the question

got my referendum question in the post today and have three weeks to decide which way to vote. the qestion is, of course

should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in new zealand?

i have all kinds of problems with this question. first of all, it assumes that a smack is a part of good parental correction. isn't this, in part, what the debate is about?
the battle over the repeal of section 59 of the crimes act began because parents were beating their children and getting away with it.
rather than trying to fully stop the cases of child abuse in new zealand, sue bradford was actually trying to send the message that new zealanders do not tolerate violence against children.
unfortunately, this was not the message that came across.
itt was hijacked by people who claimed that the governement was trying to tell them how to raise their kids, and the claims that a smack on the hand or a swat on the bum was exactly the same as bashing the kids head in with a piece of 4 x 2, did not help.
it was one of those issues where dealing with serious child abuse was so difficult that the easier thing to do was to make everyone feel guilty. so the message received was that nz parents cannot be trusted not to beat their kids, so the governement reserves the right to imprision them if they get it wrong.

this proves the fundamental factor of communication. its not what you say that is important, its what people hear.

in the meantime, people on both sides of the argument ae getting shriller and shriller.

given that the question is stupid, the referendum is non binding, and the prime minister has already announced that he will not be making a law change no matter what the esult, this referendum seems particularly pointless.

as i don't have children, and probably never will, the whole question is rather academic to me, but as i beleive in democracy, i really should vote. shouldn't i?