The Kiwi Party and Abortion

The Kiwi Party has made itself known as a "Judeo-Christian Values Party" - although upon a cursory glance of their website I couldn't find any reference to this. The party's leader is ex-United Future List MP, Larry Baldock. He is backed up with fellow ex-United Future List MP, Gordon Copeland now serving as Party President, and More FM Radio celebrity, Simon Barnett. The party is strongly pro-life, and I have huge respect for their opposition to abortion. The Kiwi Party has just recently adopted Gordon Copeland's "Abortion (Informed Consent) Amendment" bill.

I am absolutely in favour of what this bill seeks to achieve. It seeks to take an incremental step forward through the provision of information through counselling before the mother makes a final request to be considered for an abortion in accordance with the current Abortion Law. Below is a diagram of the change the amendment would make.

It's a great bill, and you can read an excellent short summary of it here. However, it is not going to go anywhere. In another document entitled "Abortion Law Reform in New Zealand; a Political Strategy", the Kiwi Party outlines its strategy for reforming New Zealand's abortion law for the better by passing the informed consent bill. Coincidentally, the strategy involves getting the Kiwi Party into Parliament. However neither the Kiwi Party, nor any of its candidates will ever enter Parliament again. This is because they are incompetent and unprofessional.

Baldock's referendum to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act (subsequently adopted by the Kiwi Party) was a thinly veiled bid to build the platform necessary to get Larry Baldock back into Parliament in 2008 with the newly formed Kiwi Party. It failed in this objective. Baldock's 2011 Election Bid was to run a referendum seeking to amend New Zealand's law on referendums so that they would be binding. The question read: “Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?” Confusing, huh. Anyway, this referendum also failed in building a strong platform to get Baldock back into Parliament. Last I heard it was 280,000 signatures short of completion, and with only a few months remaining. So what new strategy from the desk of the Kiwi Party? A policy to make a significant improvement in New Zealand's abortion law.

Let's be clear. The law would not restrict any abortions. However through the improved system of counselling, it is strongly likely that the number of abortions in New Zealand would drop significantly. (over 10% I think).

Earlier this year I wrote Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy and Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?, outlining a critical lack of wisdom and integrity in the Kiwi Party. I will be writing further "Referendum Files" shortly. One of the party's key policies embodies the Socialist ideal of wealth-redistribution through an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. There are also major issues with the party's Law and Order policy which I have written about here.

In their political strategy document, they write:

Therefore progress can not be made unless the Kiwi Party or some other Party which is prepared to commit to this issue, is elected to Parliament. The Kiwi Party already has a high recognition factor in New Zealand with an independent poll indicating that 8.7% of voters would “likely” vote for the party if they were confident that it could achieve either 5% of the party vote or one electorate seat, thus ensuring its presence in the next parliament.

This 8.7% figure, obtained through "independent polling" is old news. The Kiwi Party used it at the last election... and I have no idea who the independent pollsters were, but they didn't quite get it right did they... In the 2005 election Baldock received 3.67% of the vote in his electorate of Tauranga. However you have to get roughly over 40% to win in this electorate. In 2008 he received 5.11% of the vote. That election, the Kiwi Party received 0.54% of the party vote, even with their platform, repealing the Anti-Smacking Law being one of the key election issues. How well are they going to do at the 2011 election where neither abortion nor smacking will be key election issues?

I will be writing more shortly about The Kiwi Party; why they should not run at the next election, and why you shouldn't waste your vote on them.

Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy

Larry Baldock of The Kiwi Party

The StarStuddedSuperStep blog will be following the progress of the Campaign for Democracy, bringing updates to our readers and visitors. Background to the campaign, details on those behind it, and further information will be presented in future Referendum Files. Our readers from New Zealand will be aware of the apparantly unsuccessful citizens initiated referendum to overturn the Anti-Smacking Law. The man behind the petition for that referendum, Larry Baldock has responded to the outcome of that referendum, with a new petition for a citizens initiated referendum on the question,

“Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?”

The implications of this question will be discussed in later posts, but there's a quick summary.

On 28 Jan 2009, an ally of the Campaign for Democracy, Better Democracy NZ published an article in which they reproduced a letter from Larry Baldock to his supporters. An excerpt from the letter follows,

The results were very encouraging with 500 signing the petition in 3 hrs on their way in to the BBB event. Considering there has been very little publicity as yet about the new petition we found that approx 7-8 out of ten were prepared to sign...

The letter states that 7-8 out of ten people were prepared to sign. I can't challenge this figure as I have no first-hand knowledge of what took place, however I can say that, having collected approximately 10,000 signatures myself on the last petition, that 75% is a very high ratio. Whether this figure relates to the number of people who made contact with the campaigners, and subsequently signed, or the number of people walking past who came over and signed, it is still an unusually high ratio - particularly given the lack of publicity, as Baldock commented.

...The conversation generally went like this.

Campaigner: "Will you sign our petition Sir/Maam?"
Passer by: "What's it about?"
Campaigner: "Making referenda binding upon parliament. Do you remember the anti-smacking referendum last year when 87% said no and Parliament has ignored it?"
Passer by: "Sure do. It was ridiculous. What's the point of having a referendum if they are going to ignore it!"
Campaigner: "Exactly, that's why we must now collect signatures for another one to make Parliament listen."
Passer by: "Sure I agree with that, where do I sign?"

The example of the typical conversation outlined in the letter is astounding. The passer by asks, "What's the point of having a referendum if they are going to ignore it!", to which the campaigner agrees and then encourages them to go ahead and take part in the referendum anyway. There is no progression of logic here, simply a desire to rectify the government's shameful rejection of the results of the last non-binding referendum - by having another non-binding referendum.

Baldock's 2011 Election Bid

Petitioner, Larry Baldock in 2007

The petition asking "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" was put forward by Focus on the Family employee Sheryl Savill, however it was the initiative of ex-United Future list MP, Larry Baldock. The petition was signed by over 390,000 Kiwis and was supported by people from a wide range of backgrounds and political parties. However as the 08 election got closer, questions began being asked about what the petition was all about. This is covered in more detail in my Christian Voting guide for the 08 election but in summary involved a new political party forming on the back of the petition, followed by an unprecedented breach of privacy of the personal details of the signatories to the petition. Then on 5 September the Kiwi Party announced their second petition, this time calling for referendums on a law change to be binding. This is not only a knee-jerk reaction to the National Government's ignoring the 87.6% No vote response to the smacking referendum, but also an attempt at creating a platform from which to relaunch the Kiwi Party into the '11 election - and this time it's even more blatant. The Kiwi Campaign for Democracy website and the Kiwi Party's own website contain identical articles, not to mention a striking similarity in the name - and this despite Larry's denial at a recent Christchurch meeting that the campaign was being run by the Kiwi Party.

However today the Legislation Advisory Committee which is headed up by former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer has come out saying the petition must not be allowed to go ahead as it would contradict the fundamental purpose of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, which provided for non-binding referendums - NZ Herald. Petition initiator and Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock fairly responded, "they're trying to shut down democracy". Simeon Brown of NZ Debate observed that "if they have a right to veto it, we should have the right to veto parliament". The fact of the matter is, there are no legitimate grounds on which to prevent the petition from going ahead. The CIR act was established to ensure that citizens could have their say if they thought they were being ignored - on any issue apart from one which had been the subject of a prior referendum question. The Committee raises many very good points as to why the aim of the petition is at conflict with the way New Zealand's electoral system works. Palmer states that, "It is doubtful that Parliament contemplated that such a referendum could be held under the authority of the Act". However if this were the case, why does the law specify various prohibitions for what petition questions may relate to (Section 4), but neglect to rule out questions relating to the operation of the CIR process itself? He comments further on in the Herald's article,

"The second question that arises is what does binding mean? Does it mean that the content of the referendum is capable of displacing or amending an Act of Parliament directly? As a matter of legal drafting, that cannot be the case. It seems quite impossible for a citizen's initiated referendum to contain professionally drafted amendments that would be legally effective.

Palmer here identifies one of the key problems with the Kiwi Party initiative to amend the CIR Act. A simplified petition question can firstly, not adequately address the plethora of issues surrounding a proposed law change, and secondly, acting on the results of a binding referendum would be extremely difficult as referendum questions never specify the exact changes that should be made to a particular law. As such, referendums are at their best, valuable tools for gaining an accurate gauge on public opinion on a specific issue. According to the guidelines around obtaining a referendum, the Clerk of Parliament has until about 14 Jan to come to a decision on whether or not the petition will ultimately be able to go ahead. The public have had their opportunity to make comment (in the 28 days from 16 Sept to 14 Oct), and we are now in the three month period during which the Clerk may deliberate on the final wording of the question with input from the key parties concerned.

Just Say No

...to National.

The National Party under John Key has determined to ignore the result of the referendum - 87.4% of Kiwis voted No to criminalising smacking, but John Key says "the law is working". John Boscawen's bill to amend the law to allow light hand-smacking was drawn from the ballot on Wednesday, but John Key says "the law is working", and subsequently has determined that National will vote against the bill at its first reading.

The Prime Minister states that if parents are criminalised for a light smack, then he will change the law. The law specifically bans smacking for the purpose of correction, which means that parents are criminalised if they give a corrective smack. "But they won't be prosecuted; the police have discretion," retorts Dear Leader.

The Prime Minister states that if parents are prosecuted for a light smack, then he will change the law. It follows that he believes that until parents are prosecuted for a light smack, the law is working well. However the law is not working well - it is simply a case of a bad law (which John Key has admitted to), which the Govt. has instructed the police to ignore or adhere to at their discretion.

I'd expect more sense from a three-year-old at the pre-school down the road. However it's 1am and I expect the pre-school down the road is closed. So my brother Nathan's debut in political blogging shall suffice. Forthwith, an excerpt...

So a few months back old Larry drove his kiwi party caravan up to the B-hive, and loaded off the box's...and box's...and box's of signatures. Yeah!!! Score....but hey what do you know...uh oh suddenly, whoops, Labour decides to have the referendum at another date...hmmm interesting...another $9,000,000 later, and it comes round. Most people vote except for those who found the multi choice YES or NO quite confusing...

heheh, quite clever.

87.6%

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? New Zealand says NO. While an average of polls taken since 2005 indicate a 82.9% level of opposition to the law, tonight's preliminary response blows those polls out of the water. It's official, 87.6% of Kiwis believe that there is a difference between a smack and child abuse. Preliminary results here. Family First is calling on the Government to immediately repeal the law: something Prime Minster John Key has already stated is all but inevitable.

Dave Crampton says,

more people 1,420,959 - voted No than those who party voted all parliamentary parties other than Labour in the 2008 election.

And Scrubone observes,

No wonder the “Yes Vote” were so bitchy about the victory party – they simply had no hope of having one themselves.

And high-profile blogger and pollster David Farrar comments,

1,622,150 votes cast which I think is a 54% response rate. That is higher than most local body elections and pretty good for a referendum not held with a general election... A massive victory for common sense.

Click here to download an Excel spreadsheet with detailed information of the response in each electorate. Prior to the results coming out, I was projecting a modest NO vote between 70% - 80%, however Simeon said he thought it would be 86%. Good on ya Simeon, and thanks for all your tireless work without which this referendum would never have come about.

John Key Concedes: Law Change Likely

John Key has begun conceding that the Anti-Smacking law needs ammending. Newstalk ZB reported yesterday,

The Prime Minister expects a resounding 'No' vote in the smacking referendum will lead to changes surrounding the law.

So far, nearly 1.4 million voting papers have been returned with the question 'Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?'

John Key is expecting more people to tick NO than yes. He says if the law does not work and good parents get criminalised for lightly smacking a child, the law should be changed.

But he says it is hard to put up a case to change the law when no one has yet been prosecuted. The smacking referendum closes in a week.

Whereas the Prime Minister has tended in the past to refer to the undesirability of seeing "good parents prosecuted for a light smack", he is now predominantly referring to "good parents being criminalised". It is clear that good parents are being criminalised in their hundreds of thousands, and John Key knows this. Sue Bradford's new law makes one thing crystal clear:

A smack for the purpose of correction is a criminal offence, making parents criminals if they use a smack for correction (no matter how light the smack is).

Smacking Democracy

Wrote this article for CANTA, the student magazine of the University of Canterbury Student’s Association.

We’ve all heard about it and we’re all sick to death with it. The smacking referendum. The Electoral Office will have posted us all a voting form on 31 July, and we’ll have 3 weeks to fill it out and post it back to them. The $10 million dollar question being asked is, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand”, and not surprisingly there will be two cute little tick boxes next to the question: Yes or No.

Why are we going through this whole rigmarole of having a referendum about smacking? In 2004, Sue Bradford’s bill to amend Section 59 of the Crimes Act was drawn from the ballot. She referred to it as her “Anti-Smacking Bill”. Thing is, the law doesn’t just ban smacking - it bans any use of reasonable force when parents or caregivers need to correct their children. And yes, that includes placing your children in time-out when they’ve been naughty. However unsurprisingly, polling since 2005 has indicated with incredible consistency that 82% of Kiwis think that Bradford’s bill should never have been passed. (check out voteno.org.nz/polls.htm) Heck, I have personally spoken to several thousand Kiwis while I was collecting signatures on the petition for the referendum. A few people were absolutely disgusted at the concept of a “loving smack” - one anti-smacking advocate got so wound up that he “smacked” myself and an elderly woman who stood at the table signing the petition. The irony was lost on him.

An overwhelming majority of the people I spoke to told me that they would never beat up their children - but that an occasional smack to reinforce that they had disobeyed really seemed to work well. I was surprised at the number of children and teens who came up asking to sign, annoyed when they were told that only people 18yrs and older could put their name to the petition. For the most part, the mainstream media in New Zealand has ignored this groundswell of opposition to the law - preferring instead to espouse the same tired old drivel that we’re hearing from Parliament and branches of the bureaucracy.

The new law criminalises all parents who use a smack to correct their children from time to time. “Yes, but they won’t be prosecuted - all the new law does is to remove a defence under which parents were getting away with beating their children with blocks of wood and horse-whips to within an inch of their lives,” say Sue Bradford the Yes Vote lobby. It’s all smoke and mirrors. It is correct that at this stage few parents will be prosecuted for giving a corrective smack. However parents will still be criminalised for smacking - what are the kids going to think? Mummy’s giving me a smack for stealing money from her purse - but my school-teacher told me smacking is illegal. The law-change was purported to ensure that the defence of smacking was not able to be used when parents abused their children. However in the entire history of the law there were only 7 or 8 cases in which the jury reached a perhaps less than satisfactory decision.

But the question’s loaded - it’s a leading question! John Key and Phil Goff can’t understand it and so have said that they won’t bother voting. Over the past few weeks reporters have been churning out articles faster than you can read them, explaining why the referendum question is hopeless and completely destroys the credibility and effectiveness of the whole process. They have intentionally sought to shift the debate from the real issue - parental authority, to a side-issue: the wording of the referendum question. However when mother of two, Sheryl Savill submitted her petition question to the Clerk of Parliament it was put to the public for a month, to get feedback on the wording of the question. The question originally read “Should a smack within the context of positive parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. The Ministry of Justice among others contacted the Clerk raising various issues with the question.

After this process, the Clerk - who has the reputation of being the most balanced and respectable clerk’s in the history of New Zealand Parliament, approved the final version of the question; “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. When proponents of the new law claim that the question presupposes that smacking is, by definition, a part of good parenting, they are applying preschooler logic to the issue. I tell you what, the 390,000 Kiwis who signed the petition didn’t have any trouble reading the question. It is pathetic that I should have to explain this, but the correct way to understand the question is as follows. Should a corrective smack that is administered as a part of good parenting be illegal? And in other words, should decent parents who love their kids and want what’s best for them be criminalised for giving their child a smack for the purpose of correction?

“Save the country $10m, withdraw the referendum, give the money to victims of abuse” bleat the anti-smacking brigade. Of course the thing they conveniently forget is exactly who is responsible for this huge cost being imposed on the hardworking taxpayers. It is a convention of Parliament that when a petition has been successful, the referendum should take place within one year, and usually at the general election - estimated to cost around $2m. Helen Clark decided that the referendum would not be held at the election though, as it would be extremely detrimental to her party as well as making smacking a key election issue. Just recently, Savill made a statement in which she offered to withdraw her petition for a referendum if the Government would amend the anti-smacking law so that it better reflected the will of the people of New Zealand. This offer was not accepted.

Don’t be fooled. Voting yes will do nothing that will even remotely help lower New Zealand’s deplorably high child abuse statistics. Voting no will send John a clear message that we’re not going to stand for Nanny State. Let’s get this confounded referendum out of the way and then roll up our sleeves and put our effort into initiatives that will drive a stake into the heart of child abuse.

What Did You Say Phil?

The entire collection of Vote NO videos is here.

82.29%

82.29%

That's the average of the 35 main polls (note, includes poll on Young Labour website!) taken between 2005 - 2009. The referendum question is not flawed. Parents who smack their children are not child abusers. Sue Bradford doesn't understand her own law and Prime Minister John Key has no backbone.

John, if you continue refusing to listen to the people, National will lose the 2011 election.

Your call.

What Did You Say?

The latest two videos...

Larry Baldock on the Question

Larry Baldock cuts through the confusion and misinformation with an explanation of how the petition question came into being. Below are a few excerpts from his must-read article on the NZCPR.

The original question we submitted to the Clerk of the House of Representatives back in early 2007 was “should a smack in the context of positive parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ?”

Larry and the 390,000 signatures

As required by the CIR Act 1993, the Clerk published the question in the Gazette and advertised the question in all major papers with an invitation for anyone to submit their opinion on the wording of the question over a 28 day period.

Only two submissions were received. One from a couple who stated their opinion that a smack should never be a criminal offence, and the other from the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry’s submission raised four concerns that were considered by the Clerk in consultation with myself and anyone else the Clerk wished to take advice from as required by S9 of the Act. We eventually agreed to change the wording by replacing “in the context of positive parenting” with “as part of good parental correction.”

The CIR Act requires that the Clerk of the House ultimately determine that the wording;

(a) Shall be such as to convey clearly the purpose and effect of the indicative referendum; and
(b) Shall be such as to ensure that only one of two answers may be given to the question.

At the time the Clerk of the House was David McGee QC who was widely acclaimed as the most experienced and qualified Clerk in the Commonwealth. Upon his retirement as Clerk in 2007 to assume the post of Ombudsman he was given many accolades by MPs for the diligent way he performed his duties.

Surely it is inappropriate for the Prime Minister, Leader of the opposition and Sue Bradford to now be insinuating he did not do his job properly. Especially given that they did not bother to take the time to participate in the submissions on the question when they had every opportunity to.

The words “as part of good parental correction,” simply set the context of an appropriate smack, (reasonable force) rather than the kind of hitting or bashing that might be administered in an abusive (bad) parental situation...

The obvious intent of the question surely is that in the context of good parenting where a smack is not abusive, should a smack be a criminal offence?

Another reason for our use of the word ‘good parental correction is that politicians supporting the new law have constantly been saying that this law was not going to affect ‘good’ parents. They had nothing to worry about.

The real purpose of the law was being hidden as much as possible during the whole debate, and as a result confusion exists amongst the general population about what the new law actually does. The real purpose of the ‘Bradford law’ was to completely abolish any form of physical discipline, for the purpose of correction. This, in addition to smacking, also includes taking a child, against their will, to time out. That is clearly contained in the purpose clause of the new Act, “…by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.”

Click here to read the full article.

Hat-tip: Constant Joy
Related articles: Deception from Anti-Smacking Brigade, Herald Article Not Worth the Effort of Reading

Herald Article Not Worth the Effort of Reading

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.

Deception From Anti-Smacking Brigade

Deborah Coddington is all over the place in her opinion piece in the Herald on Sunday,

"...this dastardly referendum on smacking, organised by grown men who should know better. In the middle of a deep recession it is costing taxpayers $9 million to ask the loaded question: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
Here we go round the mulberry bush. Again. First, a smack is not good parental correction. There is no such thing as a loving smack, just as there is no such thing as a hateful hug."

Deborah claims that the referendum was organised by grown men. Rubbish. Mother of two, Sheryl Savill was the author of the petition question. Further, it was men, women and children throughout New Zealand who facilitated the collection of signatures, just as it was people of all demographics who signed the petitions calling for the referendum. In August 2008, The Press reported that The Ministry of Justice had said a postal referendum could cost taxpayers between $4.8 million and $6.4m. Whether it's the $9m figure that's being tossed around, or something closer to $5m, who have we to thank for this huge expense but Helen Clark? The referendum could have easily and cost-effectively ($1.5m) been conducted at the 2008 election.

Deborah then states her opinion that there is no such thing as a loving smack. I invite Deborah to get out of her office into reality, and speak to some of the many thousands of mums and dads who I have spoken to, who assure me that there is indeed a difference between a smack and child abuse. Sure, some people are angered at the thought of a "loving smack" - but these people are in a definite minority.

Then in today's Press (22 June), Colin Espiner writes that he thinks the referendum question is "misleading, biased, and arguably factually incorrect". He proceeds to take the question to pieces - as many other reporters have attempted to do - examining each piece as if it is completely unrelated to any other part of the question. Despite the ranting and raving from a host of bloggers and reporters that the question is loaded and biased towards a no vote, this is categorically incorrect. "It's a tricky question" whines the Yes Vote group, parroting the recent comments by the leaders of the two major parties. However Espiner got it right when he said that the referendum question is not ambiguous.

Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

Contrary to the claims of the left reporters, 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.

The vast majority of Kiwi parents love their children, and it brings them no joy to give their children a smack - despite Bradford's claim that "The men that are anti this bill are sexual perverts and get a kick out of hitting children". I have spoken to thousands of Kiwi men who are anti Bradford's bill, and they would be outraged that a public servant would have the audacity to make such a statement.

Rather than attempting to attack the people or the question, it would be good if people were able to debate the two issues that are at stake here: democracy and parental authority.