International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Posts tagged ‘yes vote’

Pure Chutzpah

From the Vote Yes website.

Misleading claim 2: The law treats a ’smack on the bottom’ the same as ‘child abuse’.

Our response: A smack is very unlikely to lead to a prosecution; child abuse should lead to prosecution.

The law most certainly does not treat a `smack on the bottom as the same as `child abuse. Under the `Police discretion provision in the legislation, Police do not have to prosecute minor assaults on children but we hope that they would take action and prosecute if a child is being abused.

This must be one of the most outrageous statements of all time!

  1. The law that allowed different treatment under law between reasonable and unreasonable force used as punishment is repealed.
  2. Then, the people who repealed it say that there is still a difference under law between the two, even though there is not.
  3. Yet these are the same people, who across their entire site, in almost every article make it clear time and again that they see no difference between the two!

Here are some examples.

Their publication list includes:

Children are Unbeatable: seven very good reasons not to hit children,

Posters, saying “If it’s wrong to hit an adult, how can it be right to hit a child?”

How about Sue Bradford?

Individuals and organisations who oppose the law change hope that the referendum outcome will lead to the reintroduction of a statutory defence so that parents can be confident they are within the law when they smack, whack or hit their children. These people believe that a smack is part of good parental correction. It’s not of course.

All we could ever hope to do with the section 59 amendment was to level the playing field by removing the ‘reasonable force’ defence for physical punishment, and work towards a gradual change in attitudes throughout society, aiming for a time when people will no longer see beating or smacking children as either desirable or acceptable.

So how can the Yes Vote site possibly claim that the law “does not treat a `smack on the bottom as the same as `child abuse” when

a) they repealed that very provision and

b) they do the exact same thing in almost every statement they make.

No wonder they’re on a hiding to nothing.


Tag Cloud