Debate from some friends.
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:44 AM
Subject: RE: the smacking bill
I do not think you or anyone can logically support the amendment but not the Bill.
The issue here is that there is nothing in the amendment that prevents the criminalisation of an act of correction – in fact, it probably assists the criminalisation of several acts of correction. Remember, a police complaint will be retained as a record: there is nothing preventing the passing of information to CYFS, and there is no change to the potential increase in workload on the police.
This is something you have told me you are fundamentally against, Dave.
It is also fundamentally anti-democratic to simply change the words to re-iterate what you always intended, with no fundamental change to the bill’s intent, simply to quell the 86% of the population who do not think that mild physical discipline ought not to be criminalised.
It is still a bill that moves power away from the Judiciary into the Executive arm of government: in that regard, it is a highly dubious piece of legislation.
You cannot have it both ways, Dave: either you believe that parents should not be criminalised for acts of correction, or you don’t. Therefore, you cannot logically support the amendment while not supporting the bill.
Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2007 9:22 a.m.
Subject: the smacking bill
Hi guys,not sure if you are going to agree with me or not, but I actually support the smacking amendment but do not support the bill.
If you are interested I have stated the reasons why on my blog in two postings today.
I’d be keen for any comments ( either on the blog or by email) if you are that way inclined
also remenber that IANAL
check daves blog at http://www.big-news.blogspot.com/