The Herald joins the apparently nationwide attack on democracy by New Zealand mainstream media today, with their editorial entitled "Question not worth the effort of answering". Rather than excercising some journalistic credibility, these media are sucking up to the actions of the larger part of our Parliament. The Prime Minister John Key lambasted the question as "weird", and stated that he will not be partaking in the democratic process by voting in the referendum, while Opposition leader Phil Goff also states that he will refrain from voting.
"People who support the status quo might vote no, thinking that was what the question was reflecting, he indicated," seethed Mr. Key. But why does he think this the case? Who was it that initiated the compromise on Bradford's anti-smacking law which made it so darn hard to understand? The so-called "John Key" ammendment to the bill stated that the police would not prosecute parents for smacking if they believed it to be so inconsequential as to not be in the public interest to proceed.
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
The question is quite clear. It directly addresses the law, rather than the way that the law is currently being applied. It would be impossible to come up with a question that would satisfy everyone, and while this question is not perfect, it's not nearly so bad as to warrant utter dismissal. For one moment, consider the intent of the 390,000 signatories on the petition. 99% of those signing did so in the belief that there was a difference between a smack and child abuse, and with the desire that families not be intruded upon by government agencies. But the mainstream media is conveniently ignoring this aspect of the petition question. Since the time the petition was launched over two years ago, we have heard only a few complaints about the question, and these mainly from Sue Bradford's direction. However now, just over a month out from the election there is a host of media decrying the petition question at every chance possible.
The Herald editorial concludes, "[It is] a question that is an insult to intelligence. It is not worth the expense or the effort of answering it. A low turnout would be most telling." Engaging in a simplistic form of social engineering, the Herald is sacrificing truth and democracy for the sake of their agenda which is leading to the realisation of one of Helen Clark's goals: family deconstruction in New Zealand.
Clearly, this question is biased. A smack has been presented to the voter as a "part of good parental correction."
ReplyDeleteHi Walt, here's what I said in a recent post,
ReplyDelete"The question does not imply that a smack is necessarily a part of good parental correction. Rather, it asks if a smack should be a criminal offence when it has been done as a part of good parental correction. To phrase it more simply: was the smack reasonable? If the smack was unreasonable, then it is clear that it was not done as a part of good parental correction. However if a mother gives her young child a smack because they were disobedient, then this is an example of good parental correction."
Cheers.
Its called super nanny: the naughty step
ReplyDeleteway more effective then smacking your children
you wouldn't smack your pet dog for being naughty, you train them to obey you