Two polls and a back-down
First the back-down. The Government and the Greens have dropped their plans to ram the smacking ban bill through Parliament under urgency. I still expect it is likely the committee stage will be completed on Wednesday, but the third reading would not be until Wednesday 2 May.
The key though is the committee stage. Getting the Borrows, or similiar amendment passed will insert some rationality into the bill. In fact if the Borrows amendment was passed, I suspect there would be over 100 votes for the bill.
Now the two polls – both random scientific ones. The One News/Colmar Brunton poll found 83% support smacking and only 15% disagree. A Research NZ poll found 73% disagree with the bill and 72% thought it was unenforceable. The One News poll also found 78% did not think the bill would help abused children.
So this bill is massively opposed by New Zealanders, and in fact is opposed by a majority of MPs. The Borrows amendment will be defeated purely because Helen Clark will not allow Labour MPs a conscience vote on it.
For MPs like Darren Hughes and Steve Chadwick who have marginal seats, this bill may well see them lose their seats. And all because their leader won’t let them support a common sense amendment to make it clear a light smack won’t be a criminal offence.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:27 am
Sorry …how did you justify hitting children again? Or are you going to try defining a “light smack”?
How hard with the open hand? Just a gentle tap? Hand relaxed? How many “hits with the open hand” are ok? One? Or is three or four ok? Or was that one hard one or three soft ones? Is there a difference between one hit on bare skin or two over clothing? Do knickers count as clothing? Is it ok for fundamentalist Christian’s to go up to six hits?
Was there evidence of a a tense hand? Was there bruising? Does this particular child bruise or welt easily? What degree of injury would overpass the bounds of “light smacking” and how do we put in place medical guidelines for defining the boundary?
OK so we can hit children. How young? I guess whacking newborns is out of the question, so at what age are we allowed to start “hitting with the open hand”? 18 months too young for you?
And for the older kiddies, over 7yrs for instance….some of them laugh at a mere “hit with the open hand”…how about allowing a small implement of some kind? I guess a 1m piece of 4*2 is too large, so would a cane be ok? If so can it be larger in diameter than your little finger? And should shops sell “state approved discipline instruments”?
How much further into this definitional quagmire do you want to drag yourself?
No…the truth is that YOU actually believe it is your RIGHT to hit children and all this posturing about “light smacks being ok” is just that. No sane person believes the Police will charge anyone for a “trivial and transient” technical breach of the law, nor would any Court convict. This cannot be the real objection to the repeal of S59.
The sad truth is that there are far too many people in this country who fervently believe that it is their RIGHT to hit their children and they are simply too gutless to admit that they prefer the defence of S59 to remain.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:30 am
RedRag, calm down. A gentle smack as a child might have kept you from flying off the handle as an adult. But never mind.
I think the point is that 99.9% of NZ parents don’t need MP’s to tell them how to raise their kids. We raise our kids quite well already thankyou.
Anyway, there’s an election next year. Does anyone know if National will undertake to repeal this legislation if passed?
March 27th, 2007 at 6:33 am
Wrong RegRag, the average kiwi parent takes offensive when you stereotype them as child beaters just because a few lunatic’s devoid of any sensitivity and child rearing or nurturing skills stuff it up for us all.
Bradford’s misguided Bill and her intentions for the removal of the fathers’ name on birth certificates with furture social engineering (Marriage Amendment bill) shows we are under the constant attack from the bias and vindictive feminist brigade. It is a clear indicator to me that this government is content on destroying the traditional family.The working for families package does not address poverty which is a trigger for child abuse .
If this government cared so much about the plight of vulnerable children, we would as a country, would have voted twice at United Nations level to endorse and help strengthen the family and we would enjoy efficient and effective govt. agencies that claim to act in the child’s best interests.
Just for your interest members of other delegations pleaded with New Zealand to change it’s stance on the family at the 2004 Doha Declaration on the family. Was Sue around – say no more!!
My greatest fear with this screwed up piece of social engineering is that it will not provide a solution for escalating numbers of child abuse victims and it will open the door for yet more false allegations and adversarial tactics for effect.The parasities that cling to the Kangaroo court system will be rubbing their insipid hands with glee.
This government has clearly lost the plot and it is time to sweep the floor of wayward ideology’s that do not represent the will of the majority of good folk of kiwiland.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:36 am
The facts are these red rag: the soft approach we have taken to wrong doing in this country has been a disaster.
For example, the year after we banned corporal punishment in schools expulsions increased by 34%. Within a few years it had skyrocketed to such an extent that the MOE had to enforce new policies to stop schools expelling children. 20 years on, the supposed benefits we were meant to get from banning “smacking” in schools – (Kids being more peaceful and well behaved) – has instead turned into a nightmare. Any teacher I talk to has said kids are now much more vicious (by some estimates violence in the school has increased by 300%) and assaults on teachers has skyrocketed.
We’ve also tried to soft, namby pamby approach to adults committing crime – enough said.
So every time we’ve tried this soft, take it easy approach on wrong doers it has been a disaster. Let’s see, what to do. I know! let’s force it onto parents.
And of course we know that since the (Our leaders beloved) Sweden has outlawed smacking their child abuse rate has skyrocketed 489%.
Doesn’t this ring any sort of alarm bell?
I think too the big concern people have is that when we do all the work and spend all the money raising our kids, it riles that others who have nothing to do with our kids want to force their views on how to raise them on us. Especially when the track record of the antismacking approach ain’t too flash.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:37 am
The facts are these red rag: the soft approach we have taken to wrong doing in this country has been a disaster.
For example, the year after we banned corporal punishment in schools expulsions increased by 34%. Within a few years it had skyrocketed to such an extent that the MOE had to enforce new policies to stop schools expelling children. 20 years on, the supposed benefits we were meant to get from banning “smacking” in schools – (Kids being more peaceful and well behaved) – has instead turned into a nightmare. Any teacher I talk to has said kids are now much more vicious (by some estimates violence in the school has increased by 300%) and assaults on teachers has skyrocketed.
We’ve also tried to soft, namby pamby approach to adults committing crime – enough said.
So every time we’ve tried this soft, take it easy approach on wrong doers it has been a disaster. Let’s see, what to do. I know! let’s force it onto parents.
And of course we know that since the (Our leaders beloved) Sweden has outlawed smacking their child abuse rate has skyrocketed 489%.
Doesn’t this ring any sort of alarm bell?
I think too the big concern people have is that when we do all the work and spend all the money raising our kids, it riles that others who have nothing to do with our kids want to force their views on how to raise them on us. Especially when the track record of the antismacking approach ain’t too flash.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:40 am
The facts are these red rag: the soft approach we have taken to wrong doing in this country has been a disaster.
For example, the year after we banned corporal punishment in schools expulsions increased by 34%. Within a few years it had skyrocketed to such an extent that the MOE had to enforce new policies to stop schools expelling children. 20 years on, the supposed benefits we were meant to get from banning “smacking” in schools – (Kids being more peaceful and well behaved) – has instead turned into a nightmare. Any teacher I talk to has said kids are now much more vicious (by some estimates violence in the school has increased by 300%) and assaults on teachers has skyrocketed.
We’ve also tried to soft, namby pamby approach to adults committing crime – enough said.
So every time we’ve tried this soft, take it easy approach on wrong doers it has been a disaster. Let’s see, what to do. I know! let’s force it onto parents.
And of course we know that since the (Our leaders beloved) Sweden has outlawed smacking their child abuse rate has skyrocketed 489%.
Doesn’t this ring any sort of alarm bell?
I think too the big concern people have is that when we do all the work and spend all the money raising our kids, it riles that others who have nothing to do with our kids want to force their views on how to raise them on us. Especially when the track record of the antismacking approach ain’t too flash.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:53 am
The facts are these red rag: the soft approach we have taken to wrong doing in this country has been a disaster.
For example, the year after we banned corporal punishment in schools expulsions increased by 34%. Within a few years it had skyrocketed to such an extent that the MOE had to enforce new policies to stop schools expelling children. 20 years on, the supposed benefits we were meant to get from banning “smacking” in schools – (Kids being more peaceful and well behaved) – has instead turned into a nightmare. Any teacher I talk to has said kids are now much more vicious (by some estimates violence in the school has increased by 300%) and assaults on teachers has skyrocketed.
We’ve also tried to soft, namby pamby approach to adults committing crime – enough said.
So every time we’ve tried this soft, take it easy approach on wrong doers it has been a disaster. Let’s see, what to do. I know! let’s force it onto parents.
And of course we know that since the (Our leaders beloved) Sweden has outlawed smacking their child abuse rate has skyrocketed 489%.
Doesn’t this ring any sort of alarm bell?
I think too the big concern people have is that when we do all the work and spend all the money raising our kids, it riles that others who have nothing to do with our kids want to force their views on how to raise them on us. Especially when the track record of the antismacking approach ain’t too flash.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Redrag you are contradicting yourself. In your first four paragraphs you make the case that it’s difficult to define a light smack to distinguish from abuse, but then you say “No sane person believes the Police will charge anyone for a “trivial and transient” technical breach of the law, nor would any Court convict.”
Which is true ?
March 27th, 2007 at 7:27 am
With all the dishonest nonsense from the anti-smacking zealots trying to equate smacking with beating by disingenuously using the word “hitting” for both, I’m only surprised no-one’s come out and said patting a kid on the back should be banned, after all that’s “hitting” too.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:36 am
“surprised no-one’s come out and said patting a kid on the back should be banned, after all that’s “hitting” too.”
Don’t forget that picking up a struggling child to put them in their room for time out is also an assualt.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Bogusnews. So every litte shit who denies “mummy” and “daddy” is going to be because you won’t have the right to smack anymore, i doubt it. The reason children become indisciplined is through lack of strong parenting not smacking.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Red-rag, I have to agree with you that defining light smacking is fraught with difficulties. However, I disagree with your statement that many parents (I presume your talking about the 70 to 80% that oppose the bill) want the right to ‘hit’ – as opposed to smack – their children. You make this conclusion on the basis that; no one believes that the police will enforce the bill to the letter of the law.
You are saying; police won’t prosecute if smacking is only ‘transient and trival’? However, how are police going to determine whether a child was smacked or hit if a complaint is made?
The repeal of section 59 is being used by the government in an attempt to make irresponsible parents more responsible and in the process they are depriving responsible parents of a legitimate method of discipling their children.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:00 am
John Dalley – how can you have “strong parenting” when government has a mandate not supporting the family ? Why not treat mothers and fathers the same ? Surely that is in the child’s best interests ?
March 27th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Preston, the answer is no they will not repeal it. can you not tell by how pussy their leader is that National are too pussy to do anything at all?
March 27th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Within all of the discussion regarding Bradford’s bill there are a few things that stand out for me:
Firstly, scientific polls show that over 70% of New Zealanders do not support this bill. That is a considerable majority in anyone’s book and surely Helen and co must realise that a great many of those people who don’t want the law changed are Labour party voters. Either she is being supremely arrogant in thinking that they’ll be too dumb to remember this come 2008, or she knows that Labour has had its day and is off for a holiday on the opposition benches.
Secondly, I can’t find too much to argue with in in Michelle Wilkinson-Smith’s article in today’s Herald, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10430966
This is a realist’s view of what will happen should this bill be passed and I would love to see some comment from the pro bill side of the debate regarding it.
Lastly, but certainly not least, the legislation itself is very murky and deliberately so in my opinion. Bradford and Clark continually contradict both themselves and each other when trying to explain the bill’s impact to the public and I cant help but wonder whether they’ve taken a page out of the Theresa Gattung play book, you know, the one about confusion being a marketing tool.
In conclusion, I agree very strongly that we as a nation need to do more to prevent the child abuse that occurs in our communities. I disagree, however, with those who believe that the application of this intrusive, vague, and “one size fits all”, style legislation onto the fabric of our society will acheive anything close to that.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Michele Wilkinson-Smith’s article in todays NZH, echoed my personal sentiments perfectly.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Redrag – you also continue to be disingenuous or completely ignorant (could you please identify which) when you refer to the police.
Part of the issue here is the police will have no discretion if someone (say the other partner in a custody dispute) wants to press charges. Or bring a civil case. Or straight brings it up in a custody hearing.
And without a defence they are guilty
I don’t have too much of an issue with those who out and out state that smacking of any kind should be banned – at least they are being intellectually honest. However those that keep falling back on “police won’t prosecute” are full of ****
Oh – and I’m sure everyone is full of confidence in the discretion of police like Clint Rickard.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Well on the way to “Bring Back he Biff!”
Somone had to say it.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Lets put the “ineffectuality” of the current law to rest:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4006520a11.html
Here’s a current case that is being prosecuted under the law we have now.
I feel for the court. The Socialist ‘Rights’ group would have you believe that they couldn’t rightly say if the man exercised ‘reasonable force’. I mean, children sustain injuries like being in an unrestrained car accident everyday. How could anyone tell? The baby was screaming, so a reasonble response would be to shake it as hard as you could, break some of it’s bones and bash it in the head. That’s what all the people who are against the repeal of S59 would do.
Huh?
Helen says people like this “walk out of court scot free”. Proponents of the repeal bill say this kind of beating comes under ‘disicipline’.
If there is a portion of the population that need ‘re-education’, it’s the 15% that believe that and support repealing S59.
The law will get this guy. Labour will continue to tend to important matters like retrospective legislation to cover their corruption, instead of investigating the causes child abuse.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:41 am
People people come on, think about it – the police wont prosecute you for smacking your child as long as you are a member of the Labour Party, they will be bound to find a primefacical case against you however it wont be in Dear lea… sorry the ‘public interest’ to prosecute you.
Therefore get your little butts off to the nearest labour party office and sign up pronto!
BTW, for those that only have half a brain cell between their ears, the above post was sarcastic.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:10 am
I have a handy rule of thumb. Any person who uses the word bash, beat or hit instead of smack is automatically disqualified as actually wanting to have a serious debate or discussion of the issue.
Has never failed me.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:10 am
1.
I think the point is that 99.9% of NZ parents don’t need MP’s to tell them how to raise their kids. We raise our kids quite well already thankyou.
No you don’t. Intergeneration famililial violence is rife in this country.
2. Redrag you are contradicting yourself. In your first four paragraphs you make the case that it’s difficult to define a light smack to distinguish from abuse, but then you say “No sane person believes the Police will charge anyone for a “trivial and transient” technical breach of the law, nor would any Court convict.”
Red-rag, I have to agree with you that defining light smacking is fraught with difficulties. However, I disagree with your statement that many parents (I presume your talking about the 70 to 80% that oppose the bill) want the right to ‘hit’ – as opposed to smack – their children. You make this conclusion on the basis that; no one believes that the police will enforce the bill to the letter of the law.
Because it is impossible to foresee every individual case and context, Parliament legislates for the generic case. Laws are inherently a broad brush. By contrast we entrust the Police and the Courts to examine each case and proceed on it’s individual merits.
Chester’s ammendment is not an unreasonable one, but at SOME level, it still places the burden on the system to determine what is “trifling and transitory”. Even if this ammendment is enacted it still places on the Police and Courts the exactly the same task of examining the case and proceeding on it’s merits. And as my original comment demonstrates, the definition of a “gentle smack” is both difficult and potentially contentious. It really doesn’t advance things much.
3. Don’t forget that picking up a struggling child to put them in their room for time out is also an assualt.
Wrong. Read the proposed legislation.
4. With all the dishonest nonsense from the anti-smacking zealots trying to equate smacking with beating by disingenuously using the word “hitting” for both, I’m only surprised no-one’s come out and said patting a kid on the back should be banned, after all that’s “hitting” too.
The definition of a smack (in this context) is “a hit with an open hand”. Got another one, that does not amount to a euphenism of some sort?
4. Oh – and I’m sure everyone is full of confidence in the discretion of police like Clint Rickard.
You could run the same argument for repealing ALL laws. If you don’t trust the Police you have another sort of problem….but S59 has nothing to do with it.
5. And as I said above…this thread amply proves just how many New Zealanders believe it is their RIGHT to hit their children, and they want S59 to hide behind.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Redrag, read THIS article in today’s Herald by a lawyer here.
Here’s the money quote –
March 27th, 2007 at 9:27 am
I have a handy rule of thumb. Any person who uses the word bash, beat or hit instead of smack is automatically disqualified as actually wanting to have a serious debate or discussion of the issue.
OK so what is YOUR watertight definition of a “smack”? I see you have been too intellectually lazy to attempt one? Or dishonest…whatever.
Oh and don’t forget Farrar…Chester’s ammendment is really a just political fig-leaf for the right to hide behind. If it were not for the Greens pioneering this issue, S59 would have remained untouched by National (and Labour would never have gotten around to it either )…and as it stands it really DOES provide a defence for people who do bash, beat, or hit their children.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:34 am
How many kids have you raised, red rag?
March 27th, 2007 at 9:44 am
RedRag – once again you are wrong. Former National MP Bob Simcock proposed changes to Section 59 before the 2002 election. He even convened a meeting of professionals to try and get a consensus on the best way to proceed.
As for defining a smack. Well I am not a lawyer but and make no claim it is water tight but I would start with something like:
A smack is when parent uses an open hand to lightly apply force to a child’s posterior, arms or legs causing a stinging sensation but no bruising, marks or damage.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:45 am
I challenge anyone to find a case where section 59 has excused a real bashing that left a child injured.
The real quote from the article is this:
He is saying, for many different reasons, don’t give the police this much discretion. He’s right, and we should listen to him..
So in that case why not repeal ALL laws that give the police far too much discretion? Starting with assault. Any non-consensual contact between adults is technically an assault…and yet the Police routinely exercise their discretion in this matter perfectly well.
As I said above, if you don’t trust the Police you have a problem that is quite different to S59.
And if the article implies that S59 does not defend assaults that cause injury is it then OK to hit children so long as they are not “injured”? Define please. Do you have specific level of “injury” in mind that should be legal? If so please state.
The fact remains that Borrow’s ammendment is irrelevant to much of the virilent opposition to the repeal of S59. Large numbers of New Zealanders WANT to retain the right to use “reasonable force” on their children. And as the case history demonstrates…this includes bashing, beating and hitting.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Redrag, no it doesn’t provide a defence for people who bash their children and it never has and never will. Bashing is already against the law. Would that it WAS left untouched by both Labour and National.
I agree with David about the bill’s proponents throwing around the ‘hitting’ and ‘beating’ words.
As I’ve said before: is striking someone always wrong? Bradford & Sharples & Co will tell you yes; any hitting an adult at any time is wrong and so hitting a child is worse.
THAT IS INCORRECT.
* What about someone who has had a heart attack and needs to be ‘hit’ in the chest to restart his heart?
* What about the surf-lifesaver who must strike a panicked swimmer to calm him down or even subdue him in order that the swimmer not drag down both himself and his rescuer with his thrashings?
I’m sure there are many other such cases.
Smacking can be likened to these life-saving efforts for dissuading a child from doing something dangerous, or indeed, for teaching him self control in order that he might not be a criminal when he grows up.
In saying this, you might only need to smack your child once or even twice in his life, but it may save that life.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:55 am
pffft. its the same fundys, hiding behind spurious titles like “concerned parents” and “family first” who spread lies about homosexual law reform and civil unions. They are are up to their same old alarmist tricks of spreading lies and deceit to further an agenda that I can guarantee 90% of New Zealanders would oppose if it was exposed.
Its just the same old Kiwi Taliban in action, and despite their fear mongering they will prove as toothless over this as they have all all their other faux people power campaigns. Its a funny sort of religion that uses deciet andf lies to further its agenda.
It occurs to me that fact such a vociferous group of people wish to enshire as reasonable the right to indulge in ill-tempered and lazy parenting by thrashing children with whips as shows that violence is accepted and endemic in our child rearing.
If anything, this debate should finally put to rest the myth New Zealand is a great place to bring up kids, and the depth of opposition from these fundy nut jobs show how urgently we need to strip them of a section 59 defence.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:00 am
A smack is when parent uses an open hand to lightly apply force to a child’s posterior, arms or legs causing a stinging sensation but no bruising, marks or damage.
Fair enough. Now how many? And how often? At what age? Clothed or unclothed? Do you have to “smack” girls more lightly because they may bruise or mark more easily?
If one smack is ok, is two? What about six?
Besides as you know perfectly well…your definition of a “smack” is NOT the one many parents in this country use. As a regular attender of church I am sincerely disheartened at the views of my more fundamentalist co-religionists (a prissy term but it will do). In discussion with these retrograde bigots it is plain that they still firmly believe in and practise the “spare the rod and spoil the child” proverb…and they DO routinely beat their children with canes.
And I wonder too how robust your definition of a “smack” might be in large swaths of our Maori and Polynesian peoples? Having worked for many years in an industry dominated by Maori workers, I recall vividly how brutally many of them treated their children, and believed it not only their ‘right’, but also a part of their culture to “toughen them up”.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:03 am
This is an exercise about your acceptance of crap from govt.
If MPs comply with this one there are lots of follow up laws to come in different areas with the same rationale.
Hence the incredible “it wont be enforced against normal people” defence from Hulun….a superb basis for new laws which we should support.
Leftards know 70-80% of the population will roll this at the referendum on the matter Suz won’t mind having….being a champion of democracy as she is.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:05 am
How many kids have you raised, toms?
March 27th, 2007 at 10:11 am
* What about someone who has had a heart attack and needs to be ‘hit’ in the chest to restart his heart?
* What about the surf-lifesaver who must strike a panicked swimmer to calm him down or even subdue him in order that the swimmer not drag down both himself and his rescuer with his thrashings?
Both technical assualts under present law. They don’t get prosecuted. What is your point?
If you bothered to read Bradford’s Bill it explicitly allows parents to handle their children and even use force if needed to protect them from immediate harm. You are just repeating a line of mis-information you picked up somewhere.
And toms…thanks. Sometimes you just need to hear another supportive voice, and I need to say just how much I agree with you. Middle NZ has this very broad and dark under-belly that this issue has dragged out into the day-light. …and by God is it an ugly heaving thing.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:12 am
” What about someone who has had a heart attack and needs to be ‘hit’ in the chest to restart his heart?”
I know you guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel for faux outrage, bit really that is the worst yet.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:15 am
PaulM,
Two daughters… now adults. One of them intellectually handicapped, the other survived a major battle with cancer. Anything you want to tell me about the challenges of raising children?
March 27th, 2007 at 10:22 am
You have my respect for that, red rag.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Redrag,
Yep, I agree with PaulM, there would be few that would not respect what you have been through. And also would wish your daughter ongoing (and hopefully eventual complete) success in her battle with cance.
I still disagree completely with your stance on physical discipline. For me, the courts are the place to decide what is and is not reasonable. If you remove what is reasonable from the law you replace it with what? Something unreasonable.
Toms,
I guess you must be categorizing Garry McCormack, Leighton Smith, Danny Watson & Kerry Woodham (to name a few celebrities) as fundamental Christians?
How about 80% of the population that disagree with the proposed change?
Your obvioius distatse for those not holding your views on religion is hampering your ability to debate in a rational manner.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Having worked for many years in an industry dominated by Maori workers, I recall vividly how brutally many of them treated their children, and believed it not only their ‘right’, but also a part of their culture to “toughen them up”.
But of course that is another issue entirely – if they can bring up the word ‘culture’ then that already acts as a defence in most areas of the law. Don’t need a S59 there…
March 27th, 2007 at 10:54 am
For me, the courts are the place to decide what is and is not reasonable. If you remove what is reasonable from the law you replace it with what? Something unreasonable.
Well yes. That is pretty much exactly what I have stated all along. The law treats ALL non-consensual contact between adults as potentially illegal, and leaves it up to the Courts to determine what is reasonable or not.
For instance touching someone on the shoulder is a common behaviour. Most times it is perfectly acceptable, but in some emotionally abusive contexts it is not. At some point unwanted “touching on the shoulder” transitions from a technical breach of the law, to one that is actionable. The law legislates for the generic case, the courts determine the specific.
Most “smacking” as DPF loosely defined above is a common behaviour. Probably an undesirable and useless one, but common enough and usually not in the public interest to prosecute. But at some point and in some contexts “smacking” transitions to abuse. We all agree on that. And it the role of the courts to determine that in each individual case, just as it does in cases of assault between adults.
I can understand your postion Peter. It is not wholly wrong, but it is a position that is being used as the “reasonable front” for a large mass of kiwi belief’s and violent behaviours that ARE unreasonable…and need to be challenged.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:02 am
I hope the Bill is passed.It will be the beginning of the end for the Socialists. With Key level with Clark in the PM stakes and the Nats 7 points clear the Socialists are signing their own suicide note.IMHO the Greens will go down in a heap in 08. Predict the Greens under the bar at the next poll the Nats nudging 50 Key ahead of Clark and the Socialists in the low to mid 30s.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:13 am
“How many kids have you raised, toms?”
Oh dear, here we go again, seems like that’s all some pro hitting-children-with-an-open- handers can come up with.
And yes Fletch, I was in court 4 years ago watching while a jury acquitted a mother of hitting her child on the arm with a broomstick because he wouldn’t sweep the floor. You should’ve heard the comments: “you can’t do anything to kids these days”, “that kid deserved it”… and “poor mother”. And, no the child did not have a broken arm but nevertheless the mother kept saying “I hit him because of this and that …”. She even had one member of the jury in tears.
Blah.
aladin
March 27th, 2007 at 11:17 am
RedRag, don’t let the hissing fusspots fool you. Its not just a lone few who support the repeal of section 59. The following organisations all support the repeal of section 59 (taken from http://wizard.repealsection59.org.nz/supporters/):
Royal NZ Plunket Society
Barnardos New Zealand
Presbyterian Support New Zealand
Save the Children NZ
UNICEF
The Children’s Commissioner
Families Commission
Child Poverty Action Group New Zealand
EPOCH NZ
Every Child Counts
Children’s Issues Centre University of Otago
Human Rights Foundation
Parents Centres NZ Inc
IHC
Child Helpline Trust
National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges
Christchurch Women’s Refuge
The Paediatric Society of New Zealand
NZCCS – community disability support
NZ Family Planning Association
National Council of Women New Zealand
Jigsaw
Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa
Home and Family Counselling (Auckland)
Christchurch Methodist Mission
Christchurch Resettlement Services
Home and Family Society Christchurch
Waipuna Youth and Community Trust (Christchurch)
Violence Free Waitakere
ParentingWorx
Starfish Charitable Trust
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
Inner City Group for Men
United in Civil Union Trust
OMEP Aotearoa/New Zealand
Soulway Church Masterton
Hauraki Safety Network
North Shore Women’s Centre
Wesley Community Action
Stopping Violence Services Nelson
Nelson Rape and Sexual Abuse Network
Queenstown Lakes Family Centre
Quaker Peace and Service
Across Social Services Palmerston North
Parent and Family Counselling Whangarei
Your Day Trust
Living Without Violence Waiheke
YouthLaw
National Network of Stopping Violence Services
Relationship Services
The Body Shop
Start Inc (Christchurch)
New Zealand Psychological Society
Karanga Mai Early Learning Centre
Motu Weka Early Learning Centre
Basically, practically any group that has practical dealings with family violenve or works for the interests of children at the coal face support Bradford’s amendment. That alone should tell us something about hysteria and disinformation of the pro-thrashing lobby.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:32 am
RR – I would have confidence that a jury could judge context such as age and frequency. Parliament’s intentiosn with that definition would be about as clear as you could make them (if any law could be made watertight we could abolish lawyers).
I have no problems with more severe force being made illegal. That is why I support Chester’s amendment which will lower the barrier from the status quo, but provide reassurance to most parents that they will not have anything to worry about.
I hold no truck for the views that there is some biblical right to take the rod to the kids.
A total repeal of S59 would send out a clearer message to some communities, but Bradford’s bill as amended does not do that.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:32 am
gd,
http://www.mwa.govt.nz/women-in-nz/timeline/1900.html Scroll down to Henry Wrights 1905 poster. Its a fairly well known example of the kind of attitude to social change that you are the modern inheritor of.
People like you run around like chicken little squarking about the end of the world whenever important progressive social legislation is being debated, but after it is enacted life goes on. Except that the reactionaries have one more reason to nostaligically pine for the “good old days” when men were men and women knew their place.
And somewhere out there in the big wider world that possibility that the Middle East will erupt into an all-out (and likely nuclear) war continues to escalate towards global catastrophe…but here in good old NZ we are getting all hugely exercised that our right to hit children might be taken from us. Nice to see where our priorities lie.
And toms….yes when I first saw that list it was conclusive for me. I’m just one very ordinary man with an internet connection and an opinion….but these organisations represent MANY people who work at the real coal-face of child-abuse in this country. On what reasonable grounds could anyone justify dismissing such a solid weight of experience?
March 27th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Redrag,
Please read this article.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10430966
This is by someone that has prosecuted people usning the S59 defence, and has never failed to prosecute successfuly on those occasions.
The current law is good. It is clear. It works.
The proposed law change is vague. It targets the wrong end of the spectrum. It will not prevent the truly problem cases, it will overload the justice system with false, trivial and spurious cases.
If politicians were serious about tackling child abuse they would increase the penalty for serious cases.
The current changes are the equivalent of banning pea shooters in the hope that it will decrease gun related murders.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Thanks for that list toms – I financially support Save The Children, which I’m now going to have to rethink – perhaps join World Vision instead.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:59 am
DPF,
Personally it doesn’t matter much to me if the repeal of S59 is enacted with or without Chester Borrow’s ammendment.
As you say it has the political merit of lowering the concerns ordinary parent’s may have. (Although from my daily contact with co-workers, most these concerns are based on the hysteria and disinformation toms rightly mentions.)
Legally I don’t know that Borrow’s ammendment progress’s things much as it STILL leaves a grey area for lawyers to argue about the definition of a “light smack”. At least Bradford’s position takes a straightforward approach that is legally congruent with how we treat adult assault. Either way I could live with it. (Even if Bradford had put up a Bill that included something to the effect of Borrow’s ammendment, one cannot help but suspect the Opposition would still have opposed it simply for the sake of it). Yet we actually agree that S59 in it’s current form should be repealed, and then get on with the larger task of dealing to the root causes of abuse and violence in NZ….so why put it all at risk over an ammendment that is in the bigger picture not all that important?
Let’s get on with repealing S59 and getting the message to the real child abusers that their day is over.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
RR – indeed we are not as far apart as it appears. I turn your question on the Borrows amendment back. If the amendment was adopted I suspect over 100 MPs would now vote for the bill. Yes there would be some opponents but the bill would go from 85% of public against to 85% in favour.
The bill proponents are the ones risking a change by refusing the amendment.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
RR, you continue to ignore the points made in Michelle Wilkinson-Smith’s article in today’s Herald, the point she makes about how this will be used by one parent against the over is 100% correct, in a custody battle anything goes, too often the kids are the meat in the sandwich, this no smacking law is going to be used hundreds, if not thousands of times each year! With many police interviews of kids resulting.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
RedRag as one who immodestly predicted the rise and rise of JK to level peg the PM at this point several months ago on this very blogsite I stand by my predictions and will enjoy reminding you of such when the next round of polls are out.Any government who manages to piss off 80% of its citizens by enacting totally needless legislation deserves to get the bums rush.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Andrew,
I quoted the concluding comment in Michelle’s article about five posts ago in a response at 9.45am.
The essence of the article is this:
1. That S59 isn’t much of a defence because she has managed to obtain some prosecutions despite it. I suggest that extrapolating from these few cases to the larger picture is not terribly useful.
2. Her concluding logic goes along the lines that the Police cannot be entrusted with the discretionary powers it gives them. Well if you cannot entrust them with a relatively small matter like this…why the hell is she happy for them deal with weightier matters…like murder or rape? The same argument could be used to repeal ANY law on the ground that the Police might abuse it.
If she sincerely believes that the Police routinely misuse their discretionary powers, then the root of the problem lies with the Police….not the repeal of the current S59 defence.
gd,
Totally needless eh?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4006520a10.html
For years we tolerated drunk driving and made crocodile tears over the resulting deaths and mayhem. Then we tightened up the law, dramatically reduced the blood tolerance levels, enforced them new rules and ran solid public education campaigns against it. Remember all the public hysteria when the law was changed…all the tosh about “how I drive better when I’m drunk”, or “I’ve been doing it for years and never came to any harm”…etc.
Yet eventually it all made a difference. It took three main elements:
1. A law change
2. Appropriate enforcement of the law, ie minor ones are tolerated, major breaches get hammered.
3. Sustained public awareness campaigns to change attitudes.
As long as we carry on believing that violence towards children at any level is fundamentally acceptable, then we will forever have to be reading headlines like the one linked to above. Nuff said from me.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Red Rag,
Yes, toataly needless. The actions in the link you posted are already covered by the law, and not covered by the S59 exclusion.
Your points about murder and rape are also spurious. The law does not allow or expect police discretion on those counts. Every complaint must be investigated.
With drink driving there is an S59 tye exclusion- permitted blood alcohol levels. So that argument does not hold water.
The point of the article is that every case (not some) prosecuted by the article writer ended in conviction.
You conveniently ignore the fact that the article writer, someone very closely familiar with the subject, knows of no successful S59 defences that covered cases where actual physical harm occurred.
The incident you linked would have happened regardless of the S59 state.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Damn Peter S – you beat me to the debunking.
RedRag – you defeat your own argument without us needing to come close: we are consistently arguing that the discretion should not be up to the police; you come up with examples supporting us. Sorry – what was your argument again?
March 27th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
gd,
You conveniently ignore the fact that the article writer, someone very closely familiar with the subject, knows of no successful S59 defences that covered cases where actual physical harm occurred.
So you are telling us that a beating is ok so long as no “actual physical harm” is caused? Whatever that means.
PeterS
The incident you linked would have happened regardless of the S59 state.
OK so just because crimes of all sorts are still committed it means that all laws relating to them should be scrapped as “totally needless”. Uh? If you are reduced to gormless arguments like that you really have lost it.
Violence in the community occurs in a spectrum of harms, from the high profile murders, rapes and serious batterings down through a whole range of domestic biffo and beatings that are a whole lot more commonplace…and until recent times largely swept under the carpet.
The majority of serious offenders don’t just spring from anywhere, they usually have a long complex history of abuse starting from being the victim of it themselves as kids. It all starts somewhere and there really is in principle no distinction between OK violence and not-OK violence.
We have taken much the same approach with drink-driving. In principle it is illegal to drink ANY alcohol and then drive, but because in this case it is technically easy to define a minimum level of blood alcohol that correlates to significant impairment, the law was readily written to explicitly tolerate minor breaches. But it still doesn’t really make driving at just under the limit a smart thing to do, does it?
In the case of child assaults it is not so easy to define the boundary between “acceptable smacking” and abuse, but in principle ALL violence against children should be unacceptable, just as it is against adults.
Several generations ago it was acceptable, indeed almost expected in some circles, for men to beat “their” women into submission. It was considered by some to be the “manly thing to do”. It took decades before attitudes changed to the point where we realised that ANY domestic adult violence was not acceptable and we implemented a zero tolerance policy towards it. There really is no excuse for anyone to hide behind any longer….you just don’t hit each other any more.
Is is so very hard to understand that the same principle applies to children?
March 27th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
RedRag,
Sorry, but gormless is the hallmark of your argument, not mine.
“OK so just because crimes of all sorts are still committed it means that all laws relating to them should be scrapped as “totally needless”. Uh? If you are reduced to gormless arguments like that you really have lost it.”
The law already covers the example assault you used. Therefore there is no need for a change on that count. If it is already illegal, you don’t need to legislate to make it illegal. How hard is that to understand?
“So you are telling us that a beating is ok so long as no “actual physical harm” is caused? Whatever that means.”
If no physical harm occurs, then it is pretty difficult to classify something as a beating. I suggest your understanding of the word beating is out of step with not only the average person, but the average dictionary too.
I really don’t know why I have bothered to put forward logical arguments. If you are unable to comprehend the difference between a light smack and serious assault, then we really are on different planets philosophically.
Most laws encompass (make illegal) a greater range of behaviour than they intend, so they come with specific clauses to limit the application of the law. A prime example is blood alcohol levels. If you took out the lower end limit, then a person that used mouthwash might end up giving a positive result. The police would have no discretion on that either. The repeal of S59 is pure and unnecessary tampering to scratch the ideological itch of some misguided zealots that are completely out of step with the opinions of the vast majority of normal people in this country.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
I really don’t know why I have bothered to put forward logical arguments. If you are unable to comprehend the difference between a light smack and serious assault, then we really are on different planets philosophically.
Of course I can. I have consistently stated that there is no public interest to prosecute “light smacking” however you choose to define it. Equally there is no public interest in prosecuting people who have rinsed with mouthwash, so we have a lower alcohol tolerance limit….but only because it is a technically easy thing to measure. All you need to do is put a number into the regulations. At the same time, the law does NOT promote the idea that driving at 79mg/l is a good thing…just that it will not be prosecuted.
By contrast it is not possible to measure with a single number the impact of an assault, however trivial or severe. Nor, as I have repeatedly shown above, is it at all simple or desirable to attempt a definition of the “lower limit of assault acceptability”. If nothing else it’s a plain iccky thing to do.
With adult on adult assault the law takes the simple approach and makes ALL non-consensual contact (however trivial) potentially illegal. Remember that woman in Dunedin who ranted on for months about how a Labour Minister “assaulted her” by holding her by the wrist for a few seconds? Technically an assault yes…and the madder dogs in here frothed about he should have been prosecuted to the fullest weight of the law over it….but in reality the Police almost never charge anyone over such trivial and technical breaches of the law. It is just not in the public interest for them to do so.
Now what is so very hard about extending the same legal standards to our children?
I do not believe that ANY violence is in principle OK. Whenever we resort to it, at whatever level, it represents a failure of the human spirit. Now I have many principles and ideals, but very few of them get actualised in this very imperfect world we live in, so I understand that parents from time to time will use physical force on their children. Mostly it is a trivial and transient thing…and many times the parent afterwards feels very bad and guilty about having done such a stupid thing. For someone with a conscience, the very act of “smacking” their own children becomes the punishment itself. The law need have no practical involvment in this.
But where I part company from very many of my fellow kiwi’s is that I do not believe I have in principle any legal RIGHT to use force on my children in order to “discipline” them. No more than I do on my partner or my work colleagues. If that makes me an extremist “misguided zealot” then so be it.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
You’ve scored an own goal there RedRag – you should KNOW that Labour Ministers don’t have to face prosecution for ANYTHING – no matter how strong the prima facie case is!!
March 27th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Good God it only took 20 minutes for one of you to fall for it.
Yes it is OK to prosecute a Minister over a trivial technical assault because it suits us politically. And no we want the right to carry on assaulting our children without risk of prosecution…because why?
March 27th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
“The sad truth is that there are far too many people in this country who fervently believe that it is their RIGHT to hit their children and they are simply too gutless to admit that they prefer the defence of S59 to remain.”
The only sad truth in this country is all these poor misguided people who try to equate smacking with child abuse. Whereas child abuse is harmful, there is evidence that smacking is NOT harmful to children.
Most of the support for this legislation is coming from people with an agenda, be it supporting the UN, imposing State control of families, misguided non-violence or religious beliefs, etc.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
I agree with you Redrag,
Physically hurting kids as a form of punishment should have no place in our society.
I have three well balanced good kids 2 at Uni and one 7th Form and never once needed to strike any of them … Mind you I did take the time and effort to attend a week long positive parenting course when the first one came along, it was invaluable. I learned other strategies to deal with misbehaving kids.
My three are considered polite, well behaved and respectful …and not a whack in sight
I’m probably just lucky.
Cheers
Thomas
March 27th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
No one is telling redrag how to raise his children, it he does not smack his children good on him but what gives him the right to tell the rest of us how to raise our kids. I have no wish to tell redrag how to raise his children. Can someone please tell me why socialists believe they have a right to force their morals on 80% of the population who want no part of this bill. Are they control freaks or just plain arseholes?.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
“No one is telling redrag how to raise his children, it he does not smack his children good on him but what gives him the right to tell the rest of us how to raise our kids.”
The state tells us how to raise our kids all the time. It tells us to send them to school, to provide them with the necessities of life, and that it isn’t okay for us to kill our babies. Why is this legislation any different? Why aren’t you complaining about those “intrusions” into our houses?
This whole poll thing is an absolute red herring. I doubt that any progressive legislation would get through under public referendum (which is effectively what is being suggested). We’d probably have taken as long as Sweden to introduce universal suffrage, and we’d certainly have no civil unions because all of the “homos” would be either in jail, or in the closet.
Where do people get the idea that they have a “right” to smack kids anyway? Is it just because it was done to them? Is it because they aren’t aware of other ways of to discipline their children?
I can empathise with parents who are afraid of prosecution because they gave their kid a smack – I cannot respect a belief that one has a “right” to assault a child. What about a child’s right not to be assaulted?
March 27th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Bob,
Correct me if I am wrong, but from prior comment I take it that you are a farmer. Good on you…a great occupation, bloody hard work but most people who live the real rural life find it hard to imagine doing anything else. I’m going to try and give your comment an honest answer.
Over 200 years ago, most humans lived close to the land. More than 90% of us were directly involved in primary industries of one sort or another. One of the great things about living on a decent chuck of land is that it gives you the opportunity to be quite self-reliant if you choose. For many farmers if the bridge washes out at the end of the road, it is a major nuisance, but they can carry on living well enough for many weeks off their own resources on their own farm.
In such a setting self-reliance, independence and personal responsibility are pre-eminent virtues. Historically all societies owe a large portion of their traditional values to this rural cultural heritage.
In the modern world however most of us now live in large towns and cities. We no longer have the opportunity to be self-reliant in the same way rural people do. In the cities we are highly dependent on each other, not only for essential things like food and physical services, but a complex of interlocking social obligations and responsibilities. Living as close to each other as we do, the behaviour of our fellow citizens cannot be wholly ignored. As a result we tend to make laws and rules that attempt to regulate our intensely social existences. In our world mutual interdependence is the pre-eminent virtue…and by and large this is a relatively new development in the larger schema of human history. And I may note that much of the driving mainspring of progressive civilisation is wound by us city dwellers. You may despise us city types Bob, but we constitute the large majority of people and modern life would not be the same without us.
At the same time I suggest that the unrestrained growth of urban life should not be allowed continue unbounded. At some point an excess of civilisation degenerates into something immoderate and depraved…as a glance at the seedy underbelly of any major world city will show….whether that belly be a thin beaten one in a crime ridden slum, or a fat greedy one at a corporate board table. At the same time vain bucolic fantasies of some idyllic rural life are just that too. Trudging in cow-shit at 4am day in and day out is just plain hard work …not much that is glamorous or “aspirational” about that either.
This is a round-about way of trying to answer you Bob. The life you live gives you lenses of self-reliance to look through; you have to be that way in order to survive the capricious seasons, the isolation of your farms and the vagaries of markets you have little control over. By contrast my life exposes me to a mutual dependence with the thousands of other people I directly and indirectly interact with every day. Us city types DO tend to “interfere” in each other’s lives quite a lot; it is what we do to survive on a daily basis.
I don’t know that either viewpoint is “right” Bob. Honestly I do not; but if I can stand in your gumboots long enough to type this post, how about giving a go at seeing the view from my 8th floor apartment window for a moment or two?