How many people who don’t understand the word ‘non-binding referendum’ can you get to ‘March for demokracy’

Boycott march, kids' advocate urges
Children's Commissioner John Angus has urged people to stay away from a "march for democracy" tomorrow. He said the march, sparked by the Government's refusal to change the law after an 87 per cent vote in an August referendum that smacking should not be a criminal offence, was "poorly named". "The march planned for Queen St, Auckland, tomorrow is not about democracy, it is about reinstating a law that allowed parents to assault their children and claim a defence of reasonable force," he said.

These anti-mmp, sensible sentencing lynch mob people who want the legal right to belt kids don’t understand what non-binding referendum means, and they hold up two examples of non-binding referendums that were so poorly worded they could mean anything.

This is NOT a march for democracy, it is a march for demokracy. The propaganda model these people are using is more akin to the Republican and Fox News spawned Public Health protests in the states.

IF this was about democracy, why the hell don't they mention the word, 'Binding referendum' just once on their website? (please note Ivan, if you suddenly rush to update your website by adding the word binding referendum, I will be the first to point it out).

This is not about binding referendums or the mechanics of how to legislate for a binding referendum, if it was it would actually mention binding referendums, but they don't. This is about dressing socially narrow talkhate radio knee jerks up as 'democracy', which is bullshit and someone needs to call them on that bullshit.

The NZ Herald Editorial, hardly a bastion of liberal agenda setting has even been forced to criticize this ‘March for Demokracy’ nonsense…

Editorial: Major pitfalls in making votes binding
Tomorrow's march organisers are advocating a different sort of democracy: "direct democracy" in which binding decisions are made by a majority of citizens who bother to vote in referendums. This country's law has provided for citizens to petition for non-binding referendums on any issue since 1994.


If Parliament had made those referendums binding, we would have been saddled by now with some strange decisions.

The number of paid firefighters would have been frozen at the number employed on January 1, 1995. That is what 87.8 per cent of voters wanted at the first referendum, initiated by opponents of a change to the way firefighters were deployed.

The number of MPs would have been frozen at 99 rather than the 120 a royal commission recommended for MMP. A smaller House would reduce proportional representation, which was chosen by referendum. Consistency would be a certain casualty of direct democracy.

At a referendum in 1999 nearly 92 per cent endorsed a call for the criminal justice system to put more emphasis on victims' restitution and compensation, plus minimum sentences and hard labour for all violent offences. Parliament introduced victims' impact statements at sentencings and decreed five years' non-parole for all serious violence. But the Sensible Sentencing Trust was evidently unsatisfied. It is a co-sponsor of tomorrow's march.

All of these referendums produced majorities in the region of the 87.4 per cent that wanted a smack to be permissible "as part of good parental correction" a few months ago. The Government is able to over-ride that decision because the question was biased, the voters were under a misapprehension that a smack for any purpose is now illegal. Few realised that the law expressly permits reasonable force for a range of stated purposes.

The issue, in short, was not as straight-forward as the citizens' initiative pretended. It was a subject better left to elected representatives with the time and interest to study the legal subtleties and social implications. If their legislation resulted in unreasonable prosecutions or caused too many difficulties for parents the representatives stand to suffer at the next election.

That is how representative democracy works. Decisions are made with advice, consultation and deliberation by people who must seek endorsement at elections. Rule by referendum would be far more rigid, which is why it is suitable for constitutional arrangements but not for the ordinary grind of good government.

If non-binding referendums have been a recipe for disappointment, binding polls in California have been a fiscal disaster. Many of those marching for direct democracy tomorrow would be the first to regret it.

Fundy Christians who want to change the law to push through their narrow social agenda should do so honestly without pretending it’s about democracy, tomorrow will be about democracy and the question ‘how many people don’t understand what non-binding referendum means will get answered.

The only joy I feel is that the entire thing will be a waste of time and a waste of $450 000, because John Key and no other political leader is going to budge on letting parents bash their kids and hide behind discipline as a defense, we have progressed and some NZers need to grow up and understand that.

Do your little song, do your little dance, proclaim it all as ‘democracy’ it ain’t going to change one tiny bit of the legislation.

It’s simple, don’t hit your kids, let's move on, there is an economy in freefall and a massive unemployment about to hit us from the double dip recession. We have much bigger fish to fry than bullshit like this.

Oh and let's not forget who these 'March for Demokracy' people are actually fighting for, these types of people...

Jailed for beating son with hosepipe
A woman has been jailed for beating her 10-year-old son with a hosepipe for wagging school.
Judge Roy Wade, in Manukau District Court yesterday, described the assault as "brutal and premeditated". The woman, referred to as Mrs N to protect her son's identity, pleaded guilty in July to assault with intent to injure. She was jailed for 15 months. Her husband admitted injuring the boy with intent to injure. He will be sentenced next month, and Judge Wade said he was considering home detention. The woman was last year sentenced to six months of supervision for assaulting one of her other children, also for missing school.

...If the repeal of section 59 had not occurred, these parents would've tried to use it as a defense. We should not let Parents dodge assault charges by offering them the defense of discipline.