I'm not sure how it happened, but there's a referendum coming up.
See - about three years ago, a very stupid Green MP named Sue Bradford sponsored, pushed and nagged through a law saying that "reasonable correction" should no longer be a defence for parents accused of assaulting their children. The "anti-smacking bill", as it swiftly became known, coincided with a great deal of publicity about the shocking rates of child abuse in this country. And eventually it passed, in the teeth of furious opposition from conservatives of all stripes.
But it's only now that we're learning just how determined that opposition was. Someone, somewhere, has collected the requisite number of signatures - which is an impressive feat, because it takes some 10% of the total electorate - to force a referendum on the question "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
I'd like to propose: "Should New Zealand taxpayers' money be wasted on non-binding referenda with loaded and dishonest questions?"
2 comments:
Thanks for taking on the question. Seemingly the populace who signed the petition did not have sufficient education to understand the loaded question they were asked to dis/agree with.
Re: "Should New Zealand taxpayers' money be wasted on non-binding referenda with loaded and dishonest questions?"
Who would be responsible for vetting referenda questions? The answer (by implication of the latest referendum question) is "Not the petitioners".
-S
You're quite right, there is no "fair" way to set referendum questions. That's one of the major issues with ever holding a referendum at all. The closest you can get is to pose the question "Should [this law], which you can read in full at [this URL], or at your local post office or public library, be passed?"
But that would require the entire population to become lawyers. You can imagine how popular that would be.
Post a Comment