Smacking set to be outlawed
I think it is hugely regrettable that the Labour/Green majority on the Justice & Electoral Select Committee have rejected the sensible compromise by Chester Borrows to amend Section 59 to define reasonable force as that which causes no more than “transitory and trifling” discomfort.
This means they want a total ban on smacking, or parental discipline which causes “transitory and trifling” discomfort.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
there are way too many wankers on the government benches
November 20th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Don’t you love the way the fanatic Bradford says the police wont prosecute but the police say they wont have any choice.
Just put you fingers in your ears and keep telling other people how to raise their kids Bradford because half our headlines these days are out of control youths. You guys are doing SUCH a great job already.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Have you actually read the SC’s recommendations?
Most important is the section entitled “Prosecution practice under the new section 59″ on page 5.
Report is at http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/65FA800D-9CFB-4016-A0EC-854DF1CFD4F3/45772/DBSCH_SCR_3587_39191.pdf
November 20th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
No Andrew they are control freaks, misguided, stupid, fucking retards, navie wankers who won’t rest tell they get a total break down of society. Do they not watch tv. It seems many are strugling now to keep their familys together, this just makes it harder for the parents that give a damn. Keep out of our lives you arseholes.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
David, we still have an SOP from Chester, which needs support next year, hte debate has shifted from the select committee to the committee of the whole
November 20th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
How many times has Bradford announced in the madia that this bill will not outlaw smacking by responsible parents. Once again just weasel words.
My wife and I decided not to smack. Instead we used time out and deprivation of privileges (usually ice cream). Despite these always being stressful, unsuccessful and extremely cruel as they marginalised the child from the rest of the family, we persevered because that is what the experts said. One day my daughter, aged about seven, asked to be smacked instead so I obliged. A tear, a hug and it was over. Even better, it worked.
I would never be so arrogant so as to tell anyone how they should raise their children. I am just grateful we were able to work out by trial and error, what worked best for us.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Anyone who can’t differentiate between smacking and beating is a retard that needs their reproductive organs torn out with a boathook!
November 20th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Dave – yes hopefully it can be amended at committee of the whole stage. May depend on whether Labour allows a free vote or not.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
You think we have a bad murder rate now in NZ?? Well, just wait until the next generation of kids hit the streets that think (and know), they can get away with almost anything. Special thanks to a PC govt and judicary.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Yeah, all too easily solved…
Have a referendum on this one at the same time as the Muzzie immigration referendum.
Result: Left dealt too big time.
Question: Don knows they’ll both get up easy peecy….so why no political push?
Hmmm…understand the definition of the “NZ Establishment”.
Doesn’t matter who you vote for you always get the elite club.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Maybe “dealt to”.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
I want it made public which MP’s vote in which direction on this matter.
Wankers obviously fairly thick on the ground inside parliament, being the same dick heads to implement micro chipping legislation, oh what a winner that one was. I see all dogs in south Auckland have now been micro chipped and those owners that have not complied have been dealt with, yeah right.
Att Sue Bradford – prosecute away, if my child acts up anywhere I will deal with it with which ever means I deem necessary! If you don’t like that well tough!
November 20th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
To add my bit – if any form of assualt used to discipline a child is illegal, then it will be technically illegal to grab a child to take them to the “time out room” – something we do for the minor stuff, leaving smaking as a last resort.
The gall of Sue to say that she will draft a law , but then ewxpect the police are supposed to ignore 99% of the time. Watch the meddling idiots, if this law passes, to then moan at the police every time they do ignore it.
National would have my vote, gauranteed, if they publicly state this law, if passed would be repealed as soon as they get into power.
November 20th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Personally,I ignore petty governmental legislation and it works well for me.I had 2 family members in A&E recently with dire medical complaints and when I was seen smoking outside and was chided by Security,I simply told them to please fuck off.The please is important.The people who police us are often paid about $10 bucks per hour and what they value most is a little kindness and respect.I apply this in every case,and usually have an interesting conversation at 3am.,fagging away and relaxing in the dark.
November 20th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Stephen,
National doesn’t have the balls to pledge to undo Working for Families, KiwiSaver, or the local loop nationalization (hell, they support the latter).
I doubt they’ll be any less spineless in this case.
November 20th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
I think the govt seriously under estimates the mood of the electorate on this one, and that they’re venturing into uncharted waters, at their peril. My advice to them is to ‘butt out’ of peoples’ personal lives.
November 20th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Hey,
settle,everyone. The legislative process is only half way through!
November 20th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Hey,
settle,everyone. The legislative process is only half way through!
November 20th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
I’m just glad I’m past all this nonsense and probably will be just ashes when the current bunch of mis-behaved kids arrive on the block
I was subjected to stupid ‘for the encouragement of others’ type punishment and I learnt to largely keep my nose clean. Later got the cane twice. We smacked our child occasionally and he has turned out very much AOK except he has fallen into the trap of not smacking mores the pity.
SueB would be much better getting her act together and promoting a society where all have a stake and keep their nose’s clean becuase they don’t want to loose their stake in society.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
That damn socialist communist Mugabe government have done it again…
If a man cannot beat his own child with a piece of plywood, then what sort of freedom do we really have?
November 20th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
No Marcelski, most important is clause 3:
3 Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as a justification for disciplining children.
The lies told by Bradford and others about not wanting to ban smacking have borne fruit. If they think the police won’t prosecute smacking they can insert a provision that specifically permits it as I suggested in my submission to the SC.
This bill has been poorly devised and poorly argued by its proponents from day one. It is bad law. Full stop.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
I also think they are really stepping on extremely thin ice with this legislation. I’d hate to be Sue Bradford waiting around for the first disgruntled parent with a gun license to have their child taken from them and go looking for revenge.
Really seriously stupid bill. I’ll vote for anyone who makes it their mandate to back any change to s59 back out again.
My final comment on all this. People only think they should tell other people how they should live their lives because they deludedly think they are better than them. That’s why the US meddles in the middle east (look where that got us), and that’s why Sue Bradford is meddling in our lives.
Anyone who thinks they are any better than anyone else has a serious problem which in general just makes them the worst type of person.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
I also think they are really stepping on extremely thin ice with this legislation. I’d hate to be Sue Bradford waiting around for the first disgruntled parent with a gun license to have their child taken from them and go looking for revenge.
Really seriously stupid bill. I’ll vote for anyone who makes it their mandate to back any change to s59 back out again.
My final comment on all this. People only think they should tell other people how they should live their lives because they deludedly think they are better than them. That’s why the US meddles in the middle east (look where that got us), and that’s why Sue Bradford is meddling in our lives.
Anyone who thinks they are any better than anyone else has a serious problem which in general just makes them the worst type of person.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
I also think they are really stepping on extremely thin ice with this legislation. I’d hate to be Sue Bradford waiting around for the first disgruntled parent with a gun license to have their child taken from them and go looking for revenge.
Really seriously stupid bill. I’ll vote for anyone who makes it their mandate to back any change to s59 back out again.
My final comment on all this. People only think they should tell other people how they should live their lives because they deludedly think they are better than them. That’s why the US meddles in the middle east (look where that got us), and that’s why Sue Bradford is meddling in our lives.
Anyone who thinks they are any better than anyone else has a serious problem which in general just makes them the worst type of person.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
sorry for the multiple post! There’s a real problem with the server hosting this, kept timing out.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
sorry for the multiple post! There’s a real problem with the server hosting this, kept timing out.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Time out should be read as successful post.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
It’s a symbol Mike….
For Hulun The Control is all…
Remember, your judgement is fucked, Hulun will provide guidance.
November 20th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
I keep coming back to the outcomes being sought by this law. If there is evidence that people who commit serious assault on children are deterred by an anti-smacking law then great – ban away. My own view is that if there is sufficient respect for the care and nurture of one’s children then that law is completely irrelevant. If then isn’t then it’s completely ineffectual. So what problem does it solve?
I think most of us know that the outcome of this law will be a tick in a socialist-ideology survey box, and to turn many parents into as-yet-unconvinced criminals while those who are the source of the problem continue to maim and kill their kids. The revised law is like using broad spectrum antibiotics to attack a very small cancer. A knife and a skilled surgeon would be way better. Still that kind of surgery would involve addressing the root issues and most politicians are too spineless to take on anything un-PC. Impacts re-election prospects you see.
November 20th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Does anyone here apart from me, miss the delicious irony of a recidivist, convicted criminal and advocator for the rights of beneficeries (and since turned politician), has the gall to turn around and tell us how to bring up and discipline our own flesh and blood? Now, I try hard to avoid bringing myself into disrepute in these blogs, but this time Im going to stick my neck out and be recorded for all time, and state… Fuck off you stupid bitch! Get a life and mind your own fucking business! ( And BTW… She’s lucky Im still single and dont have kids! I could only imagine how cross I would be over this matter if I did have..!!??) Its because of the likes of politicians of your ilk (in part)…Sue Bradford.. that our serious crime rate statistics continue to deteriorate.
November 20th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Where is Sonic and Phil whoar when you ned them to add some sycophantic idiocy to the discussion?
November 20th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Oswald Bastable:
“Anyone who can’t differentiate between smacking and beating is a retard that needs their reproductive organs torn out with a boathook!”
If things are so simple, why don’t you define the distintion for us?
Coming from Scandinavia where smacking were outlawed first (more than 20 years ago), observing the NZ smacking-debate feels a bit like stepping back into the 50-ies. And all of you with great fears of what kind of society a country which bans smacking turns into can rest assured, such a law change is not sufficient to bring crime or violence rates to US levels (at least it hasn’t in Norway, and I’d be very surprised if anyone can present comparative evidence to show that Norway is an exception to a general trend).
I think the importance of the law change is being blown a bit out of proportion. Surely, no matter how the law is formulated the jury system will ensure that legal practice will be in line with what the average kiwi thinks is right. I have too much faith in the NZ legal system to think that either obvious abuse will be acquitted or that obvious cases of reasonable force will be punished systematically. So, to me the law is important primarily in the borderline cases, where there is no consensus on whether it is a case of abuse or reasonable disciplining. And contrary to the belief of everyone here who see the repeal as state intervention, I think repealing it is a matter of ensuring equality for the law: in those cases where there are any doubt as to whether the smacking was reasonable society should protect children’s right to security equally to adults. I believe that as long as section 59 operates children has weaker legal rights than adults in those borderline cases: if I smack another adult, everyone agree that should be illegal, right? But, if a parent smack a child AND it is not clear whether it constitutes reasonable disciplining/force, under operating law it is not clear what would happen. Repealing section 59 would make it clear that the two cases above are legally identical, as they should be if children and adults have equal rights.
November 20th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
Inseminating the hand-basin, I’d guess.
November 20th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t have a Big-Brother holoscreen or a policeman in my house, so they can’t see what I do.
But I do know that if I have beaten my child with a plank, and I get charged with child abuse over it, I should be serving time for it. I can’t go around hitting adults with planks, but I can bash the daylights out of my snotty little kid and call it reasonable force from a reasonable parent.
And then we wonder at the numbers of child abuse cases and young people desensitised to violence. Golly.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:12 am
If you had commited this crime against your child a thousand years ago, chances are that you’d be hung. So, where lies the difference between a thousand years of supposed civilisation, and today?
November 21st, 2006 at 12:51 am
Marski – Big brother is way past you. So far past it’s criminal. Ever heard of schools? You don’t need to go into homes, just go into the nearest school and tell kids to raise their hands who get smacked.
No one who has “beaten” their child with a plank has avoided jail. One parent smacked lightly with one.
But you make a valid point – are we seeing this behavior in socety? Considering the epedimic of people pulling strangers over their knees, pulling down pants and spanking, I would say…
no.
I’ve posted on section 59 quite a bit, and will write a few more soon.
November 21st, 2006 at 1:24 am
So…you would still be able to smack your kids, provided it wasn’t for corrective purposes. You could do it to prevent them doing harm to others?
November 21st, 2006 at 6:45 am
I wonder if the bill would have passed without the truly frightening submissions of various religious groups DEMANDING the right to torture their own children? If any MPs on the committee were sitting on the fence then I don’t doubt that the strange parade of child abusing lunatics who showed up to argue against the amendment scared them straight into Bradfords arms.
November 21st, 2006 at 6:57 am
Maybe I’ve missed it, but I haven’t heard any MP or authority speaking out in the media against this bill. Has anyone else?
November 21st, 2006 at 7:25 am
i’m actually with the childrens’ commissioner on this…
in her criticisms of the ambiguities that still remain/haven’t been addressed..
and am somewhat pissed at sue bradford for allowing this (crucial)bill to be watered down to such a degree..
to being..at first glance..ineffectual/toothless..
but it sets a new benchmark for ‘incrementalist advances’..i guess…
it seems like bradford ‘choked’ just before the finish line…eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 21st, 2006 at 7:35 am
Feminazi scum like Bumford are destroying the soul of kiwiland .How far are parents to be pushed before we see a similar situation as what is happening in Tonga . The feminazi’s have lost touch with mainstream NZ, they must be destroyed !!
November 21st, 2006 at 7:39 am
Sue Bradford realise the murderers of babies don’t care if it’s illegal to smack kids!
This legislation tells me more about the intelligence of NZ politicians, I would expect an open feedback from National as to ALL it’s MP’s position on this.
November 21st, 2006 at 8:06 am
You sound so suprised, David. Many of us were saying that smacking would be outlawed. We were not taken seriously. Now the anti-smackers are saying “but the police won’t prosecute”. Ha. If the police DO prosecute, will the anti-smackers pay the legal costs of those charged with smacking? Sorry, what was that? Silence.
November 21st, 2006 at 8:09 am
Build more jails feminazi scum – off course the lunkhead cops will arrest at the drop of a hat !!!
November 21st, 2006 at 8:12 am
Of course children will continue to be bullied by other children. Indeed children assaulting children may increase. Certainly the Swedish experience is not encouraging in regard to child assaults. I think the reporting of child assaults increased by nearly 500% after Sweden introduced a similar law.
Children may become more anti-social, knowing that their parents aren’t allowed to touch them. I’m sure we’ll see the benefits – and costs – of this policy several years down the track.
November 21st, 2006 at 8:15 am
Danyl said: I wonder if the bill would have passed without the truly frightening submissions of various religious groups DEMANDING the right to torture their own children
Must confess that trying to understand how you equate smacking with torture causes me significantly more physiological trauma than did any smack my father gave me.
And as a parent the main thing I want today is to be assured the right to bring up my children in a way that reflects my own value system rather than the value system that the state insists I apply.
This bill and hundreds of other changes to the status of family and parenting are slowly eating away at what I believe to be essential to a strong and safe future NZ.
There will always be extremists on both side of any discussion. Setting aside the ‘demands’ of parents who beat their kids senseless, and the extremism of those who would have all kids become wards of the state a birth and we have a massive centre ground. Is this where kids are being killed? The repeal is being ‘sold’ to NZers as a curb to the horrific numbers of kids being abused or killed by their parents. The reality is that its part of a socialist agenda to destroy families, own kids and to control the future. If I’m wrong on this I’d expect to see a massive reduction in child killings in 2007. We’ll see.
November 21st, 2006 at 8:25 am
And just so we’re all clear on this: the police will prosecute decent parents that smack.
In 2003, police charged Paul Hopkinson with burning the NZ flag. That’s right, for the first time in our legal history, police decided to prosecute this heinous crime, so heinous that nobody had been prosecuted before. The law was enacted by Muldoon to deter flag burning during the 1981 Springbok tour.
Not surprisingly the judge thought that flag burning was a legitimate form of protest. What was amazing was that even after the judge told police that flag burning was legitimate, Hopkinson was again charged with the same “offence”. How vindictive and nasty is that? And the police tell us that they are too busy to worry about the small stuff. Yeah, right.
November 21st, 2006 at 8:37 am
To all those who are celebrating the passage of this odious piece of legislation through the house I have just one question, and it’s an old one:
“To whom the good?”
And please don’t mention the Kahui twins et al because we all know that at the time of their sad deaths there was a law against murder which failed to protect them.
So, I really want to know how this law change is going to benefit this country. Please, oblige me someone.
November 21st, 2006 at 8:44 am
My concern is that we will now have a system where you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. People can accuse you and the police will arrest you and off to court you go, and you will have to spend thousands to justify yourself and try and get your children back. I can see why D4d gets wound up. There are elements of what happens to men accused of violence and have protection orders put against them and then have to fight to clear the accusation.And the people who commit the abuse will blithely carry on, because we arent stopping them now!
November 21st, 2006 at 8:45 am
I note that even if the Police decide not to prosecute, civil cases will be able to be brought.
I predict a significant number of these, brought by parents who have separated, for the purposes of strengthening custody cases.
November 21st, 2006 at 9:00 am
I suspect that the Law of unintended consequenses will kick in on this one , at least for many who are only looking as far as trying to reduce violence towards children.
What is really concerning is that for some (Bradford et al) there will be intended consequences which have nothing to do with children’s “rights” but more to do with socialisation of the family, increasing state intrusion into the private lives of citizens and additional manipulation of society.
Incrementally nibbling away at the authority of the individual and the ability of the population to determine its own direction is alive and well and is part of an agenda that must me stopped and reversed ASAP.
November 21st, 2006 at 9:01 am
So, I really want to know how this law change is going to benefit this country. Please, oblige me someone
Benefit is open to interpretation. The state will claim that children benefit from protection against violence and abuse.
I’d hazard a guess that there is significantly less smacking today than in the past. I could number on the fingers of one hand the number of times I smacked our children. I’d need fingers, toes and a notepad to record the number of time my father smacked me as a child. And his father? We’ll let’s just say that significant arithmetic skills would have been required there. My grandfather was a fantastic man, my father I’d rate as one of the best anyone could have. You’d need to talk to my kids to get an objective view of my parenting skills…. but just quietly I think they’d say they love me
My point is that parents are more aware of the appropriateness of other forms of discipline and use them more these days. So why then are more and more kids being killed by their parents? Surely an inter generational drop in smacking would lead to a reduction is killings – right? But we’re not seeing this. We’re seeing quite the opposite. Far from being causative, smacking and child abuse/killings are anti-correlative.
So to go back you the question of who benefits…the state does. Not content on controlling us via taxation and welfare dependency it gains still more control of children – the next generation – by progressively removing the right of parents to raise kids using this own value system. Our kids will not thank us for allowing this to happen.
Spam: I predict a significant number of these, brought by parents who have separated, for the purposes of strengthening custody cases. Ouch – a keen observation. This is a very frightening prospect. More familes destroyed, hightened level of ‘fighting’ over custody. Hard to see kids benefiting from that.
November 21st, 2006 at 9:02 am
This law change will mean that you will no longer be legally able to flog your child with a horsewhip. That’s a good thing in my book, perhaps not to many people who routinely assault their children though (perhaps there’s a few of those posting on this blog now?). As to those that say people will be put in prison for giving their child a light smack on the hand as they attempt to out a knife in a power point, really that’s just a bit disingenuous to me. The police are able to exercise discretion in these matters. I no more expect someone to be landed in court for J walking than be put in a cell for giving their child a light smack.
So the days of legalised sadistic abuse of children are over, just get over it.
November 21st, 2006 at 9:16 am
So the days of legalised sadistic abuse of children are over, just get over it.
But PJ, Sadistic abuse of children has never been legal. The law already provides for that kind of abuse to be dealt with. Feel like enlightening us with how you think the repeal of Section 59 will limit the brutal assaults and killings?
November 21st, 2006 at 9:18 am
dad4justice is in a state of ‘high froth’..eh..?
and where’s fred with his ‘muzzie-warning’..when we need him..?
and although i bitch at bradford for ‘choking’ what this debate has done has moved the casual brutalisation of children out of the public arena..
there is far leass ‘societal-comfort’ with the whole idea of slapping/hitting children..
and this is a very good thing…!
you lot..(in a previous life) would be bitching about having your ‘rights’ to beat your slaves taken away.eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 21st, 2006 at 9:20 am
philipjohn,
Take off the rose-tinted glasses and look at this a bit more relistically. Then tell us that it is a good law that makes an action absolutely illegal but then you are advised that if you break it at a certain level you will not be prosecuted. Whether they like it or not, the Police will have to record a complaint and will then have to make a judgement in place of the Court about where the line of reasonableness is in order to make a decision on whether a prosecution will be what? successful? in the public interest? necessary to establish a bit of certainty about where the line is? Too many question marks for me I’m afraid. Then we have the situation raised elsewhere on this thread about private prosecutions. The Court will have to have regard to the statute and will be required to record a guilty verdict regardless of the severity of sentence. Is it logical that a parent who smacks their child who pulled down a supermarket display stand in a tantrum, or perhaps was about to run out on the road in front of a bus, then must declare an assault conviction and risk refusal of entry to another country? This legislation will not prevent child abuse. BTW read the “horsewhip” case again in detail. It was not a whip but was a riding crop and the little sod deserved a bit more of it after assaulting a caregiver with a 4×2 and a bit more. The little toerag had not had the lines clearly enough defined and enforced it would appear – too much softly softly IMHO.
It does make a good catchcry though for the defenders of family breakdown though. By quoting it you clearly place yourself in a position that you have either not thought this through to its conclusions or are a supporter of the more sinister agenda of socialism
November 21st, 2006 at 9:20 am
dad4justice is in a state of ‘high froth’..eh..?
and where’s fred with his ‘muzzie-warning’..when we need him..?
and although i bitch at bradford for ‘choking’ what this debate has done has moved the casual brutalisation of children out of the public arena..
there is far leass ‘societal-comfort’ with the whole idea of slapping/hitting children..
and this is a very good thing…!
you lot..(in a previous life) would be bitching about having your ‘rights’ to beat your slaves taken away.eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 21st, 2006 at 9:30 am
The amount of sadistic child aduse is escalating dear Phillip John, as I got heaps of cases where childen have been placed in the hands of child abusing CYFS care givers to prove it ? Do you want me to read you the childen’s affidavits that never made it to Court as CYFS went into Helengrad cover it up mode ? For example a certain family from Timaru had the children – 4 girls – all abused by CYFS caregivers, however dad4kids is glad to inform sick critic’s that all the children who were abused are back in the safe hands of their biological parents.I am thankful to Timaru and CH CH police who obtained a recent conviction of one of the perpetrator’s of child sexual abuse -rape of a minor !!! .There are only six children in this family and CYFS Ruth Dyson will not comment as she is on a short feminazi dog chain.Got to go as I have a big day ahead protesting at the de -family court and CYFS offices !!!
November 21st, 2006 at 9:31 am
If this bill passes, I don’t think I’ll have children in this country; it’s getting so the state is dangerously in control of how you bring them up.
I’d probably go to Australia or somewhere…
November 21st, 2006 at 9:38 am
Fletch
I have told my twins sons to get the hell out of this cess pit before they’re falsely convicted . Both are tradesmen and I thankful they have acted on my advice as they will start families across the ditch . What a sad and sick country this is !!
November 21st, 2006 at 9:40 am
Banning smacking is just a tiny part of the end-game. That end-game involves a significant longitudinal social agenda and it’s been moving along quite nicely than-you very much. The agenda is to destroy the family unit and place the state in an increasingly significant position of determination of the values that we are expected to live by. Not convinced? Ask yourself if the state has more or less direct intervention into our lives than 30 years ago.
It is not the state’s job to raise my kids. It is my absolute right and responsibility to instil in my kids the values that I believe will allow them to be come balanced, responsible and empowered citizens.
The Socialist agenda is to find as many way as possible to stop this happening. How long before a smacked EB child is removed from their parents while a blind eye is turned to the child smacked by a ‘ruling party’ member?
November 21st, 2006 at 9:42 am
phillip john,
The current law allows “reasonable force”. Nothing more. Your comments on this thread using phrases like flogging are contemptible hysterics.
Folgging & beating are not reasonable, and society does not regard them as such, and so the current law is actually very good. Because it uses the term reasonable, the law is designed to reflect the state of society. Reasonable is whatever society says is reasonable at the particular time. That means if society deems smacking unreasonable, then it is. It is a truly democratic law. No wonder this corrupt bunch want it removed.
The anti smacking lobby is the one that is built on disingenuous arguments.
Children are not adults, their minds do not work like adults, they do not respond to stimuli and process information in the same way as adults. Treating them as adults is wrong.
They do not have the same rights. But neither do they have the same responsibilities. Age related punishments are appropriate. You would not imprison a 3 year old for setting fire to a car or house, and no-one would argue that you should, yet in the same breath they would argue that an appropiate 3 yearold’s punishment is not appropriate because you would not do it to an adult.
The current trendy arguments have a very thin veneer of logic & reasonableness, which quickly can be shown to be nonsensical if you examine them closely & logically.
Pink is not red. There are shades of pink and red that are very similar, and a mid point that is admittedly hard to define, where a colour becomes more red than pink.
The anti smacking argument in effect tries to do the equivalent of defining all pink as red- all smacking as child abuse, and it is just as ridiculous.
There may be people on this group who routinely assault their children. That is wrong, & I hope they get caught & punished. However, properly administered physical punishment is not assault.
November 21st, 2006 at 9:45 am
“BTW read the “horsewhip” case again in detail. It was not a whip but was a riding crop and the little sod deserved a bit more of it after assaulting a caregiver with a 4×2 and a bit more. The little toerag had not had the lines clearly enough defined and enforced it would appear – too much softly softly IMHO.”
Far more likely that they had been bought up in a violent family, it’s all “monkey see monkey do” at that age. Read some statistics about violent offenders some time, the evidence suggests that the majority of them have had violent upbringings – violence is inter-generational. To me this bill is good leadership by the government and represents a step towards a culture where violence against children is unacceptable.
November 21st, 2006 at 9:48 am
Peter S – an excellent rebuttal. Well done.
November 21st, 2006 at 9:51 am
The bill is not designed to legislate against ‘the smacks your Father gave you’. The bill was presented in response to a number of high-profile cases in which parents who hospitalized their children after beating them with weapons, suffocating them and breaking their limbs were able to avoid assault convictions on the basis of the Section 59 ‘reasonable force’ argument.
The select committee saw testimony from parents who argued that the best way to raise children was to beat them savagely and frequently while young, thus instilling proper respect for their elders. It saw testimony from people who felt that children were often possessed by demons and that the best way to expel the demons was to beat the child.
Bradfords legislation is designed to allow the courts to find these people guilty of child abuse – presently many of them are escaping conviction on the basis of the Section 59 loophole.
So unless you are sending your kids to hospital on a regular basis the police are pretty fucking unlikely to prosecute you for smacking your child. These cases cost time and money, neither of which the police or courts are particularly prone to waste in order to bring assault charges against people who slap their kids hand once every couple of months.
Gee, it’s hard to figure out why a family court could ever have ruled against ‘dad4justice’. He must be a hell of a character witness.
November 21st, 2006 at 9:52 am
if I smack another adult, everyone agree that should be illegal, right?
Actually – No. How many women have you seen charged with assault over a timely slap given to an overbearing male?
November 21st, 2006 at 9:57 am
Thank you Andrew, I had reached the same conclusion though whether state control of families really is of benefit to us is a moot point. Care to comment phil et al?
I am also fascinated by the language used by some of the posters in this thread. Particularly terms such as “causal brutalization” and “routinely assualt” used in support of the change. This is not what what many who against this change are talking about and the use of such terms significantly alters the perspective of the debate. What I think most people want is the ability to have all forms of discipline available to them as parents and the right to use them as they fit without having the right to inflict injury or harm. I think the Chester Borrows’ “transitory and trifling discomfort” phrase is a good guideline and that that compromise should be supported.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:04 am
With fucking idiots like Bradford running amok in NZ, its little wonder why 600+ people are leaving this country. As the “no boundaries” mentality takes hold, we can look forward to
- More murders & bashings
- More Chris Kahu’s
- More abductions & kidnappings
- More flaky socialist punitive legislation
This country is going down the wrong road, how long are we going to take this shit, as we are running out of time.
If we think we are immuned from whats happened in Tonga, it’s going to happen here, its not an if, its just a when. So get ready, as it will be just like 1860 all over again.
PS : Ever wondered why Helen bought 110 LAV’s?
November 21st, 2006 at 10:20 am
“The bill was presented in response to a number of high-profile cases in which parents who hospitalized their children after beating them with weapons, suffocating them and breaking their limbs were able to avoid assault convictions on the basis of the Section 59 ‘reasonable force’ argument.”
Is this true?
Not all actions we know to be criminal result in convictions, through no fault in the written law.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:27 am
“Feminazi scum like Bumford are destroying the soul of kiwiland”
Hard to believe she walked out on you with that attitude.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:29 am
Dim –
Care to provide some examples of how big this problem is? So far, you’ve just given us hyperbole & emotion with this “number of high-profile cases in which parents who hospitalized their children after beating them with weapons, suffocating them and breaking their limbs were able to avoid assault convictions on the basis of the Section 59 ‘reasonable force’ argument.”
Some actual examples, please.
The ‘reasonable force’ already covers this kind of abuse. If people really are ‘getting away with it’, then its time to review how the courts determine ‘reasonable force’, not to remove it completely.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:38 am
There are many parents out there that abuse their right to smack their kids. In my case I got hidings simply because the old man had drunk too much and was pissed off about something. Anyway it was almost always unneccessary. While I believe smacking in some cases is a good use of discipline, this bill sends a message to those that abuse the right to smack that it is not ok and hopefully some kids (and society)will be spared the psycological effects that abusive parents create.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:39 am
The bill was presented in response to a number of high-profile cases in which parents who hospitalized their children after beating them with weapons, suffocating them and breaking their limbs were able to avoid assault convictions on the basis of the Section 59 ‘reasonable force’ argument.
I’d be interested to read of those cases. Do you have links of something you could post?
I think we’re all agreed that there is horrific abuse towards kids in NZ. The question is will repealing Section 59 it stop said hospitalisations, beatings and suffocations? Most on this thread think not. Danyl, what do you think – yes or no?
November 21st, 2006 at 10:42 am
Are people really pissed off enough with this despicable government?
Ranting and raving is simply not enough.
I would love to be involved in a national day of protest against the labour government and for that matter MMP.
Can anyone contribute to an agenda of all the crap that labour has passed over the past few years?
If you post it in here, we can collate it.
I would very much like to see it BIG PRINT.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:51 am
To Danyl and Phillip John, you still don’t get it. The police won’t prosecute, blah blah blah. Oh, yes they will!!! If they can prosecute someone for burning the flag (not once but twice), which is not even an offence, surely they will prosecute those that have committed an offence. Of course, you can put your money where your mouth is and contribute to the legal costs of parents who are charged with smacking.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:53 am
This law is stupid. Everyone can agree that violence against children is abhorrent. But criminalizing all parents everywhere for the actions of abusers is stupid. It’s analogous to the laws about dogs been changed in the wake of violent dog attacks – hey there are irresponsible dog owners out there so lets penalize the good ones while the irresponsible ones just continue the same. This law may have good intentions but unfortunately thats what the path to hell is paved with – good intentions. Its a dangerous line the government is stepping over and will achieve absolutely nothing other than making a few limp wristed do gooders feel a bit better
November 21st, 2006 at 10:55 am
DIM appears not to know the full details of the cases, and WHY the juries let the parent off.
Being smacked with a horse-riding crop is one thing, but are people here suggesting that that led to any physical damage? Any hospitalisation of the child? That is simply assumed. And wrong.
Also, no mention of the many cases where s59 was used as a defence and failed miserably, because the juries found it abusive and not discipline. The father that smacked a toddler too hard for pooing his pants, for example.
DIM, when I get a chance I’ll dig up some references to cases where either the police or social workers HAVE acted on reports of smacking, and parents HAVE LOST their children over it. If smacking becomes illegal, expect these cases to increase, because no physical evidence of abuse would be required. Unfortunately, we will see Police bound to act on the request of an over-zealous social worker’s opinion that a foster home is better than a parents home, for the wrong reasons.
I suggest people here read up on the riding crop case, get the full story before sounding so sure. You’ve all bought into assumptions.
Don’t focus on what the police might do, but the CYF staff who can use the law to direct police action.
There is a logical and clear difference between a smack for discipline and a hit in anger.
Sue Bradford has lied in the past – now proven – at one stage she tried the tactic of claiming she only wanted to stop abuse and that a smack was fine. Now I heard her declare her aim was always to outlaw smacking, for any reason.
This is social engineering, pure and simple. For acceptance, it requires that people believe a smack in discipline is tantamount to abuse. This same logic would dictate that we have zero tolerance for drivers with ANY alchohol in their system, rather than the limits proscribed now. Many people woulod see the sense in this and argue for a total ban, others understand you can set limits and punish people based on exceeding those limits.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:57 am
Jeff said: While I believe smacking in some cases is a good use of discipline, this bill sends a message to those that abuse the right to smack that it is not ok and hopefully some kids (and society) will be spared the psycological effects that abusive parents create.
The problem is – of course – that the 99% get the message that their occasional use of smacking makes them as-yet-unconvinced criminals.
Like I’ve said previously you’re more likely to cure cancer with a scalpel, not aspirin. This law is aspirin because our politicians are too PC & spineless to address the root cause of the issues. Easier to shift the blame to society by demonising previously good parents.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:01 am
I can’t confirm this but the figure quoted on Larry Williams (Newstalk ZB) yesterday was that S59 had been successfully used only 5 or 6 times in the past 15 years. Hardly looks like a vast and gaping loophole being exploited to excuse floggings and significant violent abuse.
It actually sounds like the Courts have used their discretion quite wisely on the application of S59 so why change it?
November 21st, 2006 at 11:13 am
DavidW, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. It has been successfully used 7 times in 15 yrs.
Quick, let’s legislate.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:21 am
Three seconds on google lead me to this page at Bernardos where they have information about a number of cases in which Section 59 lead to an aquittal. Try harder, guys.
Maybe I’m just a big soft leftie, but I don’t find the notion of ‘only 5 or 6′ people walking free after assaulting their children terribly comforting.
I think it will lead to more convictions for people who assault their children.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:32 am
No Danyl, you didn’t answer the question. Repealing s59 will change the definition of assault leading to more convincions. I ask you again: do you think this will stop said hospitalisations, beatings and suffocations? Simple question really.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:32 am
Maybe I’m just a big soft leftie, but I don’t find the notion of ‘only 5 or 6′ people walking free after assaulting their children terribly comforting.
Maybe you are a big soft leftie because you don’t seem to entertain the fact that s59 might have been used successfully in those 6 cases because there was no assault
November 21st, 2006 at 11:42 am
Funny how the same old names that appear arguing that the prohibiting of drugs (canabis in particular) can never, and will never work are the same ones that appear advocating the banning of smacking.
Lets compare the arguments.
Cannabis- The law is too hard to enforce, and that we should not give people who only posess the drug for their own use the stigma of a criminal conviction. And the court system is under too much pressure, so we should reduce the unnecessary load. And cannabis does not really hurt anyone, and does not lead to harder drugs.
Smacking- We should give everyone who smacks any child, however hard, a criminal conviction. The police don’t have to prosecute every breach, they can use their discretion (yeah right), so it won’t really clog up the courts and be impossible to enforce. Any smacking is assault & smacking a child automatically encourages, nay teaches them that it is acceptable to assault other people.
The solution is not banning smacking. The solution is to prosecute and properly punish those who commit real assaults- and this can be done under the perfectly adequate existing law.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:43 am
“Father acquitted in pipe beating” *
Reported: New Zealand Herald 3/11/01
A jury in the Hamilton District Court decided a father who struck his 12-year old daughter with a hosepipe was within his rights to do so and acquitted him from assault charges.
You’re right – I guess there was no assault, and the well documented wounds to the child were just part of some big feminist conspiracy.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:50 am
That Sue Bradford has been nothing but a shit-stirrer her entire life… I’ve never seen or heard of her having a proper job, and now she’s telling the rest of us how to be good parents…
People that assault their children, beat and bash them deserve to be prosecuted – those that discipline, deserve to be commended.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:56 am
I hope Banjo knows not to smack eh ?
November 21st, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Ok let’s get some perspective here.
1. This Bill I am totally opposed either in the form it was introduced in and in its current form, which is worse for the reason that Andrew et al have given.
2. The state cannot get into our homes.
3. We can send our children to schools who believe that parents can use REASONABLE force in disciplining their children. This word REASONABLE seems to have lost its meaning on some peopel in this thread.
4. If 2 and 3 become impossible, then look at 5 and 6 below.
5. At least for me, this is a temporary little battle, one which one day our Parliament and its lawmakers will be called to account for. If you believe in God, and I admit that is a big if, then all of this is a little minor transitory hassle. However I do believe in God. One day Jesus will return to this earth and it’s him who will determine the eternal destiny of everyone. If you do believe that God is in ultimate control of everything, and that His Son will return again, then really this problem is only temporally limited in space and time.
6. So while I don’t like what they are trying to do and I will oppose it in all normal lawful manners possible, I (unfortunately from their perspective) do not answer to them. One thing that is universally true is that you cannot force people against their wills and beliefs. Let them play around with a few bits of paper for a few short years; in the eternal perspective of things a couple of years or decades is not a problem. To those who say that I am off in la-la land then that’s just your opinion, nothing more, nothing less. I know that for me and my family we are subject to a higher authority and God’s sense of justice will prevail eventually – it certainly gives me a sense of assurance that others cannot take away from me.
Don’t try and change my mind – from my point of view this is a perspective that keeps things in balance. I feel absolutely confident and assured that things will turn out ok eventually – don’t try and change my mind there too. If you do want to argue any of my beliefs then feel free – be prepared for a long debate though, and be prepared that at the end of the debate you wont have changed my mind that God is in ultimate control of everything.
On the other hand, if you don’t think you’re mind can be changed – look at Ta Mok, Pol Pot’s right hand man. Towards the end of his life he became a Christian, even though he came from such a depraved and callous state of mind. If God can reach him, then He’s pretty accessible to most people – you should try talking to Him one day
November 21st, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Well done, Dim. You’ve posted one case where someone has been aquitted.
Obviously you ‘know’, from reading a newspaper article, that the jury, who actually heard all the evidence and was given a steer from the judge, was wrong and that you were right.
Thank goodness we have you to oversee our judicial system, and call them to account to uphold the law in the manner that you expect, from what you read in newspapers.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Danyl, the example you cite may have been a travesty of justice. Doubtless that since 2001 that have been 1000′s of other travesties across our legal system, and perhaps even one or two involving parental care – or lack thereof. I guess it’s also possible that Google didn’t direct you to all the facts of the case.
I’m not keen to let you off the hook pontificating about increasing the number of criminal convictions. Increased convictions mean nothing to victims. So I ask you for a third time: Do you think repealing s59 will stop the hospitalisations, beatings and suffocations where the perpetrators supposedly escaped prosecution under s59?
November 21st, 2006 at 12:48 pm
“I think it will lead to more convictions for people who assault their children.”
I think it will lead to convictions of decent parents who now are permitted to smack their children without legal ramifications. What will be the consequences to children and their communities of such convictions?
November 21st, 2006 at 12:49 pm
“I think it will lead to more convictions for people who assault their children.”
I think it will lead to convictions of decent parents who now are permitted to smack their children without legal ramifications. What will be the consequences to children and their communities of such convictions?
November 21st, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Nice to know that no-one is going to attempt to change our minds on how we discipline our children. Abuse is not acceptable, but prescribing how parents should discipline their children is not acceptable either.
Nice to know that this Bill, if it becomes law, will not change my mind or actions – and that the state does not have ultimate power over my family.
For those of you who are worried, don’t – it is not possible for the state to control anyone to this degree at the end of the day.
As our child grows up, we will certainly point out which people and their ideas are to be ignored. Coupled with lots of time and love for our child, I don’t see what chance the state has to change things. People operate their lives by trusted relationships, and do not operate their lives by enforced decrees. Just look at any authoritarian regime like North Korea for example.
November 21st, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Paul Marsden wrote
“Does anyone here apart from me, miss the delicious irony of a recidivist, convicted criminal and advocator for the rights of beneficeries (and since turned politician), has the gall to turn around and tell us how to bring up and discipline our own flesh and blood? Now, I try hard to avoid bringing myself into disrepute in these blogs, but this time Im going to stick my neck out and be recorded for all time, and state… **** off you stupid bitch! Get a life and mind your own ******* business! ( And BTW… She’s lucky Im still single and dont have kids! I could only imagine how cross I would be over this matter if I did have..!!??) Its because of the likes of politicians of your ilk (in part)…Sue Bradford.. that our serious crime rate statistics continue to deteriorate.”
Now while I wouldn’t use the same language, I agree with his sentiments, and that’s why I’m writing to express my viewpoint. This government has gone to far and cannot be obeyed in this instance. Unfortunately they don’t have the power to enforce this legislation. I suggest to all who currently smack their children and find that it fits within their framework to ignore this piece of legislation should it pass. Don’t worry, they don’t have the power, they’re too weak.
Yes you can ignore me if you don’t agree with me, but in return I will ignore you and this law if parliament passes it. Who is winning then?
November 21st, 2006 at 2:01 pm
I think it likely the law, if passed, will be used for manipulated for purposes other than those intended, eg.
Police charging a parent for assaulting their child so that the parent can be arrested and questioned on other matters.
By one parent against the other in custody battles
By kids rebelling against their parents
By the do-gooders in social welfare
All scary stuff, I’ve seen kids smacked by parents at the end of their tethers in public, if a cop sees it what’s he going to do? arrest the parent? caution him/her in front of the child? After that the kid may well be near impossible to control.
November 21st, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Andrew seems unable to grasp why we have a justice system, or why judges are allowed to hand down sentences. So just to spell out the blindingly obvious, there are three reasons why repealing the loophole will decrease child abuse.
1. People are less likely to assault their children if they know they are likely to be punished by jail time if they are caught.
2. People who assault their children and are convicted of the crime are unable to commit additional crimes while they’re incarcerated.
3. The period of imprisonment is supposed to work as a disincentive against future offenses.
The same logic also applies to theft, rape, murder and other serious crimes.
Most ten year olds understand these principles – it speaks volumes that many commentators on this thread need it spelled out.
November 21st, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Well, well, Dim! You recognise the justice system, and that we have judges to hand-down sentences.
Yet you think that the judicial system is completely incapable of determining ‘reasonable force’, because of judgements that you disagree with (after reading a few newpaper articles, rather than the actual evidence).
November 21st, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Lets Use Danyl logic.
A person is in posession of a single joint.
They should be prosecuted for cannabis for supply, because there is a theoretical possibility that they could sell it (or worse, cut it in half and sell it to more than one person).
That will help stop the regular drug dealers.
Sounds daft?
Ok, lets make hitherto reasonable force illegal, so that it will discourage people that beat and abuse their children.
The ones who beat and abuse children are breaking the law anyway. The failure is the application of the law not the law its self. Stronger enforcement and increased penalties for breaking the current law are what is needed, not the current ill thought out proposals.
The new law would not stop one single incident of abuse that occurs under the current system. It will however make illegal many other incidents that society has so far deemed reasonable. This means that the law will only make a difference to the very lowest levels of offending, not the highest levels- a very dubious improvement at best.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Does anyone here supporting the bill have teenagers or is a grandparent?
None of us will escape the consequences of this law if it goes through.
Any of us who have children will feel it immediately.
Any of us who want to have children in future will feel it then.
Any of us who have had children who have left home will feel it when our children have children themselves.
And the rest who don’t want or will never have children will feel it any time we walk down the street and have to be confronted by people who have never learned to respect others.
Force is not necessarily violence. We are not all victims of our upbringing. And I for one am very glad to have been smacked – I’m only here because I was taught not to run on the road.
People who cannot tell the difference between force and violence certainly shouldn’t be smacking children, but in the main it appears the only ones that cannot tell the difference are proponents of the bill. Sue Bradford’s inability to conceive of any form of physical correction other than a whack to the head is particularly disturbing.
finally, bear a thought for parents with more than one or more than two children. the “screaming child in the supermarket” scenario outlined in the revised bill still only contemplates a single child. Pity help the poor mother with 3 small children in the supermarket when one is playing up and her only option becomes to take them all home and all go without dinner because she wasn’t able to discipline the child and carry on shopping (try carrying 3 kids AND a “thinking stool” to the supermarket). Smacking is portable, fast and requires little resource.
This law if passed will result in a further reduction in the size of the family. They may as well pass a law banning having more than one child.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Danyl said: “1. People are less likely to assault their children if they know they are likely to be punished by jail time if they are caught. 2. People who assault their children and are convicted of the crime are unable to commit additional crimes while they’re incarcerated. 3. The period of imprisonment is supposed to work as a disincentive against future offenses.”
To answer 1, look at the cases of Coral Burrows, the Aplin sisters, Kahui twins, etc. The prospect of jail clearly didn’t feature in the minds of the killers. How that will change with the new law is not explained. Indeed parents that smack may do so more discretely than they otherwise would. So catching the evil smackers may become rather difficult.
As for 2, that goes without saying. But parents who are imprisoned for smacking also won’t be able to look after their kids. Is that going to be good for their kids?
As for 3, show us the evidence to support that. And the possibility that imprisoning children for smacking their kids is harmful to the kids and their parents is ignored.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:28 pm
And the possibility that imprisoning PARENTS for smacking their kids is harmful to the kids and their parents is ignored.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:29 pm
And the possibility that imprisoning PARENTS for smacking their kids is harmful to the kids and their parents is ignored.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:34 pm
From the Herald: Sweden had 35,950 children under 18 in state care in 1999, or almost one child in every 50 – although some of these were cared for with their parents in special facilities. The comparable figure in Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) care in New Zealand last year was just 5071, or only one child in 200.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Dr. James Dobson wrote in – The Strong-Willed Child (1978):
Corporal punishment in the hands of a loving parent is a teaching tool by which harmful behavior is inhibited.
Dr. Benjamin Spock (1998) said:
Spanking teaches children that the larger,stronger person has the power to get his way, whether or not he is in the right.
November 21st, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Does the socialist handbook instruct to identify the 1% of all known human activity and then legislate to punish the 99%, this is Stalinism in its purest form, wake up everybody….we are too stupid to do anthing about this, or the meds are just too good
What more evidence do you need to realise we are all being screwed by 18th century bollocks and Auckland University Nazis.
November 21st, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Ross and Peter S – since your arguments can also be applied to the current system of custodial sentences for any violent crime I suggest that your argument is not with me but with the entire justice and penal system. Good luck finding a solution.
November 21st, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Danyl,
The current system is far from perfect. But why assume that this law is going to improve the situation when it clearly is not? It might appease some of the lobby groups but when young children continue to be killed by their caregivers or parents, those lobby groups are going to want something more.
November 21st, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Danyl said:
1. People are less likely to assault their children if they know they are likely to be punished by jail time if they are caught.
the big if here is “likely”. Many parents who will discipline their children if this Bill is passed have the ability to do it where no-one else knows. You think the child will tell others? That is assuming that the others have the ability to find out and think that it should be reported if they are told. None of my friends and the school which my child will attend have a problem with me doing this – that is even if they ask. Most parents these days don’t disucss it outside of a very small circle anyway. How are you going to find out? Yes spell it out…I can see it coming: CFYS, Police, neighbours, schools, etc.
Well they wont know and don’t ask me how I will achieve that (but it wont be through kidnapping or isolating my child). That’s one of your many problems, parliament doesn’t have the ability to enforce this law
I guess you believe that the power of the state will trump me. It must be quite frustrating for you to know that the state wont trump us parents.
November 22nd, 2006 at 7:15 am
We’re going around in circles here, but that’s nothing unusual.
As I said at the beginning of this post the bill is not designed to imprison parents who slap their childrens hands when they’re reaching for the cookie jar. The bill is designed to prevent parents who are sending their kids to school covered in bruises, or to hospital with serious injuries, from avoiding prosecution by claiming they were disciplining their child using reasonable force.
DPF seems to have concerns about the legislation on the basis of the somewhat bizarre compromises that Bradford has reached with Labour. I share his concerns. I actually think Borrows amendment was a pretty good idea.
But that’s not what this thread has been about. Instead we’ve been treated to the creepy but strangely amusing spectacle of clowns like ‘dad4justice’ pleading with people to move their families to Australia because you won’t be able to get away from sending your kids to the emergency ward in New Zealand anymore.
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:17 am
Danyl,
“As I said at the beginning of this post the bill is not designed to imprison parents who slap their childrens hands when they’re reaching for the cookie jar. The bill is designed to prevent parents who are sending their kids to school covered in bruises, or to hospital with serious injuries, from avoiding prosecution by claiming they were disciplining their child using reasonable force. ”
The problem is that the law WILL be used to punish the parents that slap their children’s hands, and will do NOTHING to reduce the problem of parents putting children in hospital, because those parents already break and ignore the existing law, which prohibits that behaviour.
When I was a child a common saying, when people saw an especially unruly child, was “I bet those parents don’t believe in smacking.”
We have a problem in society now because the well behaved children are more like the unruly ones that I grew up with. From experience I have found it requires a lot of work to get a standard of behaviour from my own children that is nowhere near as strict as the one I and my siblings adhered to (without any abusive parenting I stress). One of the problems is that society in general has very low standards now, and so outside influences work against internal standards.
The ban on smacking is actually going to have a very negative effect in some cases, an extension of what the current trendy frowning on smacking started. The problem is that good discipline applied early is always less severe than bad discipline applied later. What happens now is that smacking only tends to be done by parents when everyithing else has failed, and the parent is completely at the end of their tether (and the child is often completly out of control too). That is a recipie for disaster. In the past the child would have received a much smaller smack much earlier in the process.
The current law will discourage the parent from the slap accross the hand when the cookie jar is raided, but do nothing to stop the child getting the cr**p beaten out of them when they take the parent’s car later.
The sad thing is that the slap accross the hand would probably have given them the lesson that stealing is wrong, and may have prevented the cycle of behaviour that ended up with them stealing the car.
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:42 am
Let’s say you smack your childs hand. I’m curious to know:
How the police will find out about this incident.
Who they will call as witnesses to testify against you.
How they will conclude it is in the public interest to bring a case against you.
Why the crown will conclude that bringing that case to trial is an effective use of their money and resources.
Why a judge will not simply dismiss the case as frivolous.
If your kid ends up in hospital covered in welts, however, then these are easy questions to answer.
Your second point is an argument against the whole concept of putative justice. Do you think we should strike our arson laws off the books because they don’t actually prevent arsonists from burning buildings down? The reason we have laws is both to act as a deterrent to prevent people from committing unlawful acts and as a punishment for when they do so.
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:00 am
Danyl,
I’m sure we will have cases where we have children, indoctronated in school that all physical punishment is wrong, used as witnesses against their own parents, for the most minor of physical discipline.
The current law covers physical abuse, so there is a deterrent already. What I am advocating is not like removing the arson law, the closer parallel would be saying, because there is a law against arson already, there is no need to make lighting a match illegal, because 1 it will punish people for doing something that is not dangerous or unacceptable, and 2 it will not act as a greater deterrent for those who are going to break the existing law.
A far better deterrent is to increase the punishment for breaking the existing law. However, the same crowd trying to criminalise normal parents are the same ones trying to empty the gaols by reducing the sentences on other crimes.
The current law is not perfect. The proposed law change is a complete ass.
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:24 am
“The bill is designed to prevent parents who are sending their kids to school covered in bruises, or to hospital with serious injuries, from avoiding prosecution by claiming they were disciplining their child using reasonable force.”
You’re right that we are going around in circles! If kids are going to hospital with serious injuries, then the existing laws are available to deal with such illegalities. I didn’t realise I could break my child’s arm and get away with it.
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:28 am
“How they [the police] will conclude it is in the public interest to bring a case against you”.
Danyl, have you actually been reading the posts here? How was it in the public interest to arrest Paul Hopkinson and charge him with burning a flag, not once but twice? Even after a judge had declared that burning a flag was not illegal, the thin blue line arrested Mr Hopkinson again and charged him with the same offence! Does that give you confidence in the police’s ability to use their discretion?
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:34 am
How far can this go Danyl? Have you investigated the story behind the riding crop case yet? The punishment for a spanking? The kidnapping of your child, causing emotional distress to mother and child. The judge finds the mother not guilty, yet CYF still keeps the child. They acted above the court. This repeal of s59 will only make it easier.
Once welfare officers get involved, the law can be used to justify ideology. The kidnapping of children from their parents all stem from “the child’s best interests” which, to the state, don’t polace parental bonds any higher than foster homes.
This case went to the European Commission on Human Rights, and the mother “won” her children back. Years later. That’s something that can never be compensated.
Ulla Widen v. Sweden
There was a famous case in Sweden where a child reported to creche workers that his mother smacked his bottom. The parents nearly lost their child, but being reporters, managed to drum up some publicity and after they won their court case, the child welfare agency backed down. Doesn’t always happen.
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:37 pm
ZenTiger is right. The riding crop case occured in the context that the boy picked up a baseball bat and swung it towards his step-fathers head, in response to an instruction from his mother to do something.
In that case, prevention (as permitted under the proposed amendments to the bill), will not solve the issue completely. Correction is required to ensure that the boy doesn’t do it again. The “riding crop” often cited by many as being a brutal device, is simialar to a wooden spoon and is entirely reasonable for correction.
Danyl said
How the police will find out about this incident.
Who they will call as witnesses to testify against you.
How they will conclude it is in the public interest to bring a case against you.
Why the crown will conclude that bringing that case to trial is an effective use of their money and resources.
Why a judge will not simply dismiss the case as frivolous.
- The police can quite easily find out through the school system, or from a neigbours report.
- the witness can be the child itself.
- it is in the public interest because CFYS will want the police to prosecute to send a warning to other parents who use force for the purpose of correction.
- the crown will want to bring the case because they will (incorrectly) interpret this as an opportunity to reduce the abuse of children in thsi country, again based on what the proposed bill says.
- Assualting children today is illegal and the court system and judges look upon it with more disdain and regard it as an aggravating feature because adults are physically more powerful than children. If the law says that correction is not allowed, then using force is assualt on a child. Therefore this Bill will put force used in correction in the same category as assualt of a child. Then ergo, it most certainly will be in the judge’s interests, based on today’s precedents in our court system.