Sunday, July 01, 2007

Hypocritical Cabinet Minister seen smacking his kids

Labour MP David Cunliffe has beenobserved giving one of his children a smack for naughty behaviour at a shopping mall. This occurred at the Lynnmall Shopping Centre yesterday afternoon. The child was being corrected for hitting another child. Make a law, then break it - that's what our Cabinet Ministers do, apparently.

Well done - Lets see if the Children's Commissioner has the balls to speak out against this lawbreaking. But don't hold your breath, she's too busy talking about real child abuse now, without actually doing anything about it, of course.

The Police should record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family violence Co-ordinator, and if Mr Cunliffe was observed taking the same action again, the police should consider prosecuting him and forwarding the file to CYF’s for possible investigation and intervention.

But they won't, because he's a Cabinet Minister, and apparently above the law.

UPDATE The Herald report is now online Cunliffe says
If Families First cared about families, they would not be dragging the small children of MPs into a public debate like this

Actually if Cunliffe cared so much about the laws he was voting for, he would not break them.

And Whale-Oil beat me to it. Here's Cunliffe's Hansard on the smacking bill. He's a hypocrite.
I want to acknowledge my wife, who has staunchly held the view that that [smacking]is not an appropriate form of parenting. I have learnt not to use corporal punishment. I have learnt that if I have to smack one of my two darling sons, that says a lot more about me and my lack of parenting skills than it says about them

Actually it says more about his hypocrisy than his parenting skills Read the rest at Hansard.

UPDATE 2The Family First informant - a female - who witnessed the smacking incident says she saw Cunliffe smacking his kid for corrective purposes despite Cunliffe's admission of the events, one day and his denial the next, - perhaps after a chat with Miss Clark - that he used correction. Gee, reminds me of Bill "I smoked but did not inhale" Clinton, except this is "I smacked but did not correct".


Madame Geneva said...

Poor Dave appears to have been living under a rock for the past few months.

The entire intent of the bill was not to stop parents giving a light smack to their kids, rather stop the appauling rates of child abuse in NZ, and child fatalities brought about by excessive... 'smacking'? Hmmm.

Your post is really a rather tired revamp of a sad tory rebuttal... because... wait you wouldn't be above personal attacks on ministers would you? The tories seem so be above nothing...

Anonymous said...

Hey Madame,
The intent of a bill and what the bill does may ave been two different things. Courts don't go by the intent, they go by the letter of the law. Now go back under your rock, you may even end up finding your life partner there if you look hard enough.

Leigh said...

You have it in one Madame!
Anyone who fears the repeal of sec 59 supports the horrific abuse of children.
Many have been saying all along that what Mr Cunniliffe did was ok, the worrying bit is hes saying dont smack and smacking the child.
I dont see anything wrong with parental corretion by way of a smack in these circumstances. Some would scream blue murder about that. Lets move on, in a year thepublic will wonder what the fuss was about.

Anonymous said...

Would a Labour MP involved in child sex in Dunedin be covered by the anti-smacking bill?

Anonymous said...

No Labour MP is covered by the anti-smacking bill - they are all exempt;

Dave said...

An MP involved in a child sex ring would not be covered by the anti smacking legislation, but David Benson Pope - aka panty slut boy - may now have to be hired by David Cunliffes wife to give him a bit of a spanking for his misdemenour.

Lady Theodosia said...

"Courts don't go by the intent, they go by the letter of the law." The courts are there to interpretation the law as how they see fit in each case, thats why the judiciary and legislative are separate of each other and why the letter of the law usually communicates the intent of the law, hence why it has passed all stages of the legislative process and become statute. Good one 'anonymous'.

Dave said...

....why the letter of the law usually communicates the intent of the law

Note the word " usually". Note the substituted S59 bill didn't communicate the stated intent of "removing child abuse". It banned parental correction. When you smack your kids you don't break the intent of the law, or the intent of parliament, you break the letter of the law. The reason this bill became law was not just because it passed through the legislative process, it was due to a political bargain to get it through that process - a similar kind of political bargain that MPs and police have not to prosecute MPs who break these laws.

Lady Theodosia said...

Oh get of it Dave, its law now, move on. If you don't want to risk the courts 'usually' interpreting the intent of the law, don't hit your children (if you have any).

Madame Geneva said...

I suppose that is why David Cunliffe was then promptly arrested and taken to court, where all 'lightly-smacked-his-children' Cabinet Ministers/citizens of NZ should end up.

Whoops... that's right, he wasn't! Because if all he was doing was giving his child a light smack then he wasn't breaking the law at all! This bill does not condemn this behaviour. So quite frankly, your silly little law lesson was rather pointless... maybe you should actually go read the bill.

You're just throwing a wobbly because you don't like the fact that NZers are thoroughly better off with this bill, and ever since it passed nothing negative has come from it other than the indignant grumblings of knuckle-dragging conservatives who criticise the govt just for the hell of it.

If i had a rock to crawl back under, i'd just as soon throw it at your head!

Good day, sir!

Anonymous said...

I don't get it. I thought you guys were in favor of beating your kids. I would think you would applaud him for hitting his child.

Dave said...

I do applaud him for smacking his child. I don't applaud his hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

You make a good point, But the law is clear, it was to stop parental physical correction.
80% of parents polled didn't want it.

John Key and Helen Clark went ahead and did what 80% of parents didn't want and then "spinned it" (read Lied) that it wasn't.

Personally I have no problem with a parent giving a child a smack on the bum for disciplinary purposes.
But then I'm not one of Helen's feminazis.

I do have a problem with a clenched fist, kick, headbutt, elbow, kick down the stairs, or use of an implement of any kind.

Please note Madame Geneva.
Instead of the courts and a jury of your peers deciding if what you did warrants the event in question.
Now a policeman will do it because you will have broken the law.

The said policeman will decide whether or not to bring the impartial CYF into the situation.

As it will be a crime of violence against a child (read possible 3 yrs jail) there are grounds to look at your firearms licence.

Possibly also for future employers, particularly if you work in the state sector or an area involving children and families or loads of feminazi types.

This bill is a tragedy of justice and the democratic process, that David Cunliffe with a Ministerial Warrant from the Crown has now broken the law by smacking his child for disciplinary purposes and hasn't been investigated by police merely shows the law and it's enactors (114 of them) are asses.

I won't hold my breath for Helen Clark to do the right thing and make sure he is charged as I don't think she actually knows what the right thing is.

Kiwi Riverman said...

You wear your political affilation on your typing fingers.

Nobody is exempt from the new legislation.

There are still grounds for discipline if it involves safety of the child or another.A light sack on the hand, which Cunliffe apparently did, is still allowed.

Kiwi Riverman said...

That of course was a "smack not a sack!

Anonymous said...

What political affiliation would that be, democratic perhaps?

There were 114 asses in parliament that day all from different parties and a lot more liars spinning it since!

Nobody is exempt?
What about AB's, oh and Prime Ministers.