Rebutting the ‘Political Myths’

We’ve been contacted by many people who have told us that when they have spoken to their local MP about the recent Referendum, respecting democracy and the voice of NZ’ers, and the effect of the anti-smacking law on families, the politicians have made a number of claims which they have found difficult to immediately respond to.

The claims can be summarised as basically two myths regarding referendums and the anti-smacking law:
MYTH #1 – People didn’t understand the Referendum question, and anyway, only 54% voted.
MYTH #2 –
 There’s no evidence that good parents are being criminalised. The Latta review also said that.

We’ve put together a FACT SHEET which you can easily download (left).
This FACT SHEET will help you respond to those incorrect statements.
                                                          
It’s easy to understand – easy to use – and most importantly, it tells the truth, with supporting documentation and relevant media coverage.

In fact, we’ve already tested it on an MP and sure enough, the MP trotted out the first myth almost word for word! The people were able to immediately rebutt the claim to which the politician had no answer and promised to refer the concerns to the Minister of Justice.

Other politicians continue to state Myth #2 – despite the growing body of cases, and the Latta review being discredited as misleading, failing to meet its terms of reference, and leaving out relevant information.

We trust that this FACT SHEET will be a helpful and powerful resource as we demand that politicians tackle the real causes of child abuse but fix a flawed law that is targeting good parents raising great kids.

Share

1 comment for “Rebutting the ‘Political Myths’

  1. 14 November 2010 at 7:58 pm

    I see that the Government announced today a proposal to limit the right to jury trials, so that parents charged for smacking their children won’t be able to argue their case before a jury. Which was an important defence against police and prosecutors laying charges over smacking – they knew a jury wouldn’t convict.

Comments are closed.