- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
Oh, yeah!!!! 😀
Almost 90 per cent of people who participated in a referendum asking New Zealanders whether smacking should be illegal have voted no, preliminary results show.
When you consider this referendum was about ‘the people‘ versus ‘the state‘ with all it’s power and tax payer money, this sure was a landslide.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.
This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.
Contact me for rates
NZ teacher Peter Joyce’s settled life was disrupted when a woman he had never met accused him of historic rape. With a unique brand of angry humour, his diary plots the stages of his despair and traces his attempts to find justice in the face of the current insistence that we must “believe the victim”.
Dry Ice is a compelling memoir, but much more. The accusation made the writer a reluctant expert on similar cases from all over the world. He throws light on everything that limits public knowledge of false sexual allegations, from dangerous counselling to flawed statistics, and he exposes police investigation methods as blinkered, inefficient and insensitive.
You can purchase Dry Ice on Kindle for just $6.00 here: https://www.amazon.com/Dry-Ice-Peter-Joyce-ebook/dp/B01N19JKAR
Peter Joyce writes a blog: www.blackstonesdrum.com
Treating smack as crime is a pretext for feminists to punish men and fathers in heterosexual relationships.
Feminist heterophobes use every opportunity to destroy family.
They are interested only in issue where they can punish men and women who have relationship with men. Parenting is an excellent opportunity for them.
They will never get involved in activities that make relationships between men and women better, fix disagreements etc.
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 3:55 am
I suspect however that this referendum will be almost completely ignored in favour of the lunatic ideology of these people.
Comment by Scott — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 8:04 am
He’d be foolish to ignore the people he supposedly represents, New Zealanders. He will either support the United Nations, and whoever pulls their $trings, or support New Zealanders. I think we’re fast moving away from Democracy in Aotearoa.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 8:20 am
Considering the turnout and one-sidedness of the result, this decision is more legitimate than any of the politicians we’ve ever had.
Comment by rc — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 9:56 am
Feminist heterophobes
I love it! That’s funny.
Comment by julie — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Julie:
Wikipedia- “Heterophobia is a term used to describe irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against heterosexuals.”
“Feminist heterophobes” is a good description for bad people.
John
Comment by John Brett — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 1:17 pm
OMG! The 46% of people who didn’t vote would have voted ‘Yes’, if they had thought their vote would count!
Also, so many of the 54% who did vote – about 89% of them, probably misunderstood the question, and probably voted incorrectly!
This whole vote is flawed!
Comment by Fearless Frank — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 3:35 pm
I know you jest FF. Nice one!
So 46% didn’t vote. Hey, a lot more voted in this than Auckland elections. That’s a statement on it’s own.
How many people who don’t have children threw this referendum in the bin? Hey, that’s a lot of parents voting.
How many people are new to NZ and how many are still in the dark?
This is sooooo, soooooo, impressive. In just one year look to how many people have awoken.
Comment by julie — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 4:18 pm
Thanks John. I had not heard of this before. I must remember it.
Comment by julie — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 4:19 pm
They will not change a United Nations mandated law that Helen rushed undemocratically to pass after warning John of dire consequences if he did follow.
The law will allow institutions like Women’s refuge, Barnardos, Cyfs and Relation Services to grow their businesses. It will also hide their incapacity of these dysfunctional institutions to address and detect and help with the real abuse and violence against children. Their intervention is always punishment and not help which results in deaths( children mums and dads)
Comment by tren Christchurch — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 5:38 pm
The worst thing about it all is the cost, millions of $$$ just because of ridiculous legislation
Comment by Ian — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 11:51 pm
Of course I jest; But just listen to dear old Sue Brad-unaf-ford cry how the referendum was fatelly flawed; how so many people didn’t understand the question; how it was so confusing…..
Doesn’t really matter; her government isn’t gonna listen anyway…
Comment by Fearless Frank — Sun 23rd August 2009 @ 7:54 am
How about patriaphobe; feminaziphobe?
Comment by Fearless Frank — Sun 23rd August 2009 @ 7:55 am
The cost was actually small- a couple of dollars each. That cost was incurred because
a.the Pollies didn’t listen to us in the first place, and
b.Our previous leader refused to include the poll with the last election, (i.e. point a. repeated)
Some comentators have ascribed the “Anti-smacking law” as a major factor in the downfall of the last administration.
The BENEFIT is that WE HAVE SENT A MESSAGE which is “IGNORE US AT YOUR PERIL”.
John Key IS SQUIRMING now- he won’t be let off the hook-
Question is-
Does he want to be PM of NEW ZEALANDERS, or just THE LEADER OF THE SOCIAL ENGINEERS
Comment by John Brett — Sun 23rd August 2009 @ 9:49 am
I suspect the cost will be huge.
Politicans completely ignoring such a majority.
People feeling impotent that they can do nothing.
Referendum being totally discredited.
In my view that is a very large cost.
Personally I resent the cost and the political imaturity and naievity of the petition organisers. Primariuly it was a promote KIWI Party and Larryu Baldock initiative and they got less than 1% of the vote last election. An utter Joke that isn’t funny in my view.
Comment by Allan — Sun 23rd August 2009 @ 10:33 am
It’s an extraordinary result. A year has passed since this legislation was passed, and it won’t die. Getting 1.5 million NZers motivated to send in a vote that will be ignored (and most of us knew that well in advance) is remarkable in itself, especially considering the one-sided media barrage trying to discredit everything about the referendum, and virtually zero media representation of any argument other than the pro-legislation one.
I didn’t see or read one intelligent comment in any of our media that dealt with the intrusion of the state into private life, rather than the so-called traumatic effect of smacking a child. I read no proof that this sort of legislation achieves anything. The whole business smacks of corruption, of politicians appearing to oppose each other in public, but cutting deals in private that ensure a foregone conclusion. Even the appointment of Sue Bradford as spokesperson for the cause looks like nothing more than other politicians recognising the political danger of being associated with this bill personally, and hoping to confine the fallout to one individual (too bad it didn’t work for you Helen). But somebody once said you can never underestimate the stupidity of the public, and this may have been the bill that tested how far those in power think they can go. They’re still trying to resist it. I wonder what would finally budge them? Apparently the sight of thousands appearing in the streets was enough to topple the governments of Ukraine and Georgia quickly and painlessly, and nearly did so again recently in Iran. Closer to home, the appearance of a few tractors outside parliament and a few angry farmers recently smartly put paid to the Fart Tax (and until then it was policy set in stone).
I think a peaceful public assembly outside parliament is the obvious next step. Democracy – if you still believe in it – isn’t about ticking boxes on a form on election day. It’s about governments serving the will of the people. They know our will, and still they refuse to serve it.
Comment by rc — Sun 23rd August 2009 @ 11:50 am
FEMINIST HETEROPHOBIA AS REFLECTED IN OFFICE DECORATIONS
I investigated 2 feminist offices in my former city:
1) Office of the children’s legal representative (represents kids in custody litigations and always discovers that mother is the better parent)
2)Office for child protection against abuse (for every child they rescue, they ruin 100 kids).
MY FINDINGS:
Both offices are overwhelmingly staffed by women. Their walls feature art and posters depicting women or women and kids. Men or heterosexuality are absent from all pictures.
I have a feeling that if a young receptionist gets up and says “I am getting married”, nobody of those old fat women at desks near by will applaud. I asked one of them why they don’t have pictures of men. She told me: “We represent people from all walks of life”. Talking to these women is just a waste of time.
Both offices feature a waiting area with toys and books. Disorganized and incongruous collection, obviously staff has no idea how kids play and what they need. Like a small doll house and a big plastic fish that can’t be used in connection with that little house.
Feminists are primitive, uneducated criminals, who use kids as a tool to punish men. We have obligation and right to fight, to bring them to justice, to pay for killed babies, ruined men and bastardized kids. To compensate grandparetns who lost their grandkids. Everybody has to fight and whimps will be tried for cowardice.
Feminists and collaborators will pay for their crimes, for the blood they spilled.
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Mon 24th August 2009 @ 6:14 am
Im not fully convinced that all this “dont worry Im going to instruct the police and DSW on guidelines” from Mr Keys is going to solve all the problems this legislation creates. If they are not going to change the law then its still the law and how many here have been on the recieving end of some legal aid funded lawyer using the law in Family Court without needing evidence from the police and or Cypfs.
What I mean is its all good and fine to say but there havent been a sizable numbers of prosecutions so there for the law isnt such a problem but prosecutions are not the only measure of a law.
I have been in Family court being put through the wringer on several laws that outside of the family court I have had no dealings with. Let alone been prosecuted on.
Comment by mits — Tue 25th August 2009 @ 5:24 pm