2 drink maximum, but what about when hitting kids?
I love how Simon Barnett is behind the 2 drink maximum campaign, while also fronting the legal right to hit your kid campaign. Does that mean he also supports a maximum if two drinks before hitting your kid campaign?
So what happened to the end of civilization that was supposed to occur when the repeal of section 59 was passed? We were told it was the end, loving parents who beat their children for discipline were going to be arrested all over the country for nothing more than trying to knock little Jimmy out of the way of a hot stove/car/roaming bear. Well here's where it ended...
Dad wins appeal over judge's assault case gaffe
A Christchurch man has had his conviction for assaulting his 4-year-old son quashed on a technicality.
...lmao - a technicality saves him, hardly the end of western democracy as we understood it now was it? When is a punch in the face simply an earflick? Well unless it's spelled out to the Jury, apparently a lot more often than one would suspect.
Watching the fiasco of NZers screaming for the legal right to belt their kids should have prepared me for how easily led these same NZers were over the manufactured crises of the Hobbit. For those still slow, the repeal of section 59 simply meant that you could not tell the Judge that you were innocent of assault against your child because you were 'disciplining them', it removed that defense. Watching so many scream about their 'right' to belt their kids was almost as much fun as watching (those same NZers) scream that it was their 'right' to discriminate against homosexuals 2 decades earlier.
This is a nation of 40million sheep, sadly 4million can vote.