INDEPENDENT NEWS

Lyndon Hood: Anti-Smacking Lobby Gets "Thrashing"

Published: Mon 24 Aug 2009 03:12 PM
Anti-Smacking Lobby Gets "Thrashing", Still Refuses To BehaveSatire by Lyndon Hood
Opponents of the smacking referendum have been left nursing their wounds after being seriously thrashed in the recent referendum. But despite this beating, they refuse to do what they're told - and continue to act just as lippy, if not more so.
No-vote Lobbyists have been left wondering how big a whipping it would take for these people to learn.
"We're looking for any other instruments we can use to induce compliance," said Larry Baldock, who organised the initial petition. "We'll kick a few ideas around. If the right tool comes to hand I'll give anything a bash."
Baldock has threatened Prime Minister John Key with a similarly heavy pounding at the next election if Key does not do as he's told. "We don't want to, but if Mr Key won't behave, we'll have no choice," said Baldock. "He needs to learn the consequences of his actions."
Mr Key is expected to make some sullen and half-hearted effort to distract Baldock's attention and then run away.
The child advocacy groups who supported the yes vote must surely be bruised, battered and bleeding after their crushing smack-down. But apparently they are used to being abused. This latest walloping - where they were figuratively thrown to the floor and kicked into unconsciousness - has not made them see reason.
But they also refused to admit they were wrong when threatened with a loaded question, so I guess they just won't learn.
The no-vote campaign argued for parents' right to impose discipline with a gentle, loving smack, that has no consequences for the smackee apart from a sense they have been kissed by a pink marshmallow. They agree that the next step must be to deal with New Zealand's serious problem of violence against children.
***
In related news, a shock agreement is expected between Larry Baldock - who believes a smacking defence can be restored by deleting parts of Section 59 - and Sue Bradford - who initially planned to remove any smacking defence by deleting Section 59.
Speculation that Larry Baldock has no idea what he's talking about is unconfirmed as of press time.
*******
***

Next in Comment

US Lessons For New Zealand’s Health System: Profiteering, Hospital Adverse Events And Patient Outcomes
By: Ian Powell
Israel’s Argument At The Hague: We Are Incapable Of Genocide
By: Binoy Kampmark
View as: DESKTOP | MOBILE © Scoop Media