Section 59: The Christian Right Hates Children
Craig Young
Fundie scum- picking on kids because they're too scared to front up against
adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
No-one can tell me this vermin is not engaged in helping abusive and
violent parents to rort the current inadequate state of child protection
law in New Zealand.
Don't worry, I made sure Steve Maharey had a copy of this. By now, so
has the rest of Cabinet.
Craig
Sue Bilstein
news:9a5ac3c9.02102...@posting.google.com...
Your post seems a bit disproportionate to the contents of the page, which is
a summary of the legislation and case law on the subject of physical
punishment of children.
Denver Fletcher
You might care to reflect on it having become unacceptable to publicly
berate homosexuals but somehow it is not only condoned, but positively
reinforced, for people like yourself to publicly berate Christians.
First take out the plank from your own eye, then you'll be able to see
clearly to remove the speck from your neighbours eye.
Peter H Metcalfe
den...@paradise.net.nz says...
> First take out the plank from your own eye, then you'll be able to see
> clearly to remove the speck from your neighbours eye.
O Tempora! O Mores!! Whatever happened to "beam" and mote"?
--Peter Metcalfe
LeftBaiter
nz.politics on 21 Oct 2002 22:05:21 -0700, Craig
Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
> http://www.reformed-churches.org.nz/resources/fnf/a102.htm
>
> Fundie scum- picking on kids because they're too scared to front up against
> adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
You know that isn't true Craig.
> No-one can tell me this vermin is not engaged in helping abusive and
> violent parents to rort the current inadequate state of child protection
> law in New Zealand.
>
> Don't worry, I made sure Steve Maharey had a copy of this. By now, so
> has the rest of Cabinet.
I suggest you read the letters column of our daily newspaper where the
arguments are running well in favour of smacking. I don't recall very
many of those people stating their religious affiliations. I would
suggest to you that very many people out there in the real world received
no harm from corporal punishment and that this is another of your
vendettas against Christians and those who dare try to bring up their
children without them being brainwashed by the State.
Denver Fletcher
news:MPG.181fe6ad1...@news.qsi.net.nz...
Artistic license?
I wasn't sure they'd compute to a modern audience.
I think plank and speck are NIV?
Matt Healey
LeftBaiter wrote:
>
> In article <9a5ac3c9.02102...@posting.google.com> in newsgroup
> nz.politics on 21 Oct 2002 22:05:21 -0700, Craig
> Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
> > http://www.reformed-churches.org.nz/resources/fnf/a102.htm
> >
> > Fundie scum- picking on kids because they're too scared to front up against
> > adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
>
> You know that isn't true Craig.
>
> > No-one can tell me this vermin is not engaged in helping abusive and
> > violent parents to rort the current inadequate state of child protection
> > law in New Zealand.
> >
> > Don't worry, I made sure Steve Maharey had a copy of this. By now, so
> > has the rest of Cabinet.
>
> I suggest you read the letters column of our daily newspaper where the
> arguments are running well in favour of smacking.
'our' daily newspaper? anyways newspaper 'letters to the editor' is a
selfselecting sample, far from representative of the general population.
> I don't recall very
> many of those people stating their religious affiliations.
neither do the ID crowd or your cronies at Maxim yet they're fundie
through and through.
>I would
> suggest to you that very many people out there in the real world received
> no harm from corporal punishment
yes and there are people who have come to no harm by being
homosexual/having an abortion. By your argument homosexualituy/abortion
are ok. Thanks LB I'll quote you on that.
any organisation that believes that inflicting physical pain on children
is 'for their own good', needs a large rock hurled through their
windows, cos hey after all 'violence' IS the answer, right kids!
<sarcasm off>
> and that this is another of your
> vendettas against Christians and those who dare try to bring up their
> children without them being brainwashed by the State.
who needs state brainwashing when you've got dogma eh LB.
matt
:p
LeftBaiter
nz.politics on Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:06:59 +1300, Matt
Healey(md...@student.canterbury.ac.nz) said...
>
>
> LeftBaiter wrote:
> >
> > In article <9a5ac3c9.02102...@posting.google.com> in newsgroup
> > nz.politics on 21 Oct 2002 22:05:21 -0700, Craig
> > Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
> > > http://www.reformed-churches.org.nz/resources/fnf/a102.htm
> > >
> > > Fundie scum- picking on kids because they're too scared to front up against
> > > adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
> >
> > You know that isn't true Craig.
> >
> > > No-one can tell me this vermin is not engaged in helping abusive and
> > > violent parents to rort the current inadequate state of child protection
> > > law in New Zealand.
> > >
> > > Don't worry, I made sure Steve Maharey had a copy of this. By now, so
> > > has the rest of Cabinet.
> >
> > I suggest you read the letters column of our daily newspaper where the
> > arguments are running well in favour of smacking.
>
> 'our' daily newspaper? anyways newspaper 'letters to the editor' is a
> selfselecting sample, far from representative of the general population.
A survey has been done, and showed strong opposition.
>
> > I don't recall very
> > many of those people stating their religious affiliations.
>
> neither do the ID crowd or your cronies at Maxim yet they're fundie
> through and through.
A guy called Mark Sadler is the latest to write in supporting smacking,
he wrote an anti-"fundie" letter (full of half truths) to the Listener
recently.
Who's "ID"?
> >I would
> > suggest to you that very many people out there in the real world received
> > no harm from corporal punishment
>
> yes and there are people who have come to no harm by being
> homosexual/having an abortion. By your argument homosexualituy/abortion
> are ok. Thanks LB I'll quote you on that.
>
> any organisation that believes that inflicting physical pain on children
> is 'for their own good', needs a large rock hurled through their
> windows, cos hey after all 'violence' IS the answer, right kids!
> <sarcasm off>
Oh right, abolish the police force seeing as they carry truncheons and
guns and things to defend themselves against those peace loving
criminals.
In some circumstances physical force is justified. Smacking is extremely
low on the scale of physical force.
You can't put your head in the sand and pretend that violence will just
all go away.
Peter H Metcalfe
den...@paradise.net.nz says...
> "Peter H Metcalfe" <metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > den...@paradise.net.nz says...
> > > First take out the plank from your own eye, then you'll be able to see
> > > clearly to remove the speck from your neighbours eye.
> > O Tempora! O Mores!! Whatever happened to "beam" and mote"?
> Artistic license?
Usually that's used to justify improvements to the original
and not debasements.
> I wasn't sure they'd compute to a modern audience.
Well, Niven and Pournelle collaborated on a book called "The
Mote in God's Eye" so it must still have some resonance to
today's debauched generation.
> I think plank and speck are NIV?
Fie! I suppose you're also in the habit of exclaiming "A shadow's
a shadow, the world's a shadow"?
--Peter Metcalfe
Denver Fletcher
news:MPG.18213a60e...@news.qsi.net.nz...
> In article <O%tt9.11683$b5.14...@news02.tsnz.net>,
> den...@paradise.net.nz says...
> > "Peter H Metcalfe" <metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > > den...@paradise.net.nz says...
>
> > > Usually that's used to justify improvements to the original
> > > and not debasements.
>
>
> > Such harsh interpretations ..... ... ... ... You're not jewish, are
you?
>
> It would be a pretty odd jew that preferred the King James.
True.
Bit of a ricochet, that one.
> > > Well, Niven and Pournelle collaborated on a book called "The
> > > Mote in God's Eye" so it must still have some resonance to
> > > today's debauched generation.
>
> > Yeah, and me and you know what he was referring to, and there might
> > be four of us who've read it.
>
> > Let's face it, the philistines are not confined to Philistia.
>
> When David and Saul went to the Philistines, they cut foreskins
> instead of adulterating speech.
Aye, but they were veritable peace-lovers compared to the brothers of
Dinah.
> > > Fie! I suppose you're also in the habit of exclaiming "A shadow's
> > > a shadow, the world's a shadow"?
>
> > No, that'd be my shadow that does that.
>
> Such vanity.
All is vanity, saith the preacher.
Denver Fletcher
news:MPG.18211350c...@news.qsi.net.nz...
> In article <nw9t9.11469$b5.13...@news02.tsnz.net>,
> den...@paradise.net.nz says...
> > "Peter H Metcalfe" <metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > > den...@paradise.net.nz says...
>
> > > > First take out the plank from your own eye, then you'll be able to
see
> > > > clearly to remove the speck from your neighbours eye.
>
> > > O Tempora! O Mores!! Whatever happened to "beam" and mote"?
>
> > Artistic license?
>
> Usually that's used to justify improvements to the original
> and not debasements.
Ouch!
Such harsh interpretations ..... ... ... ... You're not jewish, are you?
> > I wasn't sure they'd compute to a modern audience.
>
> Well, Niven and Pournelle collaborated on a book called "The
> Mote in God's Eye" so it must still have some resonance to
> today's debauched generation.
Yeah, and me and you know what he was referring to, and there might be four
of us who've read it.
Let's face it, the philistines are not confined to Philistia.
> > I think plank and speck are NIV?
>
> Fie! I suppose you're also in the habit of exclaiming "A shadow's
> a shadow, the world's a shadow"?
Peter H Metcalfe
> > den...@paradise.net.nz says...
> > > Artistic license?
> > Usually that's used to justify improvements to the original
> > and not debasements.
> Ouch!
> Such harsh interpretations ..... ... ... ... You're not jewish, are you?
It would be a pretty odd jew that preferred the King James.
> > Well, Niven and Pournelle collaborated on a book called "The
> > Mote in God's Eye" so it must still have some resonance to
> > today's debauched generation.
> Yeah, and me and you know what he was referring to, and there might
> be four of us who've read it.
> Let's face it, the philistines are not confined to Philistia.
When David and Saul went to the Philistines, they cut foreskins
instead of adulterating speech.
> > Fie! I suppose you're also in the habit of exclaiming "A shadow's
> > a shadow, the world's a shadow"?
> No, that'd be my shadow that does that.
Such vanity.
--Peter Metcalfe
Brian Dooley
The Christians got hold of them.
I'm a King James man myself.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Matt Healey
LeftBaiter wrote:
>
> In article <3DB5AFE3...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> in newsgroup
> nz.politics on Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:06:59 +1300, Matt
> Healey(md...@student.canterbury.ac.nz) said...
> >
> >
> > LeftBaiter wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <9a5ac3c9.02102...@posting.google.com> in newsgroup
> > > nz.politics on 21 Oct 2002 22:05:21 -0700, Craig
> > > Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
> > > > http://www.reformed-churches.org.nz/resources/fnf/a102.htm
> > > >
> > > > Fundie scum- picking on kids because they're too scared to front up against
> > > > adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
> > >
> > > You know that isn't true Craig.
> > >
> > > > No-one can tell me this vermin is not engaged in helping abusive and
> > > > violent parents to rort the current inadequate state of child protection
> > > > law in New Zealand.
> > > >
> > > > Don't worry, I made sure Steve Maharey had a copy of this. By now, so
> > > > has the rest of Cabinet.
> > >
> > > I suggest you read the letters column of our daily newspaper where the
> > > arguments are running well in favour of smacking.
> >
> > 'our' daily newspaper? anyways newspaper 'letters to the editor' is a
> > selfselecting sample, far from representative of the general population.
>
> A survey has been done, and showed strong opposition.
'a survey'...commissioned by whom etcetc.
> >
> > > I don't recall very
> > > many of those people stating their religious affiliations.
> >
> > neither do the ID crowd or your cronies at Maxim yet they're fundie
> > through and through.
>
> A guy called Mark Sadler is the latest to write in supporting smacking,
> he wrote an anti-"fundie" letter (full of half truths) to the Listener
> recently.
>
> Who's "ID"?
Intelligent Design.
> > >I would
> > > suggest to you that very many people out there in the real world received
> > > no harm from corporal punishment
> >
> > yes and there are people who have come to no harm by being
> > homosexual/having an abortion. By your argument homosexualituy/abortion
> > are ok. Thanks LB I'll quote you on that.
> >
> > any organisation that believes that inflicting physical pain on children
> > is 'for their own good', needs a large rock hurled through their
> > windows, cos hey after all 'violence' IS the answer, right kids!
> > <sarcasm off>
>
> Oh right, abolish the police force seeing as they carry truncheons and
> guns and things to defend themselves against those peace loving
> criminals.
The police do not have a general rule that says 'smacking the shit out
of people is good for them'. are you suggesting that children should be
treated as criminals.
> In some circumstances physical force is justified.
yip I agree. Though we usually reserve this for when we have no other
option. To use violence to solve a problem where the 'victim' is a
defenseless child is rather excessive (especially where the parent has
zero child management skills and uses violence in the place of other
techniques).
> Smacking is extremely
> low on the scale of physical force.
'you reap what you sow'. If you wish to perpetuate a cycle of violence
within your family ultimately it is your choice.
> You can't put your head in the sand and pretend that violence will just
> all go away.
I tend to have the view that 'conflict/violence' is inevitable, all a
part of the natural order of things. Life is nasty and brutish. So it
seems to me best to avoid it where possible and not to encourage it
especially where acts are committed against the young/defenseless.
matt
:p
LeftBaiter
nz.politics on Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:03:23 +1300, Matt
>
>
> LeftBaiter wrote:
> >
> > In article <3DB5AFE3...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> in newsgroup
> > nz.politics on Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:06:59 +1300, Matt
> > Healey(md...@student.canterbury.ac.nz) said...
> > >
> > >
> > > LeftBaiter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <9a5ac3c9.02102...@posting.google.com> in newsgroup
> > > > nz.politics on 21 Oct 2002 22:05:21 -0700, Craig
> > > > Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
> > > > > http://www.reformed-churches.org.nz/resources/fnf/a102.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Fundie scum- picking on kids because they're too scared to front up against
> > > > > adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
> > > >
> > > > You know that isn't true Craig.
> > > >
> > > > > No-one can tell me this vermin is not engaged in helping abusive and
> > > > > violent parents to rort the current inadequate state of child protection
> > > > > law in New Zealand.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't worry, I made sure Steve Maharey had a copy of this. By now, so
> > > > > has the rest of Cabinet.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest you read the letters column of our daily newspaper where the
> > > > arguments are running well in favour of smacking.
> > >
> > > 'our' daily newspaper? anyways newspaper 'letters to the editor' is a
> > > selfselecting sample, far from representative of the general population.
> >
> > A survey has been done, and showed strong opposition.
>
> 'a survey'...commissioned by whom etcetc.
Justice Department
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0112/S00379.htm
19 December 2001
QUOTE
“Under section 59 parents are justified in using force by way of
correction towards the child ‘if the force used is reasonable in the
circumstances.’
“The survey shows that 80 percent of the public agreed that a person
parenting a child should be allowed by law to smack the child with an
open hand if they are naughty.
“However it showed the public is adamant that this should only occur
within strict limits on the type of force used.
“The use of objects to smack a child and smacking them in the head and
neck areas drew an overwhelmingly negative public response.
“Only 15 percent agreed that a child should be able to be punished with a
wooden spoon or belt.
“Only 1.3 percent agreed that a parent should be legally allowed to smack
a child in the head or neck area.
“A negligible 0.4 percent thought parents should be allowed to use
objects like a piece of wood or an electric cord to physically punish a
child.
“A majority of people (75 percent) believed that only a smack that left
no mark was acceptable. Force, which involved bruising, was found to be
unacceptable by almost everyone.
> > A guy called Mark Sadler is the latest to write in supporting smacking,
> > he wrote an anti-"fundie" letter (full of half truths) to the Listener
> > recently.
> > Oh right, abolish the police force seeing as they carry truncheons and
> > guns and things to defend themselves against those peace loving
> > criminals.
>
> The police do not have a general rule that says 'smacking the shit out
> of people is good for them'. are you suggesting that children should be
> treated as criminals.
I'm not, you are you sadpacker
The police do have rules that say the use of force is justified in
certain circumstances, and they go out on patrol prepared for such
eventualities. Likewise most parents have rules justifying the use of
force ie smacking.
> > Smacking is extremely
> > low on the scale of physical force.
>
> 'you reap what you sow'. If you wish to perpetuate a cycle of violence
> within your family ultimately it is your choice.
The fact that there are many well adjusted people out there who have not
been harmed by smacking suggests this is a simplistic claim.
Craig Young
But is it, or does it describe ways for people who might otherwise be
considered abusive, dysfunctional or violent parents to escape judicial
retribution due to the lack of any substantive definition of what
"reasonable force" is? It looks that way to me.
Craig
Craig Young
We are talking about child batterers here. Religious freedom is one thing,
but some fundamentalists preach a twisted doctrine of religious liberty
which seems to mean that if you're religious, you can take any liberty
you please. Religious "liberty" has to take a back seat to the very real
risk that tolerance for violent, abusive and dysfunctional families will
result in the next generation of violent offenders. And in my opinion,
this article has grave implications, for it suggests that some fundamentalist
lawyers are trying to manipulate loopholes in the law to get abusive,
dysfunctional and violent people off due to the "reasonable force" excuse.
Would conservatives tolerate this situation if these were adult victims?
No, and rightly not, for violent crime demands the harshest penalties.
Shouldn't we be far, far more concerned when it is children who are
victims of violence?
Craig
Craig Young
> > adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
>
> You know that isn't true Craig.
>
> > No-one can tell me this vermin is not engaged in helping abusive and
> > violent parents to rort the current inadequate state of child protection
> > law in New Zealand.
> >
> > Don't worry, I made sure Steve Maharey had a copy of this. By now, so
> > has the rest of Cabinet.
>
> I suggest you read the letters column of our daily newspaper where the
> arguments are running well in favour of smacking. I don't recall very
> many of those people stating their religious affiliations. I would
> suggest to you that very many people out there in the real world received
> no harm from corporal punishment and that this is another of your
> vendettas against Christians and those who dare try to bring up their
> children without them being brainwashed by the State.
I know an orchestrated fundamentalist letter blitz campaign when I see
one. Those correspondents aren't normal New Zealanders, they're
fundamentalist zealots- or did you really think I didn't know about
Craig Smith (Homeschoolers Assn), Bruce Logan's diatribe on the Maxim
Institute website, etc?
Why can't the raving right get it through their thick skulls- today's
battered children are tomorrow's violent offenders, because they will
have been taught that arbitrary violence in pursuit of personal
objectives is perfectly moral?
Look at van Wichen's article. He is talking about exploiting the
"reasonable force" section of Section 59, in order to insure that
violent, dysfunctional abusive monsters get off.
Fundamentalist Christians have the right to freedom of association,
worship, speech, conscience and belief in a multicultural, multifaith
society, but when they set out to intentionally harm others, then
they must be stopped. Particularly when it comes to sheltering scum
who batter children. It is not about "smacking," repeal of Section 59
is about child battery.
I wouldn't have a problem with so-called fundamentalist family values if
the families that they valued weren't so twisted, warped, violent and
abnormal.
Craig
Craig Young
next generation of violent offenders...
> > and that this is another of your
> > vendettas against Christians and those who dare try to bring up their
> > children without them being brainwashed by the State.
>
> who needs state brainwashing when you've got dogma eh LB.
>
According to at least one medical law case, parental religious "freedom"
is limited when it comes to Jehovahs Witnesses parents and medical
treatment for children with haemotological problems. In that case, the
State is entitled to step in and protect child welfare. Why should there
be analogous religious excuses when it comes to toleration of child
battery and exploitation of the "reasonable force" excuse, which seems
to be overly ambiguous when it comes to an exact definition?
Craig
Matt Healey
LeftBaiter wrote:
>
> In article <3DB7008B...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> in newsgroup
> nz.politics on Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:03:23 +1300, Matt
> Healey(md...@student.canterbury.ac.nz) said...
> >
> >
> > LeftBaiter wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3DB5AFE3...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> in newsgroup
> > > nz.politics on Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:06:59 +1300, Matt
> > > Healey(md...@student.canterbury.ac.nz) said...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > LeftBaiter wrote:
SNIP
> > 'a survey'...commissioned by whom etcetc.
>
> Justice Department
>
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0112/S00379.htm
cool (even though its a year old).
> 19 December 2001
>
> QUOTE
>
> “Under section 59 parents are justified in using force by way of
> correction towards the child ‘if the force used is reasonable in the
> circumstances.’
>
> “The survey shows that 80 percent of the public agreed that a person
> parenting a child should be allowed by law to smack the child with an
> open hand if they are naughty.
>
> “However it showed the public is adamant that this should only occur
> within strict limits on the type of force used.
>
> “The use of objects to smack a child and smacking them in the head and
> neck areas drew an overwhelmingly negative public response.
>
> “Only 15 percent agreed that a child should be able to be punished with a
> wooden spoon or belt.
>
> “Only 1.3 percent agreed that a parent should be legally allowed to smack
> a child in the head or neck area.
>
> “A negligible 0.4 percent thought parents should be allowed to use
> objects like a piece of wood or an electric cord to physically punish a
> child.
>
> “A majority of people (75 percent) believed that only a smack that left
> no mark was acceptable. Force, which involved bruising, was found to be
> unacceptable by almost everyone.
it appears we are arguing over a matter of degree. Like most people in
the survey I see no problem with a single smack on the bum (with
caveats...)
> > > A guy called Mark Sadler is the latest to write in supporting smacking,
> > > he wrote an anti-"fundie" letter (full of half truths) to the Listener
> > > recently.
>
> > > Oh right, abolish the police force seeing as they carry truncheons and
> > > guns and things to defend themselves against those peace loving
> > > criminals.
> >
> > The police do not have a general rule that says 'smacking the shit out
> > of people is good for them'. are you suggesting that children should be
> > treated as criminals.
>
> I'm not, you are you sadpacker
coool is it my turn to insult you now.....you knob-end! (your turn...)
> The police do have rules that say the use of force is justified in
> certain circumstances, and they go out on patrol prepared for such
> eventualities. Likewise most parents have rules justifying the use of
> force ie smacking.
yes and the police are hated for it (do you really wish for an analagous
relationship between police-crinimals as between parents-children). If
you wish to use violence as means of achieving an end then go for it. If
I believed in Karma I would be smugly sure in the knowledge that one day
you'll get yours in return ;)
> > > Smacking is extremely
> > > low on the scale of physical force.
> >
> > 'you reap what you sow'. If you wish to perpetuate a cycle of violence
> > within your family ultimately it is your choice.
>
> The fact that there are many well adjusted people out there who have not
> been harmed by smacking suggests this is a simplistic claim.
not really. The claim is valid (some people have survived fine from
being shot in the head, is shooting people in the head a desired course
of action then??), but in this situation I'm guilty of misapplication
(we seem to be talking at cross purposes). You are arguing that the
parent should be able to smack (low grade, minimal violence, with no
accessories), and that this is ok and their right. Fairynuff (though I'd
like to see you defend this claim to a 'right')
I was suggesting that using violence to solve a problem is often
unnecessary, undesirable and often detrimental, especially where
children are involved. What you are refering to is not 'violence' in the
sense of physical abuse etcetc (I'm sure we both agree this is not
desirable). In the way that (the survey) presented smacking it serves as
little more than a 'bridging stimulus' in the context of
reinforcement/punishment. I would only object where it is used as way of
inciting fear in children (see xstianity).
has a middle ground been reached? Or do you wish to defend your right to
smack the crap out of your kids with a stick/belt if they are naughty.
matt
:p
Denver Fletcher
> We are talking about child batterers here.
Are we?
I'm not.
> Religious freedom is one thing,
> but some fundamentalists preach a twisted doctrine of religious liberty
Some?
Why then do they all seem to be included?
> which seems to mean that if you're religious, you can take any liberty
> you please. Religious "liberty" has to take a back seat to the very
real
> risk that tolerance for violent, abusive and dysfunctional families
will
> result in the next generation of violent offenders. And in my opinion,
> this article has grave implications, for it suggests that some
fundamentalist
> lawyers are trying to manipulate loopholes in the law to get abusive,
> dysfunctional and violent people off due to the "reasonable force"
excuse.
It is not an excuse, it is the law.
If the judge considers the force used to be reasonable then, ipso facto, it
IS reasonable.
> Would conservatives tolerate this situation if these were adult
victims?
But they DO tolerate it. Much of the law is written like this.
LeftBaiter
Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
> "Denver Fletcher" <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<CC8t9.11441$b5.13...@news02.tsnz.net>...
> > "Craig Young" <lavendarm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:9a5ac3c9.02102...@posting.google.com...
> > > http://www.reformed-churches.org.nz/resources/fnf/a102.htm
> > >
> > > Fundie scum- picking on kids because they're too scared to front up
> > against
> > > adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
> > >
> > > No-one can tell me this vermin is not engaged in helping abusive and
> > > violent parents to rort the current inadequate state of child protection
> > > law in New Zealand.
> > >
> > > Don't worry, I made sure Steve Maharey had a copy of this. By now, so
> > > has the rest of Cabinet.
> >
> >
> >
> > You might care to reflect on it having become unacceptable to publicly
> > berate homosexuals but somehow it is not only condoned, but positively
> > reinforced, for people like yourself to publicly berate Christians.
> >
> > First take out the plank from your own eye, then you'll be able to see
> > clearly to remove the speck from your neighbours eye.
>
>
> We are talking about child batterers here.
Absolute bulldust. Do you have any evidence at all that this is not
another figment of your hatred for Christianity?
> Religious freedom is one thing,
> but some fundamentalists preach a twisted doctrine of religious liberty
> which seems to mean that if you're religious, you can take any liberty
> you please.
Really? Which ones?
> Religious "liberty" has to take a back seat to the very real
> risk that tolerance for violent, abusive and dysfunctional families will
> result in the next generation of violent offenders. And in my opinion,
> this article has grave implications, for it suggests that some fundamentalist
> lawyers are trying to manipulate loopholes in the law to get abusive,
> dysfunctional and violent people off due to the "reasonable force" excuse.
That isn't the way I read it of course, it lists examples of how the law
has been interpreted in the past, that's all.
> Would conservatives tolerate this situation if these were adult victims?
> No, and rightly not, for violent crime demands the harshest penalties.
> Shouldn't we be far, far more concerned when it is children who are
> victims of violence?
But that isn't what you are about. You are telling us that all Christians
who are on the political right hate children. Most certainly a false and
abominably vile statement.
Hugh Young
>I suggest you read the letters column of our daily newspaper where the
>arguments are running well in favour of smacking. I don't recall very
>many of those people stating their religious affiliations.
Contact (Wellington region weekly freeby) Oct 17:
Spanking works wonderfully
"He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent
to discipline him" (Proverbs 13:24). Spanking is the loving way to
correct and discipline childgen. Spanking is also an expression of my
Christian faith....
> I would
>suggest to you that very many people out there in the real world received
>no harm from corporal punishment
The very fact that those who were corporally punished want to go on
doing it is evidence that violence breeds violence.
> and that this is another of your
>vendettas against Christians and those who dare try to bring up their
>children without them being brainwashed by the State.
State (society/community) brainwashing bad, parental brainwashing
good, eh?
LeftBaiter
nz.politics on Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:03:24 +1300, Matt
The only people to whom this matters is the criminal fraternity, the rest
of law abiding society believe the police are entitled to use reasonable
force for obvious reasons.
> (do you really wish for an analagous
> relationship between police-crinimals as between parents-children). If
> you wish to use violence as means of achieving an end then go for it. If
> I believed in Karma I would be smugly sure in the knowledge that one day
> you'll get yours in return ;)
I don't believe in revenge. Whoever invented the idea was not a nice
person were they.
snip
> I was suggesting that using violence to solve a problem is often
> unnecessary, undesirable and often detrimental, especially where
> children are involved. What you are refering to is not 'violence' in the
> sense of physical abuse etcetc (I'm sure we both agree this is not
> desirable). In the way that (the survey) presented smacking it serves as
> little more than a 'bridging stimulus' in the context of
> reinforcement/punishment. I would only object where it is used as way of
> inciting fear in children (see xstianity).
>
> has a middle ground been reached? Or do you wish to defend your right to
> smack the crap out of your kids with a stick/belt if they are naughty.
no
LeftBaiter
Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
> > > Fundie scum- picking on kids because they're too scared to front up against
> > > adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
> >
> Yeah, right, so why has Dunne caved in over civil union laws?
Has he, though?
> > You know that isn't true Craig.
> >
> > > No-one can tell me this vermin is not engaged in helping abusive and
> > > violent parents to rort the current inadequate state of child protection
> > > law in New Zealand.
> > >
> > > Don't worry, I made sure Steve Maharey had a copy of this. By now, so
> > > has the rest of Cabinet.
> >
> > I suggest you read the letters column of our daily newspaper where the
> > arguments are running well in favour of smacking. I don't recall very
> > many of those people stating their religious affiliations. I would
> > suggest to you that very many people out there in the real world received
> > no harm from corporal punishment and that this is another of your
> > vendettas against Christians and those who dare try to bring up their
> > children without them being brainwashed by the State.
>
> I know an orchestrated fundamentalist letter blitz campaign when I see
> one. Those correspondents aren't normal New Zealanders, they're
> fundamentalist zealots- or did you really think I didn't know about
> Craig Smith (Homeschoolers Assn), Bruce Logan's diatribe on the Maxim
> Institute website, etc?
This thread has nothing to do with fundamentalist zealotry and everything
to do with anti Christian zeolotry emanating from persons such as
yourself.
One of the recent correspondents was Mark D Sadler who also wrote a
letter (full of half truths) to the Listener recently. He supported
smacking and also made it very clear he was not a Christian.
Bruce Logan is a very reasonable even tempered fellow - he is not one to
use forums such as newsgroups to post false statements about people he
disagrees with.
> Why can't the raving right get it through their thick skulls- today's
> battered children are tomorrow's violent offenders, because they will
> have been taught that arbitrary violence in pursuit of personal
> objectives is perfectly moral?
Because that isn't true.
The raving right if that is what you wish to call us, have all been
brought up this way and have found through personal experience that
spanking of the type that 80% of respondents supported in a recent survey
by the justice department does no permanent harm to the personality of
the child.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that "arbitrary violence in pursuit of
personal objectives is perfectly moral" except that you have defined it
very broadly to include smacking of children, for your own political
ends.
> Look at van Wichen's article. He is talking about exploiting the
> "reasonable force" section of Section 59, in order to insure that
> violent, dysfunctional abusive monsters get off.
Oh, rubbish.
Capill (say) a violent dysfunctional monster? Where? Do you have any
evidence he has a violent personality? Really?
> Fundamentalist Christians have the right to freedom of association,
> worship, speech, conscience and belief in a multicultural, multifaith
> society, but when they set out to intentionally harm others, then
> they must be stopped. Particularly when it comes to sheltering scum
> who batter children. It is not about "smacking," repeal of Section 59
> is about child battery.
The law as it stands is supported by about 80% of the entire population
of New Zealand. Many of whom are not Christians.
I see no evidence that any fundamentalist Christians have advocated the
use of the present law for the purposes of child battery, unless you
advocate that smacking is child battery, of course.
> I wouldn't have a problem with so-called fundamentalist family values if
> the families that they valued weren't so twisted, warped, violent and
> abnormal.
Is that a self portrait? Isn't it time you stopped blaming Christianity
at large for your upbringing?
LeftBaiter
Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
Hogwash.
Do you have the slightest evidence that fundamentalist Christians are
disproportionately represented in convictions for violent crime?
> > > and that this is another of your
> > > vendettas against Christians and those who dare try to bring up their
> > > children without them being brainwashed by the State.
> >
> > who needs state brainwashing when you've got dogma eh LB.
> >
> According to at least one medical law case, parental religious "freedom"
> is limited when it comes to Jehovahs Witnesses parents and medical
> treatment for children with haemotological problems. In that case, the
> State is entitled to step in and protect child welfare. Why should there
> be analogous religious excuses when it comes to toleration of child
> battery and exploitation of the "reasonable force" excuse, which seems
> to be overly ambiguous when it comes to an exact definition?
But there aren't.
Matt Healey
LeftBaiter wrote:
>
> In article <3DB71CAC...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> in newsgroup
> nz.politics on Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:03:24 +1300, Matt
> Healey(md...@student.canterbury.ac.nz) said...
SNIP
> > > The police do have rules that say the use of force is justified in
> > > certain circumstances, and they go out on patrol prepared for such
> > > eventualities. Likewise most parents have rules justifying the use of
> > > force ie smacking.
> >
> > yes and the police are hated for it
>
> The only people to whom this matters is the criminal fraternity
so you'd be prepared to say that never has there been an injustice
committed by the police upon an innocent party.....in an ideal world
maybe (oopps no need for police in an ideal world ;))
> the rest
> of law abiding society believe the police are entitled to use reasonable
> force for obvious reasons.
>
> > (do you really wish for an analagous
> > relationship between police-crinimals as between parents-children). If
> > you wish to use violence as means of achieving an end then go for it. If
> > I believed in Karma I would be smugly sure in the knowledge that one day
> > you'll get yours in return ;)
>
> I don't believe in revenge.
whats that got to do with Karma?
> Whoever invented the idea was not a nice
> person were they.
prolly the same person invented it as the one who first said "if you
don't believe you're gonna burnburnburn".
good ole religion: scaring people into compliance for over 4000years.
> snip
>
> > I was suggesting that using violence to solve a problem is often
> > unnecessary, undesirable and often detrimental, especially where
> > children are involved. What you are refering to is not 'violence' in the
> > sense of physical abuse etcetc (I'm sure we both agree this is not
> > desirable). In the way that (the survey) presented smacking it serves as
> > little more than a 'bridging stimulus' in the context of
> > reinforcement/punishment. I would only object where it is used as way of
> > inciting fear in children (see xstianity).
> >
> > has a middle ground been reached? Or do you wish to defend your right to
> > smack the crap out of your kids with a stick/belt if they are naughty.
>
> no
'k
matt
:p
Craig Young
> > > > suggest to you that very many people out there in the real world received
> > > > no harm from corporal punishment
> > >
Western European societies, which also have low rates of violent
criminal offending? And why does "End the Physical Punishment of
Children" have a list of references that do indicate contingent
harm from out of control violent, abusive parenting.
> > > > > >
> > Yeah, but the problem is, the kids grow up believing that, and hello,
> > next generation of violent offenders...
>
> Hogwash.
>
> Do you have the slightest evidence that fundamentalist Christians are
> disproportionately represented in convictions for violent crime?
>
> > > > and that this is another of your
> > > > vendettas against Christians and those who dare try to bring up their
> > > > children without them being brainwashed by the State.
> > >
> > > who needs state brainwashing when you've got dogma eh LB.
> > >
> > According to at least one medical law case, parental religious "freedom"
> > is limited when it comes to Jehovahs Witnesses parents and medical
> > treatment for children with haemotological problems. In that case, the
> > State is entitled to step in and protect child welfare. Why should there
> > be analogous religious excuses when it comes to toleration of child
> > battery and exploitation of the "reasonable force" excuse, which seems
> > to be overly ambiguous when it comes to an exact definition?
>
> But there aren't.
Then why did van Wichen's article appear to clearly demonstrate the contrary,
which is that there *is* no satisfactory definition of "reasonable force"
within Section 59 that is based on sound, evidence-based pediatric data?
Moreover, why does the NZ Pediatrics Society favour repeal?
Craig
Craig Young
> to do with anti Christian zeolotry emanating from persons such as
> yourself.
>
condone and facilitate violence against children.
> One of the recent correspondents was Mark D Sadler who also wrote a
> letter (full of half truths) to the Listener recently. He supported
> smacking and also made it very clear he was not a Christian.
>
If I remember Mark from ChCh correctly, he is a Democrat Party member,
which should speak for itself. Sorry, he's a flake.
> Bruce Logan is a very reasonable even tempered fellow - he is not one to
> use forums such as newsgroups to post false statements about people he
> disagrees with.
>
Bullshit. Bruce Logan works at fundamentalist Middleton Grange School,
where Graham Capill's dad taught and where Graham Capill himself went to
school. His Maxim Institute website has strong connections to ACT and
he runs a right-wing website called "The Silent Majority" as well as
Evidence, a glossy miserable excuse for a policy journal.
> > Why can't the raving right get it through their thick skulls- today's
> > battered children are tomorrow's violent offenders, because they will
> > have been taught that arbitrary violence in pursuit of personal
> > objectives is perfectly moral?
>
> Because that isn't true.
>
> The raving right if that is what you wish to call us, have all been
> brought up this way and have found through personal experience that
> spanking of the type that 80% of respondents supported in a recent survey
> by the justice department does no permanent harm to the personality of
> the child.
>
Oh, what an interesting semantic slip that is. You people start talking
about "smacking" and suddenly you escalate to "spanking", which involves
escalation in the use of violence against children...
> I don't recall anyone suggesting that "arbitrary violence in pursuit of
> personal objectives is perfectly moral" except that you have defined it
> very broadly to include smacking of children, for your own political
> ends.
>
Which are to make sure that children don't get battered and killed
because of violent and abusive parents.
> >
>
> > > Fundamentalist Christians have the right to freedom of association,
> > worship, speech, conscience and belief in a multicultural, multifaith
> > society, but when they set out to intentionally harm others, then
> > they must be stopped. Particularly when it comes to sheltering scum
> > who batter children. It is not about "smacking," repeal of Section 59
> > is about child battery.
>
> The law as it stands is supported by about 80% of the entire population
> of New Zealand. Many of whom are not Christians.
>
That is based on poorly designed statistical measures. There needs to
be more detailed polling related to more vicious forms of physical abuse,
which are tolerated as "reasonable force."
> I see no evidence that any fundamentalist Christians have advocated the
> use of the present law for the purposes of child battery, unless you
> advocate that smacking is child battery, of course.
>
Read van Wichen's article, moron.
> > I wouldn't have a problem with so-called fundamentalist family values if
> > the families that they valued weren't so twisted, warped, violent and
> > abnormal.
>
> Is that a self portrait? Isn't it time you stopped blaming Christianity
> at large for your upbringing?
Er, I have a PhD, and a well-paid professional job. Blaming Christianity
for what, exactly? Don't flatter yourself, you fundie freak.
Craig
Craig Young
Flannagan
A couple of points
First this article does not define "literal" interpretation or
"fundamentalism" seeing these are vague and often pejorative terms
used that are inaccurately used I'd be careful of equivocation
fallacies in drawing conclusions from such research.
Second, the article cited shows there is a correlation between certain
attitude towards scripture and the use of corporal punishment of some
sort. This does not show that fundamentalists "hate children or that
they support domestic violence unless of course you adopt wide
interpretations of these terms. But if you do adopt non standard
definitions of such terms, then your conclusion does not affirm what
it appears to affirm, instead of affirming that "fundamentalists"
support domestic violence with the normal connations such a word has
it means only that they support corporal punishment of some sort.
Third the article cites an alleged contradiction. However there is no
contradiction a all. A contradiction occurs when one both affirms and
denys a proposition. This does not occur here, the phrase "spare the
rod spoil the child" is the negated by " it is not the case that if
you spare the rod you will spoil the child". The passage affirmed
however says that one should not prevent children entering the kingdom
of heaven or showing them love. In order to prove a contradiction one
who have to offer an argument that discipling a child is never loving
and that a child who is disciplined will never enter the kingdom of
heaven.
In essence this "research" in fact is based on an unargued for ( a
controversial) ethical assumption, and pejorative use of language in
definitions.
Matt
your conclusion sees to be interesting. When you say people hate
children you mean that they sometimes support corporal punishment
lavendarm...@yahoo.com (Craig Young) wrote in message news:<9a5ac3c9.02102...@posting.google.com>...
> http://www.reformed-churches.org.nz/resources/fnf/a102.htm
>
> Fundie scum- picking on kids because they're too scared to front up against
> adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
>
> No-one can tell me this vermin is not engaged in helping abusive and
> violent parents to rort the current inadequate state of child protection
> law in New Zealand.
>
> Don't worry, I made sure Steve Maharey had a copy of this. By now, so
> has the rest of Cabinet.
>
> Craig
Flannagan
>
> We are talking about child batterers here. Religious freedom is one thing,
> but some fundamentalists preach a twisted doctrine of religious liberty
> which seems to mean that if you're religious, you can take any liberty
> you please. Religious "liberty" has to take a back seat to the very real
> risk that tolerance for violent, abusive and dysfunctional families will
> result in the next generation of violent offenders. And in my opinion,
> this article has grave implications, for it suggests that some fundamentalist
> lawyers are trying to manipulate loopholes in the law to get abusive,
> dysfunctional and violent people off due to the "reasonable force" excuse.
Actually what you cited said nothing about "child battery" or
"abusive" families or "dysfunctional" families. It was about corporal
punishment of some sort. Here you are again without argument
suggesting that any use of force in any context is on child battery.
This is about as sensible as saying that any form of time out is on
par with the wost type of kidnapping. Or any confiscation of property
as a punishment is on par with armed robbery.
> Would conservatives tolerate this situation if these were adult victims?
> No, and rightly not, for violent crime demands the harshest penalties.
> Shouldn't we be far, far more concerned when it is children who are
> victims of violence?
Well here you are saying it is OK to use force on adults as a form of
discipline. Why do you tolerate abusive dysfunctional governments?
Matt
Flannagan
> The police do not have a general rule that says 'smacking the shit out
> of people is good for them'. are you suggesting that children should be
> treated as criminals.
But no one ever said that it was permissable to "smack the shit out of
people". Further your comment about children and criminals is apt, a
criminal is an adult who violates the rules laid down by the
government of society. When someone does that we use force against
them. Incareation is a form of force (its not optional) and it is
backed up by violence should we refuse to exist.
Similarly children are people who violate the rules laid down the
authority in their home. The parents when they do this this is backed
up by force.
In both cases there are and should be limits on how much force is used
and the harshness of punishment etc. But to suggest that no force
should be used because " violence doesn't solve anything is rubbish"
if threats of violence does not solve anything why does Craig support
hate crimes legislation?
> > In some circumstances physical force is justified.
> yip I agree. Though we usually reserve this for when we have no other
> option. To use violence to solve a problem where the 'victim' is a
> defenseless child is rather excessive (especially where the parent has
> zero child management skills and uses violence in the place of other
> techniques).
First, your wrong here we do not only use force when we have no other
option. Whenever a person commits a crime and is found guilty force is
used. I have yet to see a law of which it is voluntary to follow, or
the person freely chooses to go to prision when he violates it.
Second, you assume that any parent who uses force has zero child
management skills. Hardly, I suppose that the Government has zero
citizen skills if it did, we would all live in a utopia where everyone
volunarily obeyed the law and criminals turned themselves in and
freely did time.
> 'you reap what you sow'. If you wish to perpetuate a cycle of violence
> within your family ultimately it is your choice.
The same argument would justfy abolishing the criminal code, after all
the government reaps what it sows, by using force to back up its laws
it perpetautes a cycle of violence.
>
> I tend to have the view that 'conflict/violence' is inevitable, all a
> part of the natural order of things. Life is nasty and brutish. So it
> seems to me best to avoid it where possible and not to encourage it
> especially where acts are committed against the young/defenseless.
I disagree we should not avoid it where possible, but rather avoid it
where it is unjustified.
I cannot understand why those on the left want to have a big
government which uses force to solve nearly every major social problem
and yet try and tell us they are opposed to the use of force. What
they really mean is they want all force power and authority to be
centralised in the hands of the state
Thats abusive.
Matt
>
> :p
Flannagan
> Western European societies, which also have low rates of violent
> criminal offending? And why does "End the Physical Punishment of
> Children" have a list of references that do indicate contingent
> harm from out of control violent, abusive parenting.
China has a low crime rate two, I am sure that if I told criminals
that I would slaughter their family that might deter crime ( it works
for the mafia). In fact the Levitt research you and I are familar with
entails that infanticide practised upon certain segments of the
population should lower the crime rate.
The fact that a law would reduce crime does not entail that the law is
just.
> > But there aren't.
>
> Then why did van Wichen's article appear to clearly demonstrate the contrary,
> which is that there *is* no satisfactory definition of "reasonable force"
> within Section 59 that is based on sound, evidence-based pediatric data?
> Moreover, why does the NZ Pediatrics Society favour repeal?
This is the fallacy of the beard, the existence of dawn does not
negate the distinction between night and day. Similarly the existence
of a fuzzy boundary does not negate the distinction between reasonable
and unreasonable force.
By the way the courts rule on reasonable force all the time self
defence laws allow people to use reasonable force, and sometime these
laws are used as an excuse for revenge. Perhaps we should repeal laws
that allow Gay men to defend themselves from assault?
Matt
Sue Bilstein
Your viewpoint is unique.
LeftBaiter
Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
> > This thread has nothing to do with fundamentalist zealotry and everything
> > to do with anti Christian zeolotry emanating from persons such as
> > yourself.
> >
> You're right there, it has to do with fundamentalist Christians who
> condone and facilitate violence against children.
Really? Are there any?
> > One of the recent correspondents was Mark D Sadler who also wrote a
> > letter (full of half truths) to the Listener recently. He supported
> > smacking and also made it very clear he was not a Christian.
> >
> If I remember Mark from ChCh correctly, he is a Democrat Party member,
> which should speak for itself. Sorry, he's a flake.
So the qualification for someone being a flake is that they don't belong
to Rainbow Labour?
> > Bruce Logan is a very reasonable even tempered fellow - he is not one to
> > use forums such as newsgroups to post false statements about people he
> > disagrees with.
> >
> Bullshit. Bruce Logan works at fundamentalist Middleton Grange School,
> where Graham Capill's dad taught and where Graham Capill himself went to
> school. His Maxim Institute website has strong connections to ACT and
> he runs a right-wing website called "The Silent Majority" as well as
> Evidence, a glossy miserable excuse for a policy journal.
That's evidence of using newsgroups to post false statements how?
> > > Why can't the raving right get it through their thick skulls- today's
> > > battered children are tomorrow's violent offenders, because they will
> > > have been taught that arbitrary violence in pursuit of personal
> > > objectives is perfectly moral?
> >
> > Because that isn't true.
> >
> > The raving right if that is what you wish to call us, have all been
> > brought up this way and have found through personal experience that
> > spanking of the type that 80% of respondents supported in a recent survey
> > by the justice department does no permanent harm to the personality of
> > the child.
> >
> Oh, what an interesting semantic slip that is. You people start talking
> about "smacking" and suddenly you escalate to "spanking", which involves
> escalation in the use of violence against children...
No, the connotation only exists in your mind where you have exhibited
this fondless for twisting the words in sexually perverse fashions.
> > The law as it stands is supported by about 80% of the entire population
> > of New Zealand. Many of whom are not Christians.
> >
> That is based on poorly designed statistical measures.
Yes of course. They weren't done by the Rainbow Labour wing of the Labour
Party, therefore they are automatically wrong.
> There needs to
> be more detailed polling related to more vicious forms of physical abuse,
> which are tolerated as "reasonable force."
The polling was very clear on what was actually supported by the 80% of
people, which they considered reasonable force.
> > I see no evidence that any fundamentalist Christians have advocated the
> > use of the present law for the purposes of child battery, unless you
> > advocate that smacking is child battery, of course.
> >
> Read van Wichen's article, moron.
You're twisting it.
> > > I wouldn't have a problem with so-called fundamentalist family values if
> > > the families that they valued weren't so twisted, warped, violent and
> > > abnormal.
> >
> > Is that a self portrait? Isn't it time you stopped blaming Christianity
> > at large for your upbringing?
>
> Er, I have a PhD, and a well-paid professional job. Blaming Christianity
> for what, exactly? Don't flatter yourself, you fundie freak.
A PhD dissertation on your loathing of Christianity. (By the way, when
was your qualification awarded?)
I read articles where you constantly referred to your fundamentalist
upbringing with apparent loathing.
LeftBaiter
> > use of the present law for the purposes of child battery, unless you
> > advocate that smacking is child battery, of course.
> >
> Read van Wichen's article, moron.
Van Wichen is a lawyer. His article gives a legal opinion on the law and
its interpretation. It is no more than that.
Flannagan
>
> Fundie scum- picking on kids because they're too scared to front up against
> adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
In your dreams.
>
> Don't worry, I made sure Steve Maharey had a copy of this. By now, so
> has the rest of Cabinet.
>
> Craig
Why waste your time, If Steve Maharey's past record is anything to go
on, if he needs information about people whoses political views he
disagree with he will simply make it up.
btw Craig do you know Alayna Ashby?
Matt
LeftBaiter
nz.politics on 25 Oct 2002 23:18:24 -0700, Flannagan(n...@soul.org.nz)
said...
I made sure our friends in Parliament have a copy of this example of how
people are twisting what is a straightforward legal opinion into all the
stuff mentioned above.
Flannagan
> I made sure our friends in Parliament have a copy of this example of how
> people are twisting what is a straightforward legal opinion into all the
> stuff mentioned above.
Great,
Maharey needs to be challenged about the slanderous things he has said
about other people.
Matt
(by the way great handle)
LeftBaiter
Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
The means for providing that can only be the present law. The legal
opinions in the article cite case law, which refers to precedents set by
interpretation of that law in existing cases.
LeftBaiter
Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
> http://jcgrow.tripod.com/cpprotestant.html
>
> Oh look, van Wichen's article is *not* the only evidence available that
> there's a fundamentalism/family violence linkage.
Neither van Wichen's article nor the one you quote are evidence of that.
Craig Young
> In article <4e3facfd.02102...@posting.google.com> in newsgroup
> nz.politics on 25 Oct 2002 23:18:24 -0700, Flannagan(n...@soul.org.nz)
> said...
> > lavendarm...@yahoo.com (Craig Young) wrote in message news:<9a5ac3c9.02102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > http://www.reformed-churches.org.nz/resources/fnf/a102.htm
> > >
> > > Fundie scum- picking on kids because they're too scared to front up against
> > > adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
> >
> > In your dreams.
> >
> > >
> > > Don't worry, I made sure Steve Maharey had a copy of this. By now, so
> > > has the rest of Cabinet.
> > >
And EPOCH, which I recently joined.
> > > Craig
> >
> > Why waste your time, If Steve Maharey's past record is anything to go
> > on, if he needs information about people whoses political views he
> > disagree with he will simply make it up.
>
What, like Muriel Newman and her extremist views about cutting off
escape routes for female and child survivors of domestic violence
under the euphemism "shared parenting?"
> I made sure our friends in Parliament have a copy of this example of how
> people are twisting what is a straightforward legal opinion into all the
> stuff mentioned above.
Suit yourself, matey. We all know that some sectors of the fundamentalist
Christian community *do* have something to hide about violence against
children, and I will not stop until I expose it.
Craig Young
> LeftBaiter <no...@il.thanks> wrote in message > > > > Fundie scum- picking on kids because they're too scared to front up against
> > > > adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
> > >
> > > In your dreams.
> > >
> > > >
for the last three years, and so on into the forseeable future. United
Future's fundie contingent may throw a temper tantrum over the civil
union bill and queer adoption, but we still have the numbers to pass it.
And you must have missed the introduction of over the counter emergency
contraception and medical abortion over the last two years.
The nineties ended three years ago, Matt. National was decimated at
the last general election, and ACT continually hovers on the point
of not being there at all.
> > >
> > > > > I made sure our friends in Parliament have a copy of this example of how people are twisting what is a straightforward legal opinion into all the stuff mentioned above.
>
> Your friends in Parliament- Muriel Newman, Deborah Coddington, Stephen
Franks (ACT), Dail Jones (NZF), Phil Heatley (Nats), Bernie Ogilvy,
Marc Alexander, Gordon Copeland, Phil Adams, Larry Baldock (United
Future).
Mine?...heh heh heh heh heh...
Craig
Flannagan
> > >
> > > Why waste your time, If Steve Maharey's past record is anything to go
> > > on, if he needs information about people whoses political views he
> > > disagree with he will simply make it up.
> >
> What, like Muriel Newman and her extremist views about cutting off
> escape routes for female and child survivors of domestic violence
> under the euphemism "shared parenting?"
I really don't see the point in this response. I noted that Maherey
has a history of making things up ( or at best defaming) people if it
is in his political interests to do so. Your response is to say that
Newman does as well.
So what, If Newman does do this the question is wether she is wrong
for doing so, if yes then so is Maherey if no what is your complaint
about her?
I was an activist in the tertairy education sector when Maharey was in
opposition and know of cases where he made public commenst which were
false and in one incident seriously defamatory in order to advance his
political hobby horses. Do you dispute this?
>
> Suit yourself, matey. We all know that some sectors of the fundamentalist
> Christian community *do* have something to hide about violence against
> children, and I will not stop until I expose it.
Assuming there is such a thing as the "fundamentalist" christian
community you could well be right that some members of this community
abuse their children in secret this is true of all sectors of society.
Some Gays proably do to again So what?
What you claimed was that this community as a whole hates children,
and you argued this by simply defining corporal punishment of any sort
as domestic violence. If you want to define domestic violence this way
you can but it proves nothing. If I choose to define the word labour
party member as pathological liar I have not proved anything about the
honesty of labour party members, I have simply shown that I can use
the english language in an unusual way.
Matt
Flannagan
> for the last three years, and so on into the forseeable future. United
> Future's fundie contingent may throw a temper tantrum over the civil
> union bill and queer adoption, but we still have the numbers to pass it.
> And you must have missed the introduction of over the counter emergency
> contraception and medical abortion over the last two years.
>
> The nineties ended three years ago, Matt. National was decimated at
> the last general election, and ACT continually hovers on the point
> of not being there at all.
> > > >
None of this shows that I am too scared to front up to Gay activists.
If you think that I am scared of you or your friends you are dreaming.
Incidently Pagans held power in Rome for 300 years the last emperor
before before constantine was diocletian one of the worst
persecuters in history. I really am not terribly worried.
> > Your friends in Parliament- Muriel Newman, Deborah Coddington, Stephen
> Franks (ACT), Dail Jones (NZF), Phil Heatley (Nats), Bernie Ogilvy,
> Marc Alexander, Gordon Copeland, Phil Adams, Larry Baldock (United
> Future).
>
> Mine?...heh heh heh heh heh...
>
I Hardly know any of those people actually. I met Newman once and was
interviewed by Cottington a few years back ( shes a secularist) it
was rebaiter who mentioned his friends.
Matt
LeftBaiter
nz.politics on 30 Oct 2002 18:32:29 -0800, Craig
Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
> LeftBaiter <no...@il.thanks> wrote in message news:<MPG.182533766...@news.paradise.net.nz>...
> > In article <4e3facfd.02102...@posting.google.com> in newsgroup
> > nz.politics on 25 Oct 2002 23:18:24 -0700, Flannagan(n...@soul.org.nz)
> > said...
> > > lavendarm...@yahoo.com (Craig Young) wrote in message news:<9a5ac3c9.02102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > http://www.reformed-churches.org.nz/resources/fnf/a102.htm
> > > >
> > > > Fundie scum- picking on kids because they're too scared to front up against
> > > > adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
> > >
> > > In your dreams.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Don't worry, I made sure Steve Maharey had a copy of this. By now, so
> > > > has the rest of Cabinet.
> > > >
> And the Office of the Commissioner for Children.
>
> And EPOCH, which I recently joined.
Well if they believe they are fools.
> > I made sure our friends in Parliament have a copy of this example of how
> > people are twisting what is a straightforward legal opinion into all the
> > stuff mentioned above.
>
> Suit yourself, matey. We all know that some sectors of the fundamentalist
> Christian community *do* have something to hide about violence against
> children, and I will not stop until I expose it.
We "all" know nothing of the sort. Put up or shut up.
LeftBaiter
nz.politics on 31 Oct 2002 03:54:09 -0800, Craig
Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
> lavendarm...@yahoo.com (Craig Young) wrote in message news:<9a5ac3c9.0210...@posting.google.com>...
> > LeftBaiter <no...@il.thanks> wrote in message > > > > Fundie scum- picking on kids because they're too scared to front up against
> > > > > adult feminists, lesbians and gay men any more.
> > > >
> > > > In your dreams.
> > > >
> > > > >
> >
> > Your friends in Parliament- Muriel Newman, Deborah Coddington, Stephen
> Franks (ACT), Dail Jones (NZF), Phil Heatley (Nats), Bernie Ogilvy,
> Marc Alexander, Gordon Copeland, Phil Adams, Larry Baldock (United
> Future).
And God.
LeftBaiter
nz.politics on 31 Oct 2002 18:26:44 -0800, Flannagan(n...@soul.org.nz)
said...
> l
> > > >
> > > > Why waste your time, If Steve Maharey's past record is anything to go
> > > > on, if he needs information about people whoses political views he
> > > > disagree with he will simply make it up.
> > >
> > What, like Muriel Newman and her extremist views about cutting off
> > escape routes for female and child survivors of domestic violence
> > under the euphemism "shared parenting?"
>
> I really don't see the point in this response. I noted that Maherey
> has a history of making things up ( or at best defaming) people if it
> is in his political interests to do so. Your response is to say that
> Newman does as well.
>
> So what, If Newman does do this the question is wether she is wrong
> for doing so, if yes then so is Maherey if no what is your complaint
> about her?
>
> I was an activist in the tertairy education sector when Maharey was in
> opposition and know of cases where he made public commenst which were
> false and in one incident seriously defamatory in order to advance his
> political hobby horses. Do you dispute this?
That wouldn't be a great surprise. Being an academic he is totally
beholden to the university teachers union and all union ideals and to the
notion that Labour owns control of the institutions through staff unions
and compulsory student associations.
If he loses his seat I bet he is straight back into the ivory towers.
> > Suit yourself, matey. We all know that some sectors of the fundamentalist
> > Christian community *do* have something to hide about violence against
> > children, and I will not stop until I expose it.
>
> Assuming there is such a thing as the "fundamentalist" christian
> community you could well be right that some members of this community
> abuse their children in secret this is true of all sectors of society.
> Some Gays proably do to again So what?
>
> What you claimed was that this community as a whole hates children,
> and you argued this by simply defining corporal punishment of any sort
> as domestic violence. If you want to define domestic violence this way
> you can but it proves nothing. If I choose to define the word labour
> party member as pathological liar I have not proved anything about the
> honesty of labour party members, I have simply shown that I can use
> the english language in an unusual way.
Craig has been putting out silly press releases as the "Corrections
Party" so he knows how to post this sort of stuff
Craig Young
>
> None of this shows that I am too scared to front up to Gay activists.
> If you think that I am scared of you or your friends you are dreaming.
>
> Incidently Pagans held power in Rome for 300 years the last emperor
> before before constantine was diocletian one of the worst
> persecuters in history. I really am not terribly worried.
>
to the lions (or pet felines, and mine are terribly fussy about their
diet, in any case...)Matt, as I have said repeatedly, conservative Christians
are entitled to freedom of belief, worship, conscience and association.
Even speech, if it doesn't take the form of hate speech, and I am opposed
to current Swedish moves to label any conservative moral theologian
reference to homosexuality as hate speech.
> > > Your friends in Parliament- Muriel Newman, Deborah Coddington, Stephen
> > Franks (ACT), Dail Jones (NZF), Phil Heatley (Nats), Bernie Ogilvy,
> > Marc Alexander, Gordon Copeland, Phil Adams, Larry Baldock (United
> > Future).
> >
> > Mine?...heh heh heh heh heh...
> >
>
> I Hardly know any of those people actually. I met Newman once and was
> interviewed by Cottington a few years back ( shes a secularist) it
> was rebaiter who mentioned his friends.
>
forgive me for being somewhat sceptical of that assertion.
Craig
Craig Young
> And God.
But certainly not the voters, given the fact that your party made no traction
in the polls at this election.
Craig
Craig Young
> We "all" know nothing of the sort. Put up or shut up.
I already have, my friend. And you have offered nothing substantial in
response except rather infantile ad hominem abuse.
And that's just the first shot, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Incidentally, I was amused at your comments about Steve Maharey. I
like the guy, he's a damned good MP and Minister of the Crown. At
least he's in no danger of his party ceasing to exist altogether
if the public get tired of its populist drivel.
Craig
Flannagan
> to the lions (or pet felines, and mine are terribly fussy about their
> diet, in any case...)Matt, as I have said repeatedly, conservative Christians
> are entitled to freedom of belief, worship, conscience and association.
> Even speech, if it doesn't take the form of hate speech, and I am opposed
> to current Swedish moves to label any conservative moral theologian
> reference to homosexuality as hate speech.
Sorry was not trying to insinuate that. My point was that history has
a strange way of suddenly changing who is in power. Who would have
thought at the time of Diocletain that the Roman empire was about to
embrace Christianity.
> > Given your association with ACT student opponents of CSU at Waikato, Matt,
> forgive me for being somewhat sceptical of that assertion.
>
I was associated with lots of different people including several Gay
people. Some Act members some Nats, some libertairians, even some
Labour party members.
But I am telling the truth I have met Newman once (I have also met
Helen Clark, Richard Prebble, Wyatt Creech, Liz Gordon, Jim Anderton,
Linsay Perigo, and numerous others once as well). I was interviewed by
Cottington on Radio Liberty in 95 and she is a seclarist. At the time
of the interview she was following the staunchly atheistic novelist
Ayn Rand, and I used to quite regularly debate Theism and Theistic
ethics with her followers.
Matt
Flannagan
> Incidentally, I was amused at your comments about Steve Maharey. I
> like the guy, he's a damned good MP and Minister of the Crown. At
> least he's in no danger of his party ceasing to exist altogether
> if the public get tired of its populist drivel.
>
> Craig
Craig
In 1998 WSU had 1000 members labours education spokespeople stated
that it was having trouble making double figures with its membership.
That is a lie, latter Labour claimed that they had only 700 members
that to was a lie, I as President elect knew this was a lie.
Then in 1999 Labour stated that under CSU the WSU had provided all
sorts of services to Maori students which VSM had caused to collapse.
When I wrote to Labour asking them to document what services they were
refering to and could they provide a specific example of such a
service they could not, yet they made these comments in public.
In 2000 I was given an issue of Cracuum where Maharey wrote a column.
In this column he stated that there had been a million dollars held in
trust for the students by the WSU and that the Student leaders under
voluntary ( of which there were two me being one) had spent. He then
wen't on to say that had he been in power he would have seen to those
leaders would have faced approriate legal action from himself.
This is false, there was no million dollars in trust and I did not
illegally spend any money. Maherey in essence falsy accused me of
serious criminal activity. Maherey then used these facts ( actually
slander) to demonstrate how Labours policy of Compulsory Student
Unions was accepatble.
I contacted a Lawyer friend of mine and asked what redress I had
seeing I was a student who had three children all I could do was get
legal aid which would need to be approved by Margert Wilsons office.
Wilson of course had been Madeleines teacher at Waikato and we had
crossed swords with the law faculty over the harrasment Madeliene had
recieved from faculty and students. We had also we had sucesfully
appealed a decision by the law faculty to kick Madeleine out of
lawschool, which had been tied up with this harrasment. So my chances
of getting redress were very slim
This article was circulated widely amougst the student body at
Auckland and in the Auckland buisness area. I was living in Auckland
at an institutions which trains people for the ministry. Obviously
having a student who stole a million dollars on a scholarship would
not really be good for the college. I could have been in real trouble.
Fortunately seeing no one took Maherey's comments any further my
future was not jepordised, it could well have been.
Maharey falsely accused me of a serious crime , insinuated that he
could have had me prosecuted for it and I could not get redress
execept by asking it from his allies. His comments could have
potentially ruined me and they were untrue.
He is a liar
Matt
LeftBaiter
nz.politics on 6 Nov 2002 16:00:57 -0800, Craig
Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
> > > > > > >
> > We "all" know nothing of the sort. Put up or shut up.
>
> I already have, my friend. And you have offered nothing substantial in
> response except rather infantile ad hominem abuse.
>
> And that's just the first shot, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt!
> Incidentally, I was amused at your comments about Steve Maharey. I
> like the guy, he's a damned good MP and Minister of the Crown. At
> least he's in no danger of his party ceasing to exist altogether
> if the public get tired of its populist drivel.
Maharey is a politician. That says it all. He is as expendable as the
next.
LeftBaiter
Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
> > > > > > > >
> >
> > None of this shows that I am too scared to front up to Gay activists.
> > If you think that I am scared of you or your friends you are dreaming.
> >
> > Incidently Pagans held power in Rome for 300 years the last emperor
> > before before constantine was diocletian one of the worst
> > persecuters in history. I really am not terribly worried.
> >
> Oh come now, isn't that somewhat hyperbolic? We don't want to feed you
> to the lions (or pet felines, and mine are terribly fussy about their
> diet, in any case...)Matt, as I have said repeatedly, conservative Christians
> are entitled to freedom of belief, worship, conscience and association.
> Even speech, if it doesn't take the form of hate speech, and I am opposed
> to current Swedish moves to label any conservative moral theologian
> reference to homosexuality as hate speech.
So you are at odds with Calum on that?
> > > > Your friends in Parliament- Muriel Newman, Deborah Coddington, Stephen
> > > Franks (ACT), Dail Jones (NZF), Phil Heatley (Nats), Bernie Ogilvy,
> > > Marc Alexander, Gordon Copeland, Phil Adams, Larry Baldock (United
> > > Future).
> > >
> > > Mine?...heh heh heh heh heh...
> > >
> >
> > I Hardly know any of those people actually. I met Newman once and was
> > interviewed by Cottington a few years back ( shes a secularist) it
> > was rebaiter who mentioned his friends.
> >
> > Given your association with ACT student opponents of CSU at Waikato, Matt,
> forgive me for being somewhat sceptical of that assertion.
Well we don't all have a line into Party HQs.
Craig Young
> > are entitled to freedom of belief, worship, conscience and association.
> > Even speech, if it doesn't take the form of hate speech, and I am opposed
> > to current Swedish moves to label any conservative moral theologian
> > reference to homosexuality as hate speech.
>
> So you are at odds with Calum on that?
>
New Zealanders, who are secularised. That is different from hate speech.
> > > Given your association with ACT student opponents of CSU at Waikato, Matt,
> > forgive me for being somewhat sceptical of that assertion.
>
> Well we don't all have a line into Party HQs.
Apart from the CHP, that is.
LeftBaiter
Young(lavendarm...@yahoo.com) said...
I am not a member of any political party.
Flannagan
> Moral theology is an archaism and isn't taken seriously by mainstream
> New Zealanders, who are secularised. That is different from hate speech.
Funny thats not my experience, I think I was probably taken far more
seriously at waikato than at BCNZ.
So can I or my associates call on you the next time someone tries to
supress what I write.
Matt