Is John Key Confused?
The MacDoctor has decided to assume that John Key is somehow confused about the referendum. I don’t recall the question being “We are all confused about the new anti-smacking law and we would like that nice Mr. Key to explain it to us and put our fears at rest”. Nor did the question ask “Should parents be prosecuted for smacking?”. The question was quite specific “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” And 88% of people voted “No” to that question.
So let’s clear up John’s confusion:
Firstly, The new law does, indeed, make smacking for the purposes of correction illegal, as part 2 of the new section 59 states:
“2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.”
Got that? Nothing. Zip. Zero. diddly squat. Therefore it is illegal.
Secondly, nobody gives a toss how many people have been prosecuted, persecuted or penalized by this stupid law. As David Farrar points out, what we do not like is being made into criminals. It is the criminalisation of a normal behavior that we don’t like. The fact that no-one has been prosecuted for it just means that the police generally have more sense than we give them credit for.
It therefore makes no sense that Key’s response to the 88% of New Zealand who wish to decriminalise corrective smacking again, is to go and do what the “Yes” vote coalition want.
“But on Monday, he would take to the Cabinet “options which fall short of changing the law but will provide comfort for parents about this issue“.
“He would not say what they were.
“Yes Vote spokeswoman Deborah Morris-Travers said her coalition had been talking to the Government about “non-legislative ways that we could clarify police practice and police guidelines“. (emphasis mine)”
So, apparently Key wishes to pander to the minority group who have just massively lost a referendum vote despite having the backing of the media and the government. I have to assume, therefore, that accommodating the media is more important to Mr. Key than democracy. Unfortunately, I think that Key will find that it will take much, much more than a few reassurances to placate the people of New Zealand. Or does he seriously think that the people who worked so hard against serious government opposition to produce the CIR will now just crawl back under some rock; now that they have demonstrated overwhelming support for a law change?
Change the law, Mr Key. We are not interested in your soothing noises. Change the law.
Related posts:
- More Confusion My previous post was designed to add some clarity to...
- Wait ‘Till Dad Gets Home John Roughan has a nice little diatribe on the smacking...
- Criminals John Key claims that, with respect to the anti-smacking bill,...
- Inconclusive Evidently, Sue Bradford thinks that an 87.6% ”NO” majority in...
- Now We are Six… Presumably six is the mental age of the sub-editor of...
Aug 22 09 9:22 pm
Maybe John Key has a personal agenda in this area, that has not been drawn out of him as yet? I think he also has to cop some flak from the UN, and even withdrawal of political support from Helen and co within the UN if he decides to do anything that will make smacking or correction legal again.
The interesting thing I think is that when JK gets a bee in his bonnet about something, he moves to change it, while bringing his agenda into the open. On this issue he has done little and has given only vague reasons for his position, e.g. “The law is working”. It is an interesting change in his normally straight-forward behaviour IMO.
Aug 22 09 11:02 pm
The crucial point that few people have picked up on is that the result of the referendum is the strongest support anything has ever been given in NZ since 1850.
1.4 million people voted to be able to smack their kids! No government has ever got anywhere near that amount of support – in MMP or before MMP. No other referendum has ever come close either. (The firemen got a higher vote %age but on a much much lower turnout).
Frankly there is a constitutional issue here. Although – legally – the referendum is non-binding, this is the largest absolute mandate for a law change in New Zealand’s history
It is hard to see how a government that does not act swiftly on this referendum can continue to claim legitimacy.
Aug 22 09 11:43 pm
I’d be interested in whether a popular mandate has any constitutional ramifications. IMO parliamentary supremacy would not be threatened by popular mandate, and therefore I think there will be no consequences to National till election time.
Aug 23 09 10:21 am
I’d be interested in whether a popular mandate has any constitutional ramifications.
Well we won’t know will we? That’s how it happens with… popular mandates. The lawyers (and perhaps even Key) will shout non-binding! non-binding! from their beehive offices in Wellington (30% yes) Central – but this is not a legal question any more – it is a moral and constitutional one.
My guess is that no-one, not Key, not Bradford, not the Yes or not the No Campaign expected this result. The best the NOs expected was probably 75-80% on 25-30% turnout – roughly the same as the firefighters’ referendum.
Instead, what they got was the largest mandate EVER in NZ’s history
Hide grandstanding over the Maori seats is stupid. Hide (and looking at the numbers, the Maori party too) really should make a point of principle over this. Frankly given ACT’s rhetoric, if National doesn’t change the law they should pull confidence and supply, and force a by-Election in Epsom.
Aug 23 09 10:33 am
In the last 6 months there have been 13 serious assaults on children most resulting in the death of that child.
Sue Bradford argued that her law would stop such abuse.
John Key says the law is working. Just how is it working Mr. Key?
Aug 23 09 11:09 am
Excellent post MacDoctor.
Key has demonstrated that to him the democratic process is just a means to an end, to him, it has no value in itself.
Aug 23 09 1:13 pm
Lucy – actually that was of course stupid. It cannot stop that abuse, and or if it can, only by changing attitudes over 10-20 years.
What the law was nominally supposed to do – and so far has done – is stop bad parents who whip their kids with power chords or 4x2s getting acquitted by the jury. Which is what has happened in NZ. Do you agree with that? On balance, I do agree with that, but it seems that many of the “NO” campaigners do not.
The reason why, of course, is that the state has no place whatsoever insinuating itself into family life.
The largest mandate in NZ’s history agrees. If the law must err on once side or the other – clearly it must err on the side of the rights of parents to discipline their own children as they see fit
Aug 23 09 1:58 pm
I think the cat’s out of the bag- the Care of Children Act already gives children psuedo-adult status, so to alter s59 to allow smacking or correction would actually conflict with this other Act.
I think JK realises that s59 is just an isolated issue- one of many with regard to how the law now treats children in our society, and that as long as NZers are not talking about the wider agenda of children’s rights (ie children being given the rights to act as adults), he doesn’t really have a mandate to change the law.
This is consistent with the actions he has taken. If he was to amend s59 rather than ‘clarify’ it, he would have to amend other law as well, which he obviously isn’t prepared to do. He isn’t ready to roll back to the entire children’s rights or anti-family legislative agenda in NZ that resulted in the amendment of s59 in the first place.
Aug 23 09 4:34 pm
The point of my post was that Key should not be whitewashing the referendum but moving towards a proper compromise that clearly defines what is an acceptable level of force to use to discipline a child. This would avoid the scenario where level of force escalates with magnitude of offense – the place where the law fell down before.
I take your point about the Care of Children Act, Johnnieboy, but I submit that treating your child like a person and with respect (which is the intention of the CoCA) is a reasonable thing to want to achieve, but criminalising a normal parenting behavior is not.