I have frequently bemoaned that we have this large and costly resource of academics, including a large research budget, but they appear to stay in their ivory towers and not give benefit to the wider public (outside the lecturing of students).

Steve Maharey is a sociologist and we have him to thank for a lot of progressive social change during Helen Clark's Labour-led government, but, as Vice Chancellor of Massey University, what articles do you now read which have been written by him or his subordinates. One is inclined to think that his professionalism is now wasted.

I wonder if the academics fear for their funding, and I am aware that Steve Maharey's predecessor acknowledges professional associates who have not succumbed to a pervading collegiate constraint within the Academia, and who will demonstrably support individual expression.

We craved for knowledge about this global economic crisis and for so long could only read that it was "not understandable - beyond comprehension".

But when New Zealand's academics have spoken out, the outcome has so frequently been highly dissappointing. The Head of Economics at Auckland University recently spoke publicly about the NZ Superannuation Fund - I maintain his hypotheses were highly questionable from a theoretical/non-political point of view.

Recently, I did read an article by a NZ academic on the S.59 law. He wrote how "force" against a child was enabled in four circumstances, but he did not distinguish between "force" for restraint which would not involve "smacking" and "force" for correction which would almost certainly involve "smacking" or some variant.

If I decide I have given approaching traffic adequate time to slow down and step-out onto the pedestrian crossing it is my decision and another adult has no right to restrain me - he would be using unlawful force against me and that would be assault. Obviously, a child must be restrained in these circumstances, but any consequent "smacking" would be for the purposes of correction - not restraint.

Suffice to say, in my opinion and for whatever reason, our Academia is somewhat woeful regarding its wider public duty.

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 your 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 your 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.

"You are so critical of the orthodox Churches" you say and Murray you love those non entities mutual back scrtching pawns of politicians when trying to ram their views down normal Chrisitans throats. I don't think it is exactly "criticism" to highlight the fact their leaders rather often publicly proclaim they don't believe the book they preach from nor the God that that book claims wrote it or even a God at all...That is just pointing out a grand Contadiction. And what that has to do with smacking a rebel Kid kicking holes in the wall I am still to find out. But since it is so important to you... They are a oddity that once lead what I think most Christians would say is no longer a relevant of even real part of the church. I say that to highlight your folly in claiming it is unchristian to not agree with such. For the atheist agnostic or whatever you areyou have alot of demands on something you don&t believe in. So What has Christianity have to do with this? you continually over and over come back to it. You are really very messed up there.

And Aaaah? One more paragraph harping about Christians... What has Brian Tamaki got to do with anything!

Do you have some point to make???

Are you still in Fantasyland thinking that 85% of Kiwis are Churchies or even 50% or even 10%.

Your obsession with Christians is really scary...

I haven't heard Family first leveling sermons at people..They do though push scientific facts from the academia about whom you continually complain don't produce the studies that Must of course show what you imagine to be the truth. Because you knows the truth because you are 'Murray the knower of truth'. Well at least in your opinion, you who need not do any research into the matter as you "are convinced"

Any way time to kiss my little one good night! Happy Paranoia there.

Perhaps we let this thrashed and fruitless flogging of a dead horse die now and save some space on Stuffs hard drive.

Eh? No one is reading your sturdy points of fact and logic this far down the page no anyway.

Sleep tight! and Don't let the bed bugs bite!

I do not know what Bishop Brian Tamaki is preaching to his Destiny Church followers these days - are his sermons still televised?

It appears that he is no longer protesting and mobilising the troops into the streets.

I think Sheryl Savill will pull the referendum tonight, unless she plans to remain in America and at no time face questioning from New Zealanders about a misspent $6 million.

Either McCoskrie or Baldock told the Prime Minister they would pull it, conditional to an ultimatum. Poor Sheryl Savill is just a pawn for these self-agrrandising clerics.

They wanted an attractive face to front the petition and shore up the chances of the deceptive wording attracting enough signatories.

You are so critical of the orthodox Churches, Kiwi Chick(#12), but your own contemptuous language is not at all godfearing.

"If there could be more material from the Academia which assists people......Blah Blah" Same garbage from the same bin. Been their done that Murray. Read the many posts above and stop spewing your c rap. Material provided - you rejected to look at it. End of story Mr Macademia you forgot the M again... you only want nuts! Not academia

As far as I am concerned, the matter is commonsense, KiwiChick(#34) - plain commonsense.

I am sure the predominant academic opinion is that force should not be used against children for the purpose of correction, or else the Families Commission would be taking a different stance. They would be dying to support what was the original view of the National Party until John Key realised he was on the wrong - and I mean WRONG - side of the fence. They would be dying to support what remains the view of the low polling Act Party. They must have subscribed to Christine Rankin being appointed one of their commissioners, and they have her chaffing at the bit to have the law sanction the use of force against children.

I am only able to conclude that it is because it would be against predominant professional opinion and basic human rights that the Families Commission are giving what appears to be reluctant support to the law not being softened towards the use of force against children.

If there could be more material from the Academia which assists people who are not as convinced as I am that it is plain commonsense to not use force to correct children, then I would consider that to be gratifying.

Except to say the herald have responded to embarrasment re the article pulling on other blogsand restored the article.

So for Murray the Macedemia lover who refuses to look at the facts here is some Academia without an M http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809

the article being deleted just proves the devotion to truth your pursuasion do not have. Murray You Church hater have no right to tell Christians what they believe. You don;t even know what is and isn't a Christian by their own standards..don't tell me what they believe. You support Lies and censorship...it figures so did Mao and all those deeply behind the Rape of Democracy in NEw Zealand. Mao and Stalin and his like also toook more lives than both world wars with their desire to be sociable. Which is the root cause behind Sues mission and Helens Do some homework Murray and stop spraying your ignorance across the web.

And Rex see my response to your void claims about straw men on the other place you are defending the indefensible here http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/2547977/77pc-oppose-anti-smacking-poll... Perhaps you look at the evidence I have linked in their that you and Key refuse to look at about prosecutions for light smacks. We both know CYFS has used its new weapon only sparingly until it knows it owns it for good.

Done all these points before to you two numbskulls so its over and out from me.

Kiwi Chick, don't worry. You don't need that article to make your point. All you need to do is give us examples of the law change leading to good parents being hauled into court or having their children taken away from them. Just do that and Uncle John will take this bad law away.

Well, Kiwi Chick(#30)/(#31), promoting law change which sanctions the use of force against children probably contravenes international human rights codes.

You cannot blame the NZ Herald for wanting to steer clear of such implication. It is most surprising and highly disappointing that it is Church-based political groups who are the advocates within New Zealand.

It is "force" you should be talking about, you know? That is the word that is used in both the original and the new legislation; not "a smack" as part of "good parenting" (and "a smack" is never ideal parenting) which is the deceiving language used by these cult religions to garner signatures for their unchristian cause.