Ridiculous Referenda Rhetoric
Posted: June 21st, 2009 | Author: Daniel J Miles | Filed under: Daniel J Miles | 15 Comments »I’m fully aware that to publish my first post effectively in support of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition goes against every promise I’ve made so far with regard to being angry. But unfortunately I don’t control the issues, and my first urge to post has come at a moment of comparative political sanity.
I’m talking of course of the referendum on smacking.
My message is a simple one. If you don’t care about it, don’t vote. If you are in favour of the law as it is, still don’t vote. The only people who should be dignifying this reprehensible piece of linguistic gymnastics with five minutes of their day are those who want the law changed again.
There are two variables in play here. The turnout, and the result. Most likely the result will not be a landslide either way, in which case all that really matters is the turnout.
If you are in favour of the law as it stands, then you want that turnout to be as low as possible. The image you want to project is that we as a nation are past this discussion, that it is in the past now, and it is all a bit of a waste of time and money.
Any result from a high turnout, except for a highly unlikely landslide “yes” vote, serves only to legitimise this as a topic of further public discussion.
There is no way for me to be more clear on this. If you like the law as it stands, you cannot win on this referendum (virtually) no matter what the result. Far better to delegitimise it.
I should point out that, despite what people say, wanting the law changed back is not an indefensible position. Whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant – this is just some friendly advice to those considering voting yes.
On another note – quote of the year for me has almost been won already with this gem from Paul Holmes’ interview with David Garrett.
PAUL … did you make an inappropriate remark to a female staff member?
DAVID I believe that’s perfectly possible Paul.
Most meaningless response I’ve seen in a while? Again, perfectly possible.
You make an interesting point Daniel. Certainly something to think about (or not). Plus, it would save me time and effort. That’s a bonus.
Yeah in theory what you’ve said might make sense. But in reality it’s retarded.
The idea of not voting at all is pathetic. It doesn’t send any message whatsoever and will only be used as ammunition by the smacking nutters.
“If you like the law as it stands, you cannot win on this referendum (virtually) no matter what the result” – nobody ‘wins’ with this referendum but if you vote yes you’re showing the smackers that the way they think isn’t the norm. You’re showing them that people support the law because they’re voting yes to a question that is almost fullproof for a no answer.
The only possible way you can vote in this stupid referendum is yes. A yes vote shows support for the law despite the AWFUL question.
Plunket, Barnadoes, Unicef and hundreds of charities and organisations working with families are part of the “yes vote” campaign.
If you don’t vote you don’t have a voice. It’s simple. No point bitching about the referendum if you’re just going to silence yourself and ignore it.
Go to http://www.yesvote.org.nz to see a million reasons why you should vote yes in this fucking stupid referendum.
Oh and “wanting the law changed back is not an indefensible position.” – actually it is. Before the law change Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 was being used as a shield to conviction by parents and carers who have obviously abused their children.
If you are against the act you are for letting child abusers getting away with bashing their kids. And yes this is one of the instances where it is that simple.
Oh I see. I probably should have read your little mission statement before I commented on this. I didn’t realise you were taking the piss. Obviously.
No, not piss taking here. Deadly serious. All you do by voting yes is further legitimise more public debate around this complete non-issue. Believe me, you’re not going to win this referendum by much, if at all.
As for “If you are against the act you are for letting child abusers getting away with bashing their kids. And yes this is one of the instances where it is that simple.”
No, it’s clearly not that simple, that is a completely uninformed statement. For example, you may be against the act because you believe it should be outright illegal rather than merely a matter of police judgement. Although to be fair when I said “wanting the law changed back” I should really have said “wanting the law changed”.
Too many people assume anyone that disagrees with them by definition is wrong when the case is often that they are simply approaching the question from a different view…
Wait, where are my manners. As well as all that above, Welcome.
“If you don’t vote you don’t have a voice. It’s simple. No point bitching about the referendum if you’re just going to silence yourself and ignore it.”
In any democracy there are as many responses to a question, as many reasons to vote, as many reasons to tick a certain box et al as there are people. Choosing not to vote is a totally valid—and in this case excellent—way of expressing your belief. Not only about the question but about the entire debate about smacking as a whole. As Daniel points out “the image you want to project is that we as a nation are past this discussion.”
Sometimes silence is the best option. A cacophony of ill-informed voices does not make the quality of the debate or the understanding thereof any better.
Clearly CIR are—as they currently are in our legislation—impotent. Not voting is also a sign that you want change.
“All you do by voting yes is further legitimise more public debate around this complete non-issue” – But it has already been made an issue hasn’t it? The smackers have ensured that. By staying silent you just give them a stronger voice (or make them appear to have a stronger voice).
“Believe me, you’re not going to win this referendum by much, if at all.” – No shit I’ve already said that. I’ll repeat that there’s no way to “win” this referendum. The yes vote campaign isn’t about winning anyything it’s about showing that the smackers are just a vocal minority and MANY, many NZers support the law.
“that is a completely uninformed statement.” – Can you say how that statement is uninformed? It’s just paraphrasing what National MPs in the select committee said when they supported the law change. Feel free to actually read about the law you’re commenting on: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/?document=00dbhoh_bill6844_1
“Although to be fair when I said “wanting the law changed back” I should really have said “wanting the law changed”. – Now that I understand. But it’s very different to what you orginally said and I stand by my comment about “changing the law back” being indefensible.
“Too many people assume anyone that disagrees with them by definition is wrong when the case is often that they are simply approaching the question from a different view…” – I don’t think you’re wrong. I just hold a different view to you. As a blogger I think you should get used to the idea that people are not going to agree with everything you say. You should embrace differing opinions.
Jackson I do agree that as a nation we SHOULD be over this stupid debate. I’m definitely over it. And I do think the fact that the law works should mean we shouldn’t be still talking about it after all this time.
But the fact is if supporters of the law stay silent then the only voice heard is that of the smackers.
Do you really believe that the ‘non-vote’ (for lack of a better term) count will actually be considered a vote in support of the law?
Or do you think it will be a) ignored or b) embraced by the smackers and used to further push their agenda?
Also it’s worth considering that your taxpayer money is paying for a referendum you’re not taking part in.
Your last point I could agree with because I do believe we need change in regards to what questions are allowed in a referendum.
But to me supporting a law that stops child abusers getting away with child abuse is more important than stopping stupid referendum questions.
Sorry for the incredibly long comment by the way….I’m just genuinely interested in discussing this ‘non-vote’ idea.
For the means of a refferendum, yes the head to head of a vote is important. But when it comes to the idea that:
“The yes vote campaign isn’t about winning anyything it’s about showing that the smackers are just a vocal minority and MANY, many NZers support the law.”
Then you don’t need yes votes to showcase a minority, just a low level of “no” votes at the end of it. It will still highlight low voter turnout, or low levels of awareness and vocality amongst certain groups. But I don’t think voting or not voting makes an opinion out to be a minority or majority.
So tired of the debate over the necessity to vote. I haven’t missed an election yet, but I have encountered the opinion that if you aren’t going to vote you should at least vote for labour, for the rest of us. This is possibly the least democratic idea I’ve heard. At least when you place a vote willingly, no matter the reason you’re exercising your rights. Stifiling the ballot with an unwanted vote is useless to everyone.
To suggest that I have forfeited my right to complain is also unneccessary. Given the option to vote for either G.W.B or a T-Rex, I may complain when G.W.B drops bombs or when the T-Rex chews the Vice President in half. I won’t feel guilt or remorse that I should have voted for boms over chewing, or vice versa. Show me some logic that these complaints are unjustified.
I wouldn’t ever suggest someone vote for a party they don’t support.
That’s not what I’m saying at all – so I hope that’s not what you were suggesting.
All I’m saying is: if you support the law there’s a movement suggesting you should vote yes (to show that support) instead of not voting.
Showing support for a law by not showing support for a law doesn’t make sense to me.
That’s what I think your “non-vote” is. I don’t think it serves any purpose whatsoever – it’s likely your votes will be written off as people who couldn’t be bothered voting because they were too busy watching Shortland Street.
As far as I know there isn’t any analysis of why people don’t vote in any given referendum so it’s not like the powers that be will ring you and say “by the way what was your reason for not voting?”
If you don’t support the law then of course don’t vote. That makes sense.
My push for yes votes is only for people who support the law. Obviously I wouldn’t try to change the minds of anyone who didn’t support the law or didn’t care either way. That would be impossible and a waste of time.
I’m sure you’ll continue to complain regardless of the outcome of the referendum. So your T-Rex logic of course makes sense.
Everyone has the right to bitch about shit they could have changed. That’s freedom of speech isn’t it?
Just to clarify – do you disagree with my assertion that the higher the turnout (regardless of result), the more the media will report on it and the more this will become a national issue again?
The media will report on the referendum regardless of the turn-out. Voter turn-out will have no impact at all on how much media coverage there is on the issue.
Then I think that is the core of our disagreement on this. I think that the more votes received, the more our fickle media and ADD blogosphere will think people actually care about this issue any more, and the more they will cover it. Wingnuts on this will always be wingnuts, no vote will silence them. The PM has made it pretty damn clear the results don’t matter, there will be no law change. The biggest thing to be gained from this referendum as far as the ‘yes-vote’ campaign is concerned seems like it should be sending across the message that the only people who even think this is an issue worth discussing are those aforementioned wingnuts, and that the rest of us have moved on to something more productive.
I wish that were the case. I really do. And I do see where you’re coming from. I just think that there’s going to be massive coverage no matter what. I don’t think anyone has any control over that.
And I think the coverage might be more balanced if there are yes votes (to counter all the many no votes there will obviously be).
Either way I have actually enjoyed discussing this issue with you so thanks for humouring me.
I don’t think you’re right, but I certainly understand your point.
Glad you’ve enjoyed the discussion – as have I! Feel free to tell your friends about the blog