MP's that they vote for the bill, even if some of their MP's are against the bill. Local Labour MP Harry Dynhoven would be one of the MP's voting for the bill. But if aloud to vote with his conscience Harry would vote against the bill, and the bill would not pass. If Harry's feels so strongly with his conscience, then Harry needs to stop the excuses, he can stand up to his party, he can go with his conscience, and he can say no, by crossing the floor. And those in his electorate who feel the same way, you now have two weeks to tell him so.
Rusty Kane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
