This has to be the election billboard of the week. Just by the Karori tunnel. “Legalise Smack,” it says. No, not smacking. Smack. It hasn’t been defaced, it actually says that. It carries the name of Bernard Darnton, leader of the Libertarianz Party. One presumes he knows that “smack” is a slang word for heroin. It certainly puts the legalise cannabis people in some sort of context.
Update: The billboard’s promoters have posted this in the comments section: “The billboard is obviously intended to be a double entendre — legalising smacking vis a vis the anti-smacking bill being one meaning, and legalising ’smack’, ie, heroin, being the other. We intended the primary message to be about smacking, with only a subtle hint at our policy to eventually legalise all drugs.”
Oh, dear.
And further updated (Tuesday) the billboard has vanished, possibly stolen.
54 Comments
October 13, 2008 at 11:03 am
Yeah, I’ll wager he means it.
October 13, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Photos photos, we need photos…
October 13, 2008 at 9:51 pm
What’s the bet that Darnton will be the only candidate at the Boobs on Bikes parade?
October 14, 2008 at 9:39 am
[...] we’ve made an impact! Poneke has awarded us the “Billboard of the week” for this [...]
October 14, 2008 at 9:41 am
Pictures of this beautiful billboard (handcrafted by yours truly) are available right here.
October 14, 2008 at 10:11 am
Heroin is defacto legal in NZ anyway via Methodone
October 14, 2008 at 10:15 am
But it’s so 70s, and for total losers.
October 14, 2008 at 10:34 am
Seriously, though, the billboard is obviously intended to be a double entendre – legalising smacking vis a vis the anti-smacking bill being one meaning, and legalising ’smack’, ie, heroin, being the other.
We intended the primary message to be about smacking, with only a subtle hint at our policy to eventually legalise all drugs.
The Libertarianz transitional drugs policy (intended for other parties to steal) involves legalising all drugs safer than alcohol.
October 14, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“more freedom, less hitting” for the kidz as well then please.
or is it just libertarianz rulez for adultz only?
October 14, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Nellie,
Hahaha! GOLD!
October 14, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Children are not little adults. A gentle smack isn’t assault, and loving parents shouldn’t be criminalised. I can’t believe we are STILL talking about this …
October 14, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Huh? Didn’t you put up the billboard? You can’t believe we’re still talking about something that happened as recently as yesterday? I clearly don’t get the Libs.
October 14, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I meant I can’t believe there are still people trying to justify the anti-smacking law, when it was obviously crock of crap.
All the politicians needed to do was adjust Section 59 to specify that a non-bruising smack on the bum with the flat of the hand was OK. They couldn’t even handle something simple like that; they couldn’t resist the opportunity to reach out and tell parents how to do their jobs.
October 14, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Woah, not often any Libz are seen outside of their own blogs! Good stuff.
The Libertarianz transitional drugs policy (intended for other parties to steal) involves legalising all drugs safer than alcohol.
Which drugs *are* those? Does approved policy stealing mean that the Libz are advocating voting for a party with a hope? (Seriously). 900-odd votes wasted last election and all…
October 14, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Non-bruising from flat of hand, is that it?
Wow, I can’t imagine why Parliament didn’t go for that option
Luke H, I don’t imagine we’re going to agree however can you see how hard it would be to (a) investigate or (b) adduce evidence if this were the definition?
October 14, 2008 at 4:08 pm
All the politicians needed to do was adjust Section 59 to specify that a non-bruising smack on the bum with the flat of the hand was OK. They couldn’t even handle something simple like that; they couldn’t resist the opportunity to reach out and tell parents how to do their jobs.
I’m a parent of three children. None have ever been “smacked” or subjected to any other kind of physical punishment. The same is the case with every single one of the many many parents I know. Very few parents hit their children these days.
My children have never caused any major problems for their parents or anyone else that I know of. They are kind and well-adjusted teenagers now.
On the other hand it is readily apparent, if you have sat in criminal courts over many years as I have in my profession, that people who were hit by their parents feature very strongly in the rolls of the violent offenders… and their being hit by their parents features strongly in the pleas of mitigation given by their lawyers to explain their violence.
The violent language of the pro-smacking lobby and their fervent, often blazing-eyed desire to hit children, makes me ill, quite frankly.
October 14, 2008 at 4:25 pm
their being hit by their parents features strongly in the pleas of mitigation given by their lawyers to explain their violence.
I don’t think ‘being used by lawyers as an excuse’ gives anything legitimacy.
Poneke, I have zero desire to hit children. I just want to keep the government out of parenting (and a bunch of other places).
StephenR: legalising all drugs safer than alcohol … Which drugs *are* those?
Almost all of them. There are only about 6-8 drugs which are MORE harmful than alcohol – we’re talking stuff like cocaine, heroin, P (crystal methampetamine) and pentobarbital.
Most other drugs like ecstasy, cannabis, khat, LSD, GHB (’fastasy’) are less harmful than alcohol in terms of the three major dimensions of harm: physical health effects, potential for dependence, and social harms.
And yeah, fair comment about wasted vote and all that – but you could apply that to any small party. Is Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis’ message any less worth listening to because it hasn’t got 5% or an MP yet?
I would venture that any vote doesn’t represent what you believe in is a wasted vote.
October 14, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I’m totally with you, Poneke.
Luke: I’ve heard it argued from smacking enthusiasts like yourself that a ‘non-bruising smack on the bum with the flat of the hand’ is effective at subduing and controlling children.
Yeah, well, it’s probably quite effective at subduing frail elderly people too. Does your logic mean that it’s OK to use force against the elderly?
Using pain and fear to control people is deeply disturbing, Luke.
October 14, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Luke – in your own words (I replaced “politicians” with “parents”, so the same spirit of agonised oppression remains):
“All the parents needed to do was see that smacking was a restriction on the liberties of children. They couldn’t even handle something simple like that; they couldn’t resist the opportunity to reach out and smack their children rather than liberate them.”
October 15, 2008 at 8:26 am
Thanks Luke.
October 15, 2008 at 11:20 am
“All the parents needed to do was see that smacking was a restriction on the liberties of children.”
Children are children. They can’t look after themselves, and they only have as much liberty as it is safe to give them.
You can’t reason with them as you can reason with adults.
It astounds me that some people can’t see the distinction between, on the one hand, an occasional smack on the bum for the right reasons, and at the other end of the spectrum, bashing kids around the head with a jug cord because you can’t afford any more P.
October 15, 2008 at 11:23 am
[...] the Libertarianz Bernard Danton who demands to know who stole his election billboard. Danton announces that he has a one point plan to solve all our problems: Freedom. A heckler in the [...]
October 15, 2008 at 11:26 am
Luke H said:
Not always no. But that doesn’t mean you need to smack them. My youngest responds well to three warnings and then some quiet time.
I’d love to be able to claim that I’ve never smacked my kids. I have twice given my youngest the briefest of pats on the backside; I regret it greatly. It’s not done her any great harm and I don’t wish to be prosecuted, however, it didn’t resolve the matter and if it were a regular event, I suspect it would only lead to a serious deterioration in our relationship.
Sorry Luke H, parenting’s hard and no one’s perfect and as much as I am wary about government intruding into my living room, I think kids deserve the same protections under the law that adults enjoy – more in fact.
October 15, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Word up, Paul W.
But then I guess we just can’t reason with some adults.
October 15, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Paul W,
How you discipline is probably ideal, but I doubt your youngest is representative of all NZ children.
October 15, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I prefer the word “parent” as opposed to “discipline”.
I should point out that she’s in Australia (as am I)…
Kids are kids but, doesn’t really matter where they live, they all start out mischievous, curious, moody, defiant, loving, silly, carefree, irreplacable…
I remain convinced that it’s possible, and in my opinion desirable, to bring up kids, all kids, without smacking them.
October 15, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“I remain convinced .. all kids, without smacking them”.
You’re entitled to your opinion. Nobody in the Libertarianz would presume to tell you that you either had to, or couldn’t, smack your children. Nor do we wish you to impose your views upon anybody else. The state is only too happy enough to invite itself into many aspects of our lives, as it is. Providing them with jackboots is not my idea of a free country.
In spite of Sue Bradford’s best efforts to force us into her statist, one-size-fits-all world, children are not all the same, thank heavens. What’s successful with one may not work for the next. Those who cannot differentiate between a tap on the hand and the brutality depicted in case after case of tiny souls at the hands of their appalling families, should be kept as far away from children as possible, because they’re patently clueless.
And those who insanely call for children to be treated “no differently to adults” might just have paedophiles jumping for joy. Think about it, for God’s sake.
There’s a reason why children are treated differently to adults. They’re *not* adults.
October 15, 2008 at 5:29 pm
There’s a reason why children are treated differently to adults. They’re *not* adults.
All the more reason why there should not be an exception in law that allows for technical assaults against children, right?
I get the feeling some commentators here are trying to imply that certain children’s behaviour cannot be curbed by anything except physical force. I have to wonder why doesn’t this strange rationalisation of physical force (note: not restraint) does not extend over to the mentally ill, elderly dementia patients, or even healthy-but-misbehaving adults.
October 15, 2008 at 6:30 pm
In spite of Sue Bradford’s best efforts to force us into her statist, one-size-fits-all world
Oh what nonsense, and also, Sue Bradford is a loving mother, and I have met some of her children and they are devoted to her as well as being good citizens.
And those who insanely call for children to be treated “no differently to adults” might just have paedophiles jumping for joy. Think about it, for God’s sake.
This is sick. Children should, in my opinion, have the same legal right not to be assaulted as adults, and now, at last, they have.
So you’re saying that children who are not belted by their kids will be victims of pedophiles.
There was a leading politician from something called the Christian Heritage Party which promoted belting kids, and he was sent to jail for multiple sexual abuses of kids.
Your argument is as facile as it is vile.
October 15, 2008 at 10:24 pm
C’mon, people.
There are two distinct questions here.
(1) Is it a good idea for parents to smack their kids? (Probably not – but who am I to say? – more to the point, who is Sue Bradford to say?)
(2) Is it a good idea to CRIMINALISE parents who smack their kids? (No.)
October 15, 2008 at 10:36 pm
A question for those who smack their children – at what age do they think they should not smack their child? Is 2 months too early? Is it ok to smack your child when they are 11? What about 12? What about 15? Would they really smack their 15 year old daughter?
October 15, 2008 at 11:55 pm
I was smacked until I was big enough to hit my parents back, I can assure you all it was a failure.
Of course there’s always my personal favourite, after fighting with my brother, I get a smack and told that it’s never ok to hit people.
October 16, 2008 at 7:34 am
Julian, My personal policy is that smacking kids when they’re too young to understand why is stupid, smacking them when curcumstances allow other forms of immediate disciple silly, and smacking them when they’re old enough to be reasoned with unneccessary.
So for me the only time a smack is appropriate is when they’re between about 3 and 7 yrs, they’re not listening, and there isn’t time for alternative forms of discipline like the naughty chair.
So in this household a child being smacked is a rare event.
Carol said: “Using pain and fear to control people is deeply disturbing, Luke.”
hmm, how about using fear, intimidation, physical confinement, and financial penalties, Carol? Do you find the use of these methods to control people deeply disturbing?
October 16, 2008 at 9:46 am
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, Andrew W, but I’ll settle for the latter two in the right circumstances. I stand by what I said.
October 16, 2008 at 10:14 am
Poneke, I think you have misrepresented this argument, “And those who insanely call for children to be treated “no differently to adults” might just have paedophiles jumping for joy.”
The point of the argument (IMO) is that society has decided that people under age 16 can not consent to sexual activity. We have special rules for minors due to their limited abilities because of their psycho-social and physical development.
To place children and adults in the same ontological and legal footing would be to deprive children of adequate protection.
To do so would mean that children could provide legal sexual consent in the same manner as an adult. Obviously this is exactly what groups such as NAMBLA wish for. Indeed to quote the Wikipedia entry NAMBLA “has resolved to “end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships” in spite of the fact that such relationships constitute child sexual abuse under U.S. law, as the minor is unable to give legal consent.”
If you agree that children should be treated differently to adults, then the argument that says “You can’t smack an adult on the bottom, ergo neither should you be able to smack a child on the bottom – since we should treat adults and children alike.” isn’t convincing.
October 16, 2008 at 10:42 am
Fair enough Muerk, but bringing paedophilia into the picture is drawing a very long and cynical bow.
Also let’s not forget that it was the libertarian Jim Peron who appeared to have past ties with AMBLA/NAMBLA:
http://jimperon.bravehost.com/
BTW, not to confuse AMBLA with the innocuous as-seen-on-South Park American Marlon Brando Lookalikes Association.
October 16, 2008 at 10:54 am
Carol, whatever your personal preferences are as a form of punishment, they may well not be the options others would choose, you prefer financial penalties and confinement, I bet because they’re less painful to _you_, both as the recipient, and (with incarceration) as an observer. But how about if those penalties result in hardship for the recipiants family?
Under such curcumstances those penalties would cause considerable pain (I guess that means it’s more likely that that form of discipline/punishment would have it’s desired result, at least as a deterant).
Perhaps some people, given the option of corporel punishment vs a fine would choose the former – because for them it would be less painful.
There are many ways to inflict pain – which is the point of ALL punishments – only a few of those methods involve physical pain, and the physical pain from a smack is immediate, (it’s better to have an immediate form of punishment for young children as they will them better associate the misdeed with the consequences) and doesn’t last long.
So all the arguments against smacking – assuming that you agree that misbehaviour by children sometimes needs to be punished – comes down to preferences on how to inflict pain.
In an ideal world education would always be preferable to punishment, both for adults and children.
October 16, 2008 at 11:24 am
If you agree that children should be treated differently to adults, then the argument that says “You can’t smack an adult on the bottom, ergo neither should you be able to smack a child on the bottom – since we should treat adults and children alike.” isn’t convincing.
What an extraordinary distortion of my position.
I believe that physical force should not be used against adults or children. End of story.
I am appalled that some people wish to have the legal right to use physical force on children. Children need to be loved and protected, not assaulted.
October 16, 2008 at 1:04 pm
There doesn’t seem to be much point in enteriing into a debate with you, Andrew W, as you already seem to have decided what my opinions are.
I agree with your last statement, of course.
As for my views on smacking, well, Poneke seems to have articulated them better than I can! As is quite often the case
October 16, 2008 at 1:39 pm
We clearly disagree AndrewW. My three year old can be reasoned with, it’s pretty simplistic reasoning but it works most of the time and when it doesn’t the tantrums seldom last long.
I’m not going to tell you what to do, I’d seldom presume to advise anyone how to be a parent, however a parent’s lack of time might not be the kids fault. Most of my frustrations as a parent are about the competing demands on my time, but how’s that fair on kids?
Again, my personal view is that if you smack a kid you’re telling them that there are circumstances when it’s ok to hit others – how’s that work in the playground, at childcare/school, with friends? Look little billy, I’d ask you again for my ball but frankly I’ve not got the time so “boof”?
I don’t believe you’re anything but genuine in your views but I simply can’t agree that smacking a kid is ever necessary – it might happen from time to time and that’s regrettable, but that’s enitrely different from granting parents dispensation from penalties that apply to the rest of the adult world.
October 16, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I’m not going to tell you what to do, I’d seldom presume to advise anyone how to be a parent
Your reluctance to tell other people how to be parent their children is laudable.
It’s just a pity Sue Bradford doesn’t feel the same way.
October 16, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Carol, I’ve “decided” what your opinions are based on the opinions you’ve expressed, that’s how it works with most people.
Paul: “how’s that fair on kids?” it’s not a question of fair, it’s about practicalities, and who said life’s “fair” anyway?
“if you smack a kid you’re telling them that there are circumstances when it’s ok to hit others”.
The reality is that smacking a child does not mean that child grows up believing that it’s OK to use violence as an adult, most adults in NZ were smacked as children, few are into violent crime.
My 6 yr old is more prone to use hitting as a way of getting his way with his peers than his two older brothers, yet he is the one who has had almost no corporel punishment, so in this household at least the corrolation is negative.
“that’s entirely different from granting parents dispensation from penalties that apply to the rest of the adult world.” Again you raise the argument that it’s somehow wrong to treat children differently to adults.
After some thought I’ve come to the conclusion that opposition to smacking is an emotional responce resulting from the discomfort it causes some observers, rather than the discomfort caused to the child, and the success or otherwise of its use as a form of disciplining.
October 16, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Your reluctance to tell other people how to be parent their children is laudable.
This shouldn’t be a ‘parenting’ issue, though. Just as a debate about using assault to control mentally ill people should not be ‘healthcare’ issue.
Your cause seems a selective and inconsistent, unless you also condone giving people the ‘choice’ to use so-called ‘reasonable’ assault on moral patients other than children, such as when dealing with mentally ill people or with animals. …and this seems a slippery slope, at what point should we start prosecuting assaults, if they are permissable at all? Current law decrees that assault is not okay at all, but relatively seldom do trifling assaults end up in the courts. That seems a really pragmatic solution.
October 16, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Richard Goode
1) No (but who am I to give a shit? Far be it from me to care about children being hit by their parents, I might come across as a sticky beak. No, far better to turn a blind eye, and keep my opinions to myself. And how dare those politicians try to improve our appalling track record of domestic hitting by trying to legislate against it).
2) If people hit people, then yes they are committing a crime – ergo they are criminals.
October 16, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Luke, another interpretation is that as a parliamentarian, Sue Bradford’s rightly concerned about criminal law. Personally, I think she’s shown genuine leadership on a difficult issue of major significance in New Zealand.
October 16, 2008 at 7:30 pm
“What an extraordinary distortion of my position.”
Poneke, it was nothing to do with your position.
I was referring to the argument that Sus brought up re: children and adults being treated the same, and how you twisted it to state that “So you’re saying that children who are not belted by their kids will be victims of pedophiles.”
This was obviously not Sus’ argument.
October 20, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I was very interested in this recent Slate article examining the efficiency of smacking.
It turns out that, over time, parents increase the intensity of smacking; kids become immune to the effects of smacking and so require a harsher smack to get the same effect; and while a smack will immediately stop a bad behaviour, it won’t prevent it from recurring, but we tend to only remember the immediate stop and explain away the recurrences.
October 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Another interesting Slate article, this one on the economics of smacking.
Interestingly (in America, at least) poorer families smack their kids more.
October 21, 2008 at 10:26 am
Thanks Robyn – I’d not seen these and regularly read Slate. The theory makes intuitive sense to me; smacking leads to a hightened tolerance for violence.
November 6, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I suppose if children are identical to adults, then taking them somewhere they don’t want to go is kidnapping?
So if they sit down and tantrum in the supermarket, you’d better not pick them up.
November 6, 2008 at 5:59 pm
No-one said they were ‘the same as adults’. All that anyone said was that children have the same right not to be assaulted as adults have.
November 6, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Robyn, I’ve noticed my kids are developing an increased immunity to the naughty chair.
Matty: “children have the same right not to be assaulted as adults have.”
Yep, and if I physically remove an adult or a child from the supermarket because they’re misbehaving, in both cases, as long as they’re not damaging property or people (including themselves) under current law, I have committed an assault.
November 6, 2008 at 8:33 pm
“Yep, and if I physically remove an adult or a child from the supermarket because they’re misbehaving, in both cases, as long as they’re not damaging property or people (including themselves) under current law, I have committed an assault.”
And that happens everyday, just as some incredibly minor assaults do. And do the police interfere because a parent has uplifted their screaming child? Or because a wife tugged her husband away from watching sport? Or because an adult intervened in a schoolyard fight (without resorting to injuring the fighters)? Or for any other minor incident?
But furthermore, I’m not certain that the law does class carrying a screaming child away as ‘assault’. Doesn’t assault imply an intent to injure?
November 7, 2008 at 7:39 am
“And do the police interfere because a parent has uplifted their screaming child?”
The threat of the law is often enough to intimidate the most law abiding people.
“Doesn’t assault imply an intent to injure?”
No, I think it’s something like “deliberate and unwelcome physical contact”, I doubt that would include someone pulling on their partners arm in most instances, but could if the offender persisted.