Luke -
I like the "Legalise Smack" sign and think it conveys the message you were intending.

Olivia and Aaron -
WRT the legitimacy of parents using reasonable force on their children - try to think of parents as surrogate governments.

webhost101.net - Websites made easy.

Get behind me Satan.

Your mothers obviously didn't give you enough beatings while there was still a chance to redeem your wicked characters. (Though I fear in Lindsay's case there was never going to be any chance of redemption).

Children are valuable!

With a bit of effort you can put the little buggers to work doing the chores while you kick back with a beer!

And they are excellent patsies for any matrimonial crime committed by the adult male...

Wife: "Who farted?" Guilty Husband: "Baby need's changing!"

It's a damn lazy way to discipline... the laziest.

Things have come to a pretty pass when parents don't take the trouble to drown the little sods.

Ah, you students. Forgive me for the unpardonable sin of failing to see the humour!

This is not about initiating force, but about defending parents from having their rights taken away (not to mention their children) and homes invaded by the state, while doing NOTHING to help stop real child abuse.

I know that. But it's still an odd one to have your advertising speak to. But you are right that many people in this country are affronted very personally by that law and for the first time really felt the pinch of Nanny State. I guess that's why you had your advertising speak to it.

I must admit that I'd forgotten that it was Mitch who organised that march. Can see your reasoning, though always have a deep cringe when I see people being loud about their right to hit their children. It's a damn lazy way to discipline... the laziest.

Whadda you know, we're in agreement!

Third, why be so associated, and on the nose, with a principle of initiating force - which smacking children is?

Our candidate Mitch Lees organised the anti-anti-smacking march - so as a party we are pretty firmly committed to repealing the "anti-smacking bill". This is not about initiating force, but about defending parents from having their rights taken away (not to mention their children) and homes invaded by the state, while doing NOTHING to help stop real child abuse.

It is not something that we "let slip through".  It is a succint, interesting, humourous hint at two of our policies - legalising drugs and repealing the anti-smacking bill.

A repeal which has the support of around 80% of the country, I might add.  It is hardly an unpopular horse to back.

Thanks for the info Olivia. I'd wish the Libz well concerning legalizing heroin (though that would be an odd cause to focus on), but not in hitting children.

Aaron

First of all smack is considered such a dangerous and addictive drug by most (and it is) why associate yourselves with such a controversially destructive substance?

Second, it does not speak correct english to the original message you wanted to say, which I take it is "legalize smacking." So the slogan is not even technically clever or true to its primary point.

Third, why be so associated, and on the nose, with a principle of initiating force - which smacking children is? There are much better ways to discipline them than that.

I can't believe you guys let that one through.

KASS!