Not only is it nonsense, but flies in the face of:
Roughan’s theory is that what the law-makers really meant by “correction” is the thorough tonking you were given “when daddy comes home”, where children were beaten until they screamed. A so-called “good” hiding. He thinks that the referendum question is designed to legitimize this sort of behaviour, that is is a sort of stealth question that will allow hundreds of Christian fundamentalists the right to beat their children to a pulp.
There is really only one thing wrong with his viewpoint. It is utter nonsense.
- Child discipline Case law
- Most statements on smacking by Sue Bradford
- All statements by Bob McCoskrie
- Amendments voted down by the Sue Bradford/Helen Clark bloc
- Actions of the police since the law change
- And numerous entries in the Yes Vote site itself
From the Yes Vote page "How the referendum came about"
And further from the "history of the child discipline law"
- A single smack is unlikely to lead to criminalisation of a parent under the 2007 law (See The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 and police activity since the law change).
- Smacking children is not part of good parental correction.
So the "Yes Vote" site is quite clear - all physical discipline is bad, illegal, and not part of good parental correction.
In 2007 a heavily amended version of Sue Bradford’s bill became law in New Zealand. It was supported by 113 of 120 members of Parliament. New Zealand became the first English speaking country to introduce legal measures to ban physical punishment of children.
So the question in my mind is this: would the "Yes Vote" site link to a story which states that discipline (outside a "good thrashing") is not illegal, then attacks their opponent? To me, that's not a hard call - If I were the "Yes Vote" site, I'd avoid this one at all costs.
On the other hand though, they've posted some dubious material at times. So did they avoid it?
There was a nice piece in yesterday’s Herald by John Roughan: Sinister undertones to referendum instigators, in which John rightly brings into question what Bob McCoskrie and friends mean by “correction”. He concludes that what the instigators of this referendum are really after is the restoration of their right to give their kids a good hiding.So there you have it. The "Yes Vote" site just endorsed a column which utterly contradicts and undermines their own view of the new law.
And how do they describe this person who contradicts them? "nice"
It seems to me that the credibility of the entire "Yes Vote" campaign (which, as evidenced by this site, was never very high) is now a big, fat zero. They've thrown out all semblance of principles, simply so they can endorse someone demonizing their most prominent opponent.
I'm frankly amazed someone didn't realise and take it down sooner. I noticed it this morning, and it's still there as of 5:30. Does no one in the campaign read the site?
Being serious about maintaining your credibility - FAIL
P.S. It's almost enough to wonder if they'd post Bob's material, if he abused himself at the end of his columns! Well, why wouldn't they?