UPDATE: Videos of all the speeches are now up here. First up is Lindsay Perigo: "They do not have the right to nationalise your children."
RELATED: Smacking, Libz
Wednesday, 28 March 2007
More pics from Wellington's anti-anti-smacking rally
Perigo and speakers at top, Perigo and organiser Mitch Lees at middle, Plain Jane anti-anti-anti-smackers at bottom.
UPDATE: Videos of all the speeches are now up here. First up is Lindsay Perigo: "They do not have the right to nationalise your children."
RELATED: Smacking, Libz
UPDATE: Videos of all the speeches are now up here. First up is Lindsay Perigo: "They do not have the right to nationalise your children."
RELATED: Smacking, Libz
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I never thought I'd see the Libertarianz and Destiny Church agree on anything, but there you go!
I'd like to be optimistic about this, but these sort of bills have a habit of being rammed through regardless of the opposition. It frankly makes me worried for those friends of mine who've become parents in the last couple of years. Personally, if I see Sue Bradford on TV one more time disengenuously pretending not to understand the opposition to her bill I'm going to scream....
The bright side is this could finally spark THE backlash against this power-hungry governemnt.
Congratulations to Mitch and all those who attended. Free Rad Award!!!
Of course, the fact that the same day of the march there is talk that this will become a government bill illustrates the way they prefer to deal with opposition.
Julian Darby
There was nothing for a libertarian to be excited about.
Nothing at all Alex. My friend Paula says:
The manifestation of a guilty conscience is very interesting to watch, no?
PC will have to delete it no doubt. The truth is uncomfortable.
Why do you say that, Alex?
Mainly because libertarian POV, libartarian objections to the Comrade Bradford's Bill were largely lost among others. Even if the Bill is defeated it will be done for other reasons, which in other circumstances will be used against the freedom.
Too much emphasis was put on the fact that the majority (83%) of people oppose the Bill. So if the tide turns and somehow the majority supports such Bill it is OK for the sheeple of NZ to tell me how to raise my children. They want to have some stupid referendum, just like the ooponents of the Civil Union and Prostitution Reform bills did. Too much emphasys was put on the argument that smacking and disciplining children is OK and even required (by God or whoever). As if it matters. There was nobody who could say "I don't think smacking is a good way to raise children, but it must be left for parents only to decide and the state has no role in it".
There was a small but noisy crowd of counter-protesters at one end. One of the speakers referred to them as "an insignificant minority". We must remember that we the libertarians are also an insignificant minority which does not mean that we are wrong.
There was a very small group of counter-protesters at the other end, three women and their young kids. They behaved with a lot of dignity and courage among the "hostile" crowd. Their message was that "hitting" is wrong. There was nobody to explain to them (and people like them) that their message misses the point, that they may or may not be right about how children should be raised and treated, but that the main point is that nobody can dictate to parents how to raise their children. Instead some proponents of smacking hurled abuse at them. So, insted of the real issue of freedom the main issue was again between "child beaters" and "child protectors".
Lindsay's speech was good, but others were disappointing.
PC will have to delete it no doubt. The truth is uncomfortable.
Ruth, you're daft! You're behaving as a kid that needs a good smacking or spanking . I have never seen a person like you whom had made posts here at NotPC where the majority had been removed by Peter. That is why we need smacking, because kids like you wouldn't do or follow as what they've been told. You had been warned by Peter not to make post here, and you have been fuckn consistently stalking him.
Alex, fair enough. Good points. Most didn't get the point that this was about not politicising parenting. Most never will get that.
But at least they've been told. That's all we can do. People are deluded en masse, and enlightened one at a time. Nobody said it would be easy.
Did you see how this was reported around the world?
"nothing for a libertarian to be excited about."
Au contraire. This is the thin end of the wedge. If this bill goes through what will stop the same people from prosecuting those parents who encourage their kids to play rugby, boxing, or go deer hunting with a gun?
Violence begets violence is their catch cry and what is more violent then a game of rugby or rugby league or a bout of boxing, Thai Kwon Do, Karate and the other martial arts?
And then we have the spectacle of the government administering to these children. Tell me about their record of looking after children in foster care, in Borstals (or whatever their name is today). Tell me again about the bang up job the government is doing to educate NZ kids, how the NCEA is the envy of the world.
Prisons, healthcare, Law & Order, education, roading etc. ad nauseum. The NZ government (whatever it's hue) has had a reverse Midas touch on all of these things, instead of a shining monument we get a steaming pile of shit.
And these are the people you are going to entrust all the displaced children with? Displaced because the parent corrects its child's behaviour with a smack?
Because that's what's at the bottom of this bill. Not persuasion, not an effort to find a better way to teach children right from wrong. Just the usual gun. Do as I say, without question or it's prison.
And anyone who begs to differ is labelled a sadist, and a molester, in much the same way as a previous employee of the NZ commissioner for children labelled all men latent rapists.
Nothing sinister about making laws based on those sentiments is there? Nooo, not at all.
"I never thought I'd see the Libertarianz and Destiny Church agree on anything, but there you go!"
Not true, DM. Both parties understand the fundamental importance of keeping the state out of our homes, families and places of worship.
To which I add businesses, workplaces, clubs, bars, restaurants, gardens and so on.
"Nothing for a libertarian to get excited about".
I accept the points you make, Alex. Have been saying the same things myself on ZB, too.
But if we accept that the path to freedom is exceedingly slow, we must support and even celebrate tiny steps.
Which is why I am delighted, if nothing else, that most NZ'ers by far have vehemently continued their opposition to the tyrants' plan. It might not be for the right reasons as we see it - freedom with no 'buts' - but it's defiance nonetheless.
Just as civil unions and decriminalising prostitution were half-measures in my opinion, they were still small steps in the right direction for those of us who disagree with state intrusion.
And it's so personally satisfying to see that communist witch; that long-time parasite; that vile totalitarian who couldn't win a bona fide seat if she tried, on the back foot with the electorate; also Clark being stymied when she thought Bradford would easily do her dirty work for her.
It's all good. You take what you can and keep plugging away.
Onward soldiers! :)
"Nothing for a libertarian to get excited about".
I accept the points you make, Alex. Have been saying the same things myself on ZB, too.
But if we accept that the path to freedom is exceedingly slow, we must support and even celebrate tiny steps.
Which is why I am delighted, if nothing else, that most NZ'ers by far have vehemently continued their opposition to the tyrants' plan. It might not be for the right reasons as we see it - freedom with no 'buts' - but it's defiance nonetheless.
Just as civil unions and decriminalising prostitution were half-measures in my opinion, they were still small steps in the right direction for those of us who disagree with state intrusion.
And it's so personally satisfying to see that communist witch; that long-time parasite; that vile totalitarian who couldn't win a bona fide seat if she tried, on the back foot with the electorate; also Clark being stymied when she thought Bradford would easily do her dirty work for her.
It's all good. You take what you can and keep plugging away.
but that the main point is that nobody can dictate to parents how to raise their children.
Not at all? Is it a free for all?
If you think you need burn your child with a cigarette in order to discipline, should that be a parent's prerogative? Or should there be limits?
If you think you need burn your child with a cigarette in order to discipline.
Ruth (Anonymous), why the fuck would any sane parents want to do that? You're brain needs to be burnt with a cigarette, because you must be a fuckwit.
Jim, you completely missed my point. Alex said:
the main point is that nobody can dictate to parents how to raise their children.
I was using an extreme example to show that there must be a point at which we can dictate to parents how to raise their children. i.e. burning them with cigarettes is clearly unacceptable. But guess what, it does happen.
At what point do we step in. Smacking? Slapping? Punching? Strapping? Caning? Whipping? Beating with a piece of wood no thicker than your thumb? Beating with a piece of 4x2? Burning with a cigarette?
From your comment it is clear that you're the fuckwit.
ps, that last part was a quick English lesson for your benefit. It's "your brain", not "you're brain".
No, we cannot dictate to parents how to raise their children.
As long as parents do this in the best interest of their children, for their wellbeing, we cannot interfer even if our understanding of "best interest" or "wellbeing" is different.
Of course if parents hurt their children just because they get the kicks out of it then it is no longer raising the children and at this poit we can interfer and take away all the guardianship rights from these parents.
Alex, I think you're splitting hairs. However, my point still stands. At what point does raising turn into hurting? When does discipline become unnecessary force? When should we step in?
I am very sympathetic to many Libertarian views, but I have immense trouble with the often black-and-white stance on things. Individual freedom isn't black-and-white, but I am open to be convinced otherwise.
Here is a real-life example, a story I was told about my cousin. It happened back in the 1950s in the then-USSR. They used to have some sort of wood or coal burner in their apartment and the young boy liked to play close to the very hot burner nearly touching it. He was told many times by my uncle to stay away from it lest he hurts himself. Once, when he again put his hand close to the burner nearly touching it his father actually grabbed his hand and briefly pressed it against the hot surface causing him to suffer a minor burn. Since then my cousin never went near this dangerous place.
Do you think my uncle should have been arrested for this?
Alex, seems extreme, but highlights my point - grey area.
"Individual freedom isn't black and white".
Yes, it is. You either have 'freedom' or you don't.
But here's the thing, anon. With freedom comes total responsibility for your actions.
It's the latter that clearly separates libertarianism with any notion of anarchy or similar.
Also, if somebody seriously has to ask the difference between "raising" and "hurting" a child, then I hope to God they don't come into contact with any.
Sus
Ah yes, the "personal responsibility" out clause.
Sounds nice, but people do not behave responsibly. Then what?
I said, personal freedom isn't black and white, and followed that with "I am open to be convinced otherwise".
You wrote:
Yes, it is. You either have 'freedom' or you don't.
That isn't very convincing. That's like saying, you're either tall or you're not.
You also said:
if somebody seriously has to ask the difference between "raising" and "hurting" a child, then I hope to God they don't come into contact with any.
Alright, what about Alex's example:
when he again put his hand close to the burner nearly touching it his father actually grabbed his hand and briefly pressed it against the hot surface causing him to suffer a minor burn.
I am not trying to pick an argument here, but to me that is hurting a child unnecessarily. Not to Alex though (or that is what I think he is saying). My line between raising and hurting appears to be different from Alex's. So in this case, who do you "hope to God" doesn't come in contact with them?
Maybe I'm just thick.
to me that is hurting a child unnecessarily
Unnecessarily? I wouldn't say so. Look, the child was told many times about the danger of playing near the burner, I guess he would have been smacked a couple of times too, however this did not teach the boy anything. But actually experiencing the pain that he had been warned so many times about taught him a good lesson that worked. I don't know if I would have every been able to do something like this to my child, but certainly it ewas not unnecessary.
Hi Alex & Anon.
Anon, the 'personal responsibility' thing is not an out clause. Quite the opposite, in fact.
To use Alex's example: (and it firstly must be acknowledged that it happened 50 years ago on the other side of the world), should that happen today resulting in charges laid, then a jury would decide if the action was appropriate.
And that's all we're talking about. Those using Section 59 in defence of their actions under today's law - which I believe is satisfactory - will have a jury of their peers sit in judgement.
Give me that scenario anyday, rather than faceless bureaucrats in Wgtn deciding what goes on in my house.
Secondly - and this is what collectivists like Bradford, Clark & Cullen detest and therefore refuse to accept - we are all *individuals*. That includes children.
Different children react differently to forms of discipline. Sometimes the only way a child learns that it is unacceptable to bite, is via a nip from Mum. Children aren't stupid; far from it; and that's the problem sorted, *if* it had to come to that. Alex's example falls into that category.
A parent must, therefore, have the right to raise his/her child as they see fit. And that's because the wisdom of ages accepts that most parents by far love their kids and want the best for them.
The point is that the bastards who don't, also don't give a toss about the law. So why would you have the state act which will serve only to penalise the former, with no change at all to the behaviour of the latter, who are, after all, the bloody problem?
I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. I agree that repealing S59 is a huge waste of time. But that was not what my original post was about. It was about the difficulty in finding a line between good parenting and unnecessary force. Sus, you said:
A parent must, therefore, have the right to raise his/her child as they see fit.
It is the "as they see fit" part that bothers me.
I personally believe smacking is unnecesary, and I thought Alex's example was extreme and also entirely unnecessary.
To me that example crossed the line between "as sees fit" and "cruel and unnecessary punishment"
Alex, I look at your example and don't just think:
"the right thing to do"
or
"the wrong thing to do"
but I also wonder why has it got to the point that that child only reacts to an extreme form of punishment. To me that is an example of where a different approach to parenting might have made that unnecessary.And I think the crux of it all is this:
I guess he would have been smacked a couple of times too, however this did not teach the boy anything.
I would completely agree with you here, smacking isn't a very effective form of punishment, because it loses its punishing properties very quickly. Therefore punishment tends to be a poor form of conditioning (and before you jump down my throat about that, let's call a spade a spade - we are talking about conditioning here, pure and simple).
Training animals is done with rewards, and very little punishment. And punishment usually takes the form of some creative manipulation of reward withdrawel Why? Because it is EXTREMELY effective. And not just in animals.
My issue is, and always has been, this should not be about smacking, but about what is effecive parenting.
To me that example crossed the line between "as sees fit" and "cruel and unnecessary punishment"
Interestingly, I don't see it as a "punishment". To me it was a harsh lesson taught to a child who would not listen to a word (and maybe to a punishment, like a smack). His father actually showed him, made him feel in a mild form what he had been warning him about. The child now knew what exactly may happen if he continues to play with the burner.
And that exactly what "as sees fit" means. The father obviously did not want to hurt his child, but he felt it was necessary to make the boy suffer a minor burn to show him what kind of pain he was likely to suffer should he play around the hot surface.
You are quite entitled to your views about how to best raise a child, you are entitled to raise your children in that way, you are quite entitled to try to convince me and other people, but you don't have any right to force me to raise my children the way you see fit.
The previous post was mine.
Post a Comment