Sorry Kiwi Chick but your "evidence" is flawed. So what if you can find studies commissioned by people with an agenda that "proves" your point of view. Cigarette manufacturers produced a multitude of studies that "proved" smoking tobacco was harmless.

You offer no comparison with other European countries or analysis of other contributing factors.

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Sweden and tell me how that backs up your hysterical wailing about bodies heaped on doorsteps. I'm not saying that Wikipedia is the font of all knowledge but surely if Sweden's anti-smacking laws had the effect you claim someone would have noted it.

But enough. You have you opinion and I have mine. We disagree. Let's leave it at that.

You are shrill and unbalanced and refuse to recognise the difference between you opinion and fact. You are always RIGHT and everyone else is always WRONG. You play the man not the ball and don't seem to understand the worthlessness of putting words in other people's mouths then arguing against those imagined viewpoints.

This is my last response to you and you are welcome to have the last word. I would never have tried to engage you in a battle of wits if I had known you were unarmed. Goodbye.

Weel Rex thanks for your opinion on Vote no. *Propoganda" with no proof for the accusation. Typical again anti smacker so that is why I always say you are the type etc as you have so cleverly observed. I point to facts and stats but you are the person that if I heaped the dead Bodies of the kids Killed by their folks in Sweden on your doorstep with their Pasports and death certificates, cause of death and a confession from their parnets you would not take it as countable. and still believe their embarrased governments lies about the Abuse rate there. You talk about everything but the real issue and dismiss without explanation evidence directed to you..

Whay don*t you attack an argument a stat or something...I have provided plenty of claims... Prove something wrong to justify your position? Your opinion is not self evident truth to anyone but you.

Kiwi Chick, I have visited the voteno website and guess what? It looks like propaganda to me. Most stories are over-hyped and unverifiable. Others seem to show parents with poor parenting skills or anger management issues.

And you seem to want a bob each way. You claim these are examples of jackbooted CYFS members busting up good families but also say CYFS is biding its time and will swoop on us all after the referendum.

Relax. Uncle John hasn't put a time limit on his promise to repeal the law if it isn't working.

Your use of capitals seems to be directly linked to your accuracy. Saying I am WRONG about you using straw man arguments is pretty funny when you then back me up by admitting I never said it.

"the likes of you" "One of your type" "being of the same general pursuasion" These are direct quotes from you. You claim you know my type and rebut beliefs you ascribe to me. That is straw man arguing. It's also dishonest, lazy and stupid.

By the way Rex

the Straw Elephant in the living room on all this is the Anti Smackers claiming all prosmackers amount to beaters and assaulters.

That is the straw man your group set up to shoot down.

Problem is the bill Act have proposed puts a puff of wind to that straw man. (You do seem to so love talking about these fellas) We can differentiate smacking from beating and that is what we ask Sue Lies when she says no light smacks were intended to be criminalised (ignoring the fact she contradicts it directly elsewhere) when she doesn't welcome the Act amendment that would validate the truth of her words meeting with her true intentions.

Oh have you seen this big complex website. http://www.bra.se/extra/pod/?action=pod_show&id=14&module_instance=11. I admit I made and error Violent crime between youths in Sweden jumps more than 15 times when they became prosecutable.

Refer to list handed to Key that he refused to recieve in person on voteno.org site. I am sure you the balanced chap you are have looked through the evidence on that site. to save yousearching as you probably haven't visited the site yet http://www.voteno.org.nz/faq.htm#working

Have a look around and see the truth and not the propoganda.

I have also pointed out that dispite the prosecutions made and most dropped and kids taken from parents for light smacks returned prior to this referendum the risk is after the law has settled as a person that is less than naive could see. So yes their has not been hordes take but... Observing the state kidnapping process in Sweeden would be a better indicator of our future. No fool Sue or CYFS included would risk getting their new favorite weapon taken of them while they are on notice of a review as to weather they can bear it safely.

Not after so much disent from the masses. It will ramp quietly and slowly after the referendum if Key fails to correct the law. You must be able to comprehend that!

Straw man argument??...again WRONG!... I never said you claimed it but the likes of you Certainly have. One of your type were carfully trying to explain what a success it was to not smack and how to manage kids that are out right rebels that kick fight and destroy around you. And after all sorts of things that she suggested that established the kids as the boss in effect she did infact suggest to call the police. You being of the same general pursuasion must have some explanation on how to deal with such kids. It is not a straw man argument because I didn't say you believed it. But such a conclusion is inevitable of your position.

Kiwi Chick, please give me examples of "The Destruction of Children and the Kidnap of them". The law change has been in effect long enough for you to find examples of this if it was happening.

Deceitful lie? Sorry but you're deluded. I don't say they are the only section of the community not protected from assault. I say that that is what you want. And you seem to think that protecting them from assault makes them free from the consequences of their actions. That's only the case if you are too witless to come up with punishments that don't involve violence.

You also spend a lot of time refuting my claim that parents should call the police when their children misbehave. Only problem is that I never said anything even remotely like that. It was all dreampt up by you so that you could knock it down.

Do you even know what a Straw Man argument is? Please look it up and try to avoid it because your rants are full of them. Seems you and Arhu both love this tactic but it's very poor debating.

Once again Kiwi Chick... please offer some examples of how this law is not working. That's the key to this debate. You can't do it so you resort to insults and putting words in your opponents mouth.

Rex it seems no one cane understand what you are trying to expres then but you. BUt just so you get our concern.... We don't care so much about being called Criminals. We don't fear Jail. Everyone knows that no government will throw you in jail for such a non wrong. We do find the prosecution and discharge process rather traumatising But what we DO fear most is......

The Destruction of Children and the Kidnap of them by idealest cultist Zealaots like YOU.

You will never lock someone up. You don't believe in anything but the least consequence for action for your list 2 people. Helen proved that when she halved prison sentences to raise her boney middle finger to the 90+% of people who asked her to punish your list two people more harshly.

You one eyed dreamers have done NOTHING BUT NOTHING to protect children. Evidently, as I have provided stats to show, you have seeded Violence in their future. that will ramp up alot in abot 2020 when these new do what you like kids become prosecutable. Stunning really. And I know you have ZERO capacity to accept that fact even with all the stats and Bodies heaped up on your door step so to speak.

SWEDEN's GAMBLE WAS A FAILURE! FACT!

When those who can legitimately punish or discipline are restrained from it the Dark un restrained side of Human nature grows like a weed and all authority is dipised.

You point out that kids are the only part of society with out protection from assault. On the Contrary they are the only part of society being kept free of consequence for actions. and that as they are learning about life and how to behave as adults!! So your claim is a decietful lie! And They have the same protection as anyone. Legitimate assault results in legitimate charges. Yes a few cases of assault were wrongly excused by incompetant judges. that is cause to clarify abuse not ban discipline. You lie in the above because you make out that Adults are beyond consequence for actions. A police officer will club or shoot me if I am having a tantrum in public. The Officier being the valid authority to enforce law and order. Fact is in the home the dishing out of punishment and the policing function do not get seperated. Don't tell me you want parents to call the police every time kids throw plates or such. And then take the thing through a court to decide the punishment....Hold on Maybe you do. Then they can charge you for forcing little rebel Johny to do the evil job of the dishes..."So Johny did they use force"?..."Yes they did they did.it was forceful"..."How could you have been so cruel to make Jophny share houshold responsibilities?.....That is traumatising degrading Child abuse!!!" ...I was just trying to teach him to share responsibilities to care for the home..."Kids don't have any responsibility you fool" Johny come with us we will give you a good home with CYFS". Will you be charging me officer....No that won't be necersary...we have your kids. And in Sweeden that is what HAS been happening and will be happening in New Zealand. CYFS have been restrained with the CIR Looming but that will soon fade as people give up on fighting. You think I am mocking" maybe you don't ? Sadly thsi is where your sick views are heading....I have worked with such people. Maybe you think Johny was right too?? In the past when Violence and crime in society was lower policing included a good kick in the butt (written in no manual..Oooh NO!!! HORROR)to naughty kids rather than dragging them through the court system and the CYFS Crush/wreck Your Family permanently unit. It solved much more than playing court games.

People being accountable for their behaviour will only happen when punishment is an option for enforcing it. And a society that takes that away is self destructive how ever nice the reasons seem. The Spike in youth crime we have now came predictable as a first installment on the philosophy that is behind you misguided type now...

ie the removal of the cane from schools etc. Now schools are turning into Zoos with kids running wild and teachers being assaulted regularly "cos da teachas carnt do narfin and carnt tarch me." No suprise. It again mirrors what happened in Sweden when kids were exempted from consequence for actions...they predicatably learned to do what they like. So more kids than ever discovered their dark side....Of course people like you don't believe that humans have a dark side...it is all taught to them and can be hugged away.

Once again Rex...please offer some facts and a valid argument to support your delusional society destroying Violence promoting nonsense

Arhu, you misinterpret what I say. I liken noone to anyone the second list but point out those on it will all receive greater protection from the law than children if the amendment is repealed.

Hyperbole? Sure, but how does it compare to the hyperbole that encouraged 300,000 people to sign the petition? Weren't "good parents" going to be thrown in jail? Wasn't Nanny State going to dictate how you discipline your children in your own home?

Well none of that has come to pass. All the examples held up by the child smackers have in fact been examples of the law working well. Most cases have seen the parent required to attend anger management courses and that has seemed appropriate.

And rambling about voting rights for sixteen year olds is pretty pointless. If you are trying to say I believe that you are engaging in Straw Man arguing and that is the laziest form of debate.

I am pretty certain a VERY large portion of the cost is down to the adverts currently being run CONSTANTLY & MONTHS out from the actual voting time. CHING CHING!!! There are more affordable ways to do this. and I don't see how the cost of it is the fault of HC as she isn't running this expensive campaign.

At least its keeping the struggling media/advertising industry in the black for now.... i hope...

What this very brief article does not cover is why people are opposed to the referendum - this is a very important piece of information because otherwise it's a very contextless figure. I oppose the referendum not because I don't support the concept behind it as I do, I oppose it because it's a waste of taxpayer money that will have a terrible response rate and will not do anything towards reversing Sue Bradford's rout of the Crimes Act because that's how Winston Peters set the Citizens Initiated Referenda up in the relevant act.

Rex has, as all the followers of Sue Bradford's "let's give 16 year olds whose brains are not fully developed and can barely cope with sex the vote" ilk do, employed hyperbole in an attempt to discredit the opposition. Likening parents who use an open handed slap to the buttocks in disiplining their children to "rapists, dogs, politicians, murderers, burglars, lying French rugby players, drunks" helps no one and is completely inaccurate. I've never ever seen a dog smack anyone - bite them yes, smack no. Most burglars are cowards who run as soon as anyone disturbs them. Murderers tend to stab more than smack and the lying cheese eating surrender moron was appearantly punched, not smacked, by his team mates, but don't let the facts get in the way of a meaningless rant.

Fact is that the repeal of Section 30 of The Crimes Act was an attempt to reduce the number of children exposed to extreme violence like Nia Glassie & others have been - it has completely and utterly failed to do so as proven by the fact such cases are still being brought before the courts in ever increasing numbers, cases in which Section 30 would not have applied anyway.

The Electoral Finance Act was an attempt to stop people with too much money having too much sway over elections - it completely and utterly failed and has long been repealed. Why hasn't Sue Bradford's complete & utter failure of an Act been given the same treatment?