March for Democracy
An estimated crowd of more than 4000 packed Auckland’s Queen St yesterday to protest against the Government’s refusal to back a citizen-initiated referenda over the so-called anti-smacking law where 87% of people’s vote was ignored by the government.
It was a great atmosphere with drummers, parents with children, and placards.
Colin Craig, who funded the march which cost several hundred thousands of dollars said, “We’ve made a brilliant start and I’m waiting for the next step,”
The placards slogans said “Warning: Police State” and “We’ve been 2 Hell ‘n’ Clark” and the people chanted messages such as “John Key listen to me, we want democracy.”
Among the speakers was Act Party MP John Boscawen. “It’s a huge crowd, it’s fantastic,” he said.
He said Prime Minister John Key was “not listening to 1.4 million people”, and said he ignored them “at his peril”.
Former Green MP Sue Bradford, who drafted the original bill, said future New Zealand societies would look back in amazement at people marching for the right to hit their children.
She was not surprised by the turnout because of the money spent on it. But she said the money would have been better spent elsewhere.
A spokeswoman for Key said the law would be changed if it was not working. “We have seen no evidence it is criminalising good parents,” she said.
I’m not a sociologist but it appears to me that ever since Moses set up laws for the Jewish Nation laws are seen as a panacea for producing a happy society. Many laws are in fact counter-productive. Changes to section 59 are an example of this. Key states that there is no evidence of parents being criminalised by this law. I suggest that Key has never been under investigation by the police nor had charges laid against him that are politically motivated. Since the police force was feminised by the Clarke Government many cops with an agenda pick on parents who they just don’t like and make their life hell by laying charges that are just down-right bloody ridiculous. Just going to court can produce more stress Whether or not you are convicted. The damage done to the family is horrendous. Don’t institute laws that are not absolutely necessary is my opinion.
Comment by Bryan — Tue 24th November 2009 @ 1:33 am
The number I believe, or at least that is officially accepted was 1000 attending. I rang Radio Live on Saturday night for my own Manners Mall issue where besides what I was saying about a recent email interchange between the Mayor’s husband and me where is threatening to take me to court for libel, the host Keith Stewart made a very qualified and relevant comment about the march, prior to me ringing. The ‘joke’, as put by the Mayor on TV3, of renting a crowd, where the first outing saw (many bystanders), only 8 of us assembled, drew and continues to draw considerable publicity.
http://www.stuff.co..nz/dominion-post/local/3080755/Mall-campaign-pays-for-protesters
My primary campaign associate Maria van der Meel, [The City is Ours] has been sited for co-coordinating the payment of $25 for each of 30 students to attend the protest. Personally I dispute that this is what occurred other than 30 students are being employed to define the side of the protest, in fluorescent jackets, assembled in what is called a Human Bus. This bus leaves Manners Mall on December 11 at 12.45 pm to confront the WCC on what I have proved already in the Court of Appeal is an outright abrogation of democratic process.
Keith Stewart in his earlier comment stated that if the funder [of the March for Democracy] had paid the protesters $25 each, he would have only paid out $25,000, not the allegedly spent 100’s of thousands. Essentially popularity is a very fickle thing, and particularly in todays newly minds zoned technological world where everyone in our elite Westminster based system appears to be openly and only thinking all at the very same time.
It is not that we have not been doing this ‘thinking’ for ever; it is more that we just have better access to what is going on in other people’s worlds. In short for those who struggle to extract immediate meaning from what I write, what I am describing is the intangible nature of fact against circumstance. 4000 is not 1000. Colin Craig has made a start but it has not achieved the purpose he set out to achieve, not because he did not necessarily have a qualifiedly good point, but because he rested too much hope on the ‘hyperbole’ of advertising. All of the energy that seems left over as productive or marketable these days seems to be the emissions.
Legally, referenda are not in a position [yet] to represent democracy. This is not to say that they are not part of a future, but at the moment that entire future is fragile where the abuse which Colin Craig collects on public complaint has not properly been identified and until he or others who would advocate in the same position centre on the absolute controversy as it is functionally real for that public, such a protest march is only set to trickle down Auckland’s Queen Street.
John Key is not the primary target — he is the servant of a target. Feminist propaganda is the machine of the first target. Child health and security through solid family practices bridging religions should be seen as a cause.
“Science is simply on and off where religion takes its cause”.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 24th November 2009 @ 9:34 am
As I understand it there are in fact good parents that have been investigated by this change to section 59. That is they have been harassed, stressed, incurred costs and had their lives disrupted. Apparently this is OK as long as they are not convicted. What sort of justice system is that?
Comment by Dave — Tue 24th November 2009 @ 5:08 pm
It would be great if some spoke up. The way I see it, the police, CYFS etc are holding back in the hope that the matter will fall off the radar. Then, you can be sure they will use it increasingly, particularly to harass people they don’t like or can’t get on other offences. CYFS have had a “zero tolerance” policy towards smacking for many years and have forced parents, mainly fathers, out of children’s lives accordingly. They don’t need this law, but they will be using it increasingly too.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 24th November 2009 @ 7:53 pm
There’s a global wave of indignation and dissent at feminism and PC philosophy building.
Democracy is rightly being defended by sensible people.
Sue Bradford and her ilk obviously need to attend a listening skills program.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 25th November 2009 @ 9:41 pm
It’s great to see there’s movement advocating societal democracy in NZ. At the same time I’d love to see democracy in NZ at the more personal level. I think it’s tragic that in this day and age many NZ women apparently need to step up to the plate and excercise democracy in their relations with men. Instead I notice they hold onto the following attitudes which of course promote their self advancing gender priveliges.
Taken from mens news daily –
Gender Rules of Today
Monday, November 9, 2009
By Pelle Billing
1. Women want full independence – Women want male protection when things get rough or dangerous
2. Men and women can vote – The draft and compulsory military service are male only
3. Men are expected to work in jobs that they do not care for to support their families — Men are lazy for not doing half of the housework
4. When boys perform badly in school there is a “crisis in masculinity” – When girls or women perform badly they are being discriminated against
5. Women “get rid of jerks” – Men “cannot commit”
6. Male circumcision is a proud tradition – Female circumcision is abhorred, even the kinds that are milder than male circumcision
7. Commenting on a woman’s cleavage is sexual harassment – A woman who purposely flaunts her cleavage at work is not sexually harassing anyone
8. All good men pay for the date – All good men support gender neutral pay
9. Men’s financial power must be controlled – Women’s sexual power must be liberated
10. Fathers should take care of their children – Children aren’t DNA tested to establish paternity
11. Men prey on women – Women exercise their sexual freedom
12. The overarching inconsistency: Men are responsible for their actions and failures – Women are victims of circumstances or societal structures
Comment by feminism sucks — Thu 3rd December 2009 @ 3:10 pm
‘And we blame flattery and meanness when they subordinate the spirited element in us to the unruliness of the beast, and when, to gratify the beast’s greed and love of money, they school the lion to put up with insults and turn it into an ape.’
Has anyone made a compilation of the grossly sexist propaganda television commercials used in part to aid in falsely justifing the oppressive policies legislation of the anti-clark regime’s era?
Comment by Peter Bell — Sun 6th December 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Has there beenan anti-clark regime era? This qualifies, in my view anyway, the original part of the/youor whole question as paradoxical. I do not believe what you have said is equitable and; fracturing its own logic and; would be interested in a clearer sentence, easier to get my head around.
Cheers,
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 7th December 2009 @ 10:28 am
A new study of 2600 people proves that a smacked child is a successful child.
“The claims that are made for not spanking children fail to hold up.”
– professor Marjorie Gunnoe
Comment by Dave — Tue 5th January 2010 @ 2:23 pm