No smacking compromise
One should give credit to Sue Bradford for her willingness to talk to John Key on a compromise, even though no agreement could be reached. This is not entirely surprising considering Bradford has always said she is unwilling to define any acceptable level of force – even light smacking, as being worse than the status quo
Plaque on both their houses points out how extraordinary Bradford’s position is – arguing that reducing the level of acceptable force is worse than the status quo.
Now Bradford has come out and said that the fear parents have that this bans smacking is the fault of bill opponents. But having had occasion to reread her bill this week, her protestations of innocence do not add up. Just look at the official purpose of the Bill:
The purpose of this Act is … abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.
Now this is as clear as day. None of this Clark bullshit about just removing a defence. The purpose of the Bill is to abolish the use of parental force for correction. Now it could not be clearer. Smacking is a subset of parental force for correction. The purpose of the Bill hence is to abolish or ban smacking. These are Bradford’s own words in her own bill.
This is why compromise could not be found. The aim of the bill is to abolish the use of any parental force for correction.
Now looking through the Bill again I found to my horror the amended Bill is far far worse, in my opinion, than the original Bill was.
Why?
The original bill merely deleted Section 59. It left the law silent on parental correction. It meant there was no specific statutory defence, but the judicial authorities would be able to consider the circumstances of particular cases.
But the amended bill goes far beyond just abolishing the specific defence. It states in s59(2):
Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
I should have highlighted this earlier. This doesn’t just remove parental correction as a defence. It outlaws it by statute. And even worse it specifically wipes out any ability of a court to consider common law in its interpretation. I’d say that any case that makes court, no matter how trivial, will be a slam dunk for the prosecution. Because 59(2) explicitly rules out any defence.
So when Sue Bradford and Helen Clark claim the bill does not outlaw or ban smacking, remember these two things:
(1) The stated purpose of the Bill is to abolish the use of parental force for the purpose of correction
(2) Section 59(2) explicitly forbids the use of any force for the purpose of correction
So remember this bill is not just about removing a defence. The Bill’s own purpose states it is about banning parental correction which uses force, which includes smacking.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
The Green argument is essentially that, yes, the bill does ban smacking, but it doesn’t criminalise parents, because they won’t be charged.
That is, it isn’t denied that smacking will be illegal but because they use a definition of criminalise which requires a conviction parents won’t be “criminalised”.
Good parents won’t be criminalised, so the argument goes, because to be criminalised, first the parent would have to break the law, then be investigated, then be charged, then be found guilty, then be convicted – which Bradford quite reasonably asserts is highly unlikely.
It’s a stupid definition of criminalise, but if adopted then the conlusion is at least logical.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Heh such Green logic – so that means if I drive at 150 km/hr I am not breaking the law unless they catch me
April 26th, 2007 at 8:30 am
This whole debate is a sham.
Bradford knows this is not about child abuse. It is about giving politicians with totalitarian instincts the ability to target families.
Strong families means a population more able to govern themselves. This means a strong nation which requires only small central government. Big government advocates know that when families are weakened we lose a bit of that ability to govern themselves. This then gives them the excuse they need to fill the breach.
Bradford will not compromise as she is determined to give bureaucrats the ability to be proactive in investigating families, especially families who belong to a group\political persuasion\religious belief she may not like. How long will it be before Plunket, CYFS etc are given the power to investigate how some, or even all families, discipline their children?
Meanwhile true abusers will continue anabated.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Whether one supports the intention of this Bill or not, one cannot honestly say that a) this is well-drafted legislation, and b)this Bill is a representation of the sentiment and will of the constituency.
Bad, bad, bad legislation. Who are these clowns, and why do they think they can try to dupe us and still expect us to vote for them?
April 26th, 2007 at 8:40 am
When is John Key going to do something meaningful to stop this legislation? He should have made it clear that if National’s suggestion was not accepted that National would repeal the legislation when they become government and if necessary bring that dopey blonde into line,
April 26th, 2007 at 8:49 am
I don’t condone the smacking of children in any way. As a parent of 2 and a foster parent of 14 I have delivered a few well placed smacks in my time. Always followed at the appropriate time by an explanation and a hug.I usually felt like crap afterwards. However, most of the time it achieves it’s desired result and no long term harm is done. My kids are now in there 20’s and I am very proud of the young adults they have become.
However, even believing in a utopian world where smacking isn’t needed or administered, doesn’t stop Bradfords bill from being bad law IMO. Bad laws should not be passed. I really think it is that simple.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Agree 100%, Chuck. John Key needs to stand for something. Here’s a chance to claim 80%+ of NZ voters, and he is just watering down the anathema. Who gave him the mandate to compromise?
I suggest that he not only states the National Party will remove this bill completely, but that he also backs the two referenda, with all the resources at the National party’s disposal. That way, it is forced into the public arena at the same time as the next General Election, and no one can forget who passed this vile legislation, just when they are choosing their party vote.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:12 am
David – once again your analysis on this subject has been spot on. I hope the media who read your blog will pick up on these two gems and run hard with it so that the wavering MPs can feel even more electoral opprobrium if they support this ludicrous law change.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:26 am
How long will it be before Plunket, CYFS etc are given the power to investigate how some, or even all families, discipline their children?
CYFS already have this power…
April 26th, 2007 at 9:34 am
David: This Bill has been in this form since (November?), this is hardly a revelation. It was always intended as a smacking ban, and it does achieve this in law, (aside from possibly some far fetched examples I wont get into). This is why I stated that in most cases the defence will will not get put the jury by the Judges.
“And even worse it specifically wipes out any ability of a court to consider common law in its interpretation.” Not quite, and there is also the possibility for the development of a defence of de minimis, or ‘to trivial to warrant the criminal sanction’.
I accept it is a smacking ban, and always have. Whats more, I think it is a good move. What has shocked me, has been that the opposition to this Bill (includind yourself), have not been able to grasp what the Bill actually is, apparently until now. The National party themselves have been completely inconsistent about what this Bill achieves, criticising it for doing nothing, for doing too little, and for doing too much.
You deserve credit for your honesty over this Bill David (amongst a sea of bull-shit I might add), but you really need to solidify your grounds for opposing Bradford’s Bill.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Not quite DPF – I believe the argument is that if you drive your car at 150km/h you are (technically?) breaking the law, but you are not a “criminal” until caught and fined.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:45 am
andrew said..
“..It is about giving politicians with totalitarian instincts the ability to target families..”
(whoar..!..some of us march to the beat of a different drummer..eh..?..)
whipping up paranoid fantasies/souffles..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 26th, 2007 at 10:16 am
I think you need to look at why do parents smack their kids as opposed to spending the time with other forms of discipline.
TIME is a factor. Usually both parents work, come home tired, then smack when kids get unruly(I am simplifying here).
If we had one parent to stay at home to raise children instead of both working we might have a different attitude to this bill. Many families put income and lifestyle ahead of bringing up their children.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:30 am
I await the Green partys new found confidence in “police discretion” make its way firmly into their other policies. They can effectively drop their policy to decriminalise dope, the police will be fair and just gatekeepers that can be relied upon to use their judgement in each case.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:35 am
DPF wrote” Heh such Green logic – so that means if I drive at 150 km/hr I am not breaking the law unless they catch me
”
Actually DPF, you are technically breaking the law, but it has no effect uless you are caught. The implications, in Bradfords words go further: Nobody is out to catch you, so its okay to break the law – and we are going to make law specifically so you can break it and not be prosecuted -thats the Green logic. If John Key was serious about his position, he will come out and say that he will push through Chester Burrows amendment – effectively party policy – after the election – rather than making fluffery comments about “waiting to see if we have suitable coalition partners”
Party policy does not depend on future coalition partners.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Party policy does not depend on future coalition partners.
One has to wonder if the possibility of scaring off coalition partners is the reason why John key and the National Party are refusing to take a real stance on anything, and don’t seem to have any real policies.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:41 am
This country has huge amounts of violence happening in the home. I’m not saying it is from parents that care very much about their children. This bill has been written up to stop the child abusers who do absolutely beat their children into submission.
People who are found to be beating their children are 1st) Charged (GREAT) 2nd) Taken to court (GREAT) 3rd) A lot of child abusers at that point argue they had used “Reasonable Force” (Not good) and sadly because section 59 of the crimes act is how it is. Courts rule from that and sadly a lot of these “Child abusers” get away with their crimes because the legislation does not define reasonable force.
This bill HAS been given a bad name because of the opposition. Instead of looking at the purpose of the bill which is to mainly stop these child beaters going through court and getting away with their crimes thanks to how section 59 is written up at this present day,
The opposition have just looked straight into the household and seen that this will “Criminalize Good Parents” this in fact will not “Criminalize good parents”.
Let’s look at it through the eyes of a parent: ok when a child is doing something that is going to harm them or others then you need to do what anyone would do and that is to remove them from that situation and that could be picking them up and stopping them. The other thing could be giving them a slight smack on the hand or where ever to make them aware of what they are doing and what their actions can possibly cause. If a police officer saw you do that on the street they are not going to pull out the handcuffs and arrest you because I’m sure everyone understands that if you had not intervened at that time then the child could have harmed themselves and others.
I think you need to be realistic about this, and really look at what the bill is trying to effectively do which is to get the real child abusers put away.
Ms Bradford believes that violence is not the way to correct behavior and in a lot of situations it does work, but I feel we need to look at other alternatives to disciplining children. We can be credited on the international state as an anti-violence state which at the moment we are not.
By reducing smacking in the household and effectively trying to stop it, it can show organized crime groups and other groups of people that use violence frequently that New Zealand is better than violence and can operate without it.
Everyone knew that Mr. Key was going to the negotiating table with the wish for the bill to allow smacking. Ms Bradford has done a wise thing to not go through with his wishes.
It was like Mr. Key going to Steve Chadwick and asking her to rewrite her to rewrite her “Easter trading bill” to include the right for business’s to trade on all public holidays it was totally unrealistic.
James Sleep
http://www.sleeponpolitics.blogspot.com
April 26th, 2007 at 10:50 am
James, you may be being groomed up to be a Labour politician but we here at Kiwiblog can distinguish between the effects of an Act and the intention of a bill about to be come an Act.The bill has been given a bad name because the proponents and promoters do not want to talk about the effects, just the intention.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:59 am
dave.
“The bill has been given a bad name because the proponents and promoters do not want to talk about the effects, just the intention.”
Thats funny why has Ms Sue Bradford and Helen Clark always defending the bill by talking about what they feel the effects would be.
It is the opposition that is taking their statements of the effects of the bill which in fact are quite positive and then they twist it.
Im sorry dave, they are always going on about the effects as all MP’s would go on about the effects of a bill.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:10 am
“Thats funny why has Ms Sue Bradford and Helen Clark always defending the bill by talking about what they feel the effects would be.”
James Sleep: Do not let facts spoil your view, Helen Clark did not always suupport the bill.
What she has done is more like a flip flop depending on the wind shifts of maintaining the her hold on the purse strings.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Dave – I’d prefer the new Key wording to the Borrows wording – it very clearly and understandably sets out what’s acceptable.
And while I’m not usually one to just post links in comments, Audrey Young nails it:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10436161
April 26th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Andrew.
I’m Sorry I’ll be spacific.
Why has Ms Sue Bradford and Helen Clark been quite open about the effects they feel it will have on NZ to the media. Helen commenting on the effects since she has supported the bill.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:23 am
James,
“feelings on effect” equates to “intention.” Why do you think Bradford cant explain her bill without using the word intention or an equivalent. Its because here stated intention doesn’t match the wording of her bill thats why. Helen Clark has always support the bill, name a time when she explicitly hasn`t.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:26 am
If I belong to a religious minority, according to article 3 of the Bill of Rights, I am entitled to practise their religious beliefs.
Now if these beliefs include discipline by smacking, the anti-smacking bill will violate my human rights, under this bill of rights.
So, is Sue Bradfords bill a violation of all our rights as parents?
April 26th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Jenni – yes it is a violations of such rights, the question that needs to be asked is whether that violation is a reasonable limit on your right to raise you children according to your religion. That’s where the real debate is.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:38 am
“Spacific”?
My god is there treatment for that?
April 26th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Graeme,
Thanks for the link to the Audrey Young article.
She has struck on something that I mentioned last week.
Key is acting in the same way that made him successful in the type of business he was involved in. He has hedged his position so that, whatever the outcome he makes a gain.
Labour struggled with Brash because he did not act like a politician. They succeeded in outmanoevering him in the end by using the press & some pretty underhand tactics.
Key is a different type of opponent again, and by removing Brash, Labour has made things harder for themselves, because Key is a more dangerous opponent than Brash was.
Labour is full of career politicians, and they have a reputation for being very adept at politics.
They do less well when their opponents act in ways that break the political mould.
Brash did not have the level of cunning that Labour did. Key does have at least the same level, if not more. The problem for Labour is that Key is treating politics like a business takeover- he is out-thinking and out manoevering Labour at every turn, and they have no idea how to cope with him.
Key has given Labour the choice of shing off the reasonable approach of Key (and continuing to look arrogant & out of touch), or accepting it (and making Key look like the power broker, whilst also jepoardising their support from the Greens).
It really is Lose Lose for Labour and Win Win for National whatever happens.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:41 am
James,
Section 59 is already working. Show one case of child abuse which has been successfully defended using Section 59. There isn’t one!
This law will be about as useful as the microchipping of dogs.
A democratic society doesn’t make laws that aren’t intended to be enforced.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:42 am
I think James Sleep needs to get off the blog and go back to school.
And try an English class
April 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
“shing” ??
I must proof read more.
Should have been “brushing”
sorry.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Peter S,
Very eloquent.
Couldn’t agree more.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:47 am
James Sleep said:
“Courts rule from that and sadly a lot of these “Child abusers” get away with their crimes because the legislation does not define reasonable force.”
Absolute bullshit – 7 or 8 cases where parents using riding crops etc, does not equal “a lot”, regardless of how you view these decisions
“…We can be credited on the international state as an anti-violence state which at the moment we are not.”
Pardon me if I don’t give a damn what the “international state” thinks of NZ laws regarding parental discipline of their own children. What will this credit get us? carbon credits? big ups and shout outs from the UN? The “international state” has far bigger fish to fry than NZ smacking laws.
“By reducing smacking in the household and effectively trying to stop it, it can show organized crime groups and other groups of people that use violence frequently that New Zealand is better than violence and can operate without it.”
I literally laughed out loud when I read that James, do you seriously believe that organised criminals give a fuck about anti smacking legislation? How delightfully naive.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:53 am
If labour seriously don’t want parents prosecuted for a light smack they have nothing to fear in backing keys ammendment. good post david. i’d love to see Sonic and the Labour suporters try and spin their way out of this question. If the bill is not intended to crinimalise parents who give their child a light smack for the purposes of correction, then why is labour not suporting the ammendment by John key to ammend the bill to allow parents only to use force if it is a light smack of “minor consequence”?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
James Sleep says
…Let’s look at it through the eyes of a parent: ………………….If a police officer saw you do that on the street they are not going to pull out the handcuffs and arrest you because I’m sure everyone understands that if you had not intervened at that time then the child could have harmed themselves and others.
Firstly, James, if you are 15, like they say you are, don’t even think that you can look at things through the eye of a parent.
Secondly, do you honestly believe Mr Plod is going to say” oh, its ok, dear, I understand why you smacked your tantramising kid. Of course I won’t arrest you.”
Go back to school, James.
Good on you for trying to debate these issues, but this one is out of your league
April 26th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
We need some reporter with “Balls” to raise this anomoly between the legislation and what the perpretrators are saying directly on national television news, and force an answer. I am sick and tired of asshole politicians playing smoke and mirrors with the public, as though it us who are the imbeciles. Nothing could be further from the truth !
Pricks !
April 26th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
So if 7-8 people absolutely kicked the crap out of a poor little dog in front of your eyes and were not put away and just equittted do you think thats not a lot. And there has been many more cases of Child abusers getting away with their crimes. I do not have figures but there is morew than 7-8. those 7-8 people could still be out there do that and instead of being in Prison they are allowed to be free.
The reason why Ms Bradford and the Labour Party have not supported Mr Keys proposal is because it will contradict part of the bill.
Also the other reason is Mr Key is going on about allowing “Light Smacking” whats light smacking you have to define it and that is the problem and you just cannot define a “Light Smack”
April 26th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
James Sleep,
After reading your thread, I would be more concerned about your command of English and your ability to make it in the world, than arguing the limits of a “light smack”.
You are not a parent. You have no concept of being a parent.
Leave this debate and go back to school.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
The insidious danger with a bill like this on the statute books is that, in a few years time, its interpretation will change and Police or CYFS or the KGB (or whatever the latest incarnation of the “anti-good citizen”, anti-family jack-booted govt dept is called) will not exercise discretion to not prosecute any longer.
Just like has happened with the sedition bill.
And Sue must be hallucinogenic if she thinks we have enough police to check up on every potential infringement reported.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
James,
Some poeple get away with murder, and instead are found guilty of manslaughter. Some men are acquitted of rape even though they may have raped. Should we rewrite the rape and murder laws because the justice system sometimes comes up with the wrong outcome? What other laws should we rewrite while we’re at it?
As Audrey Young says: “It is almost inconceivable Parliament will pass a law that explicitly bans physical punishment and then expects the police to prosecute only extreme cases”. Indeed Greg O’Connor has said that police will investigate every complaint of smacking. Presumably if there is evidence of smacking, police will prosecute. And the resources devoted to genuine cases of child abuse will decline as a result.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
“And there has been many more cases of Child abusers getting away with their crimes. I do not have figures” – so i just have to guess, and i am really, really, really good at guessing.
Give up, dude. You make phule look rational.
Some people may say they admire your enthusiasm, I would wager that most of us dont. You make very little sense in your rants, your logic is twisted, your metaphors are flawed, your grasp of facts is poor, your understanding of any opinion other than your own is comically bad, you have zero life experience on which to base your opinions (and it DOES matter). People are dumber for having read your comments.
But keep posting. Your comments are a perfect example of why we dont treat children the same way we do adults.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
“You are not a parent. You have no concept of being a parent. Leave this debate and go back to school.”
Kat, what gives you the right to state who can and cannot comment on this issue?
An argument’s strength lies in its reasoning, not its source.
Sleep’s comments were attempts at debating the issue in point, and yours were not. Andrew, Mark, and southern raider (and others) all had no problem raising civil counter arguments for Mr Sleep. If you have nothing of substance to offer then perhaps it is you who needs the schooling.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I put this to you.
We are not able to smack our dog, cat, rabiit whatever.
We cannot go and hit another adult.
We cannot go and smack an adult we have issues with.
So why should the law allow us to smack children.
Pets can be worse than childrena dn its illegal to go and hit them and get them into line.
Why should we have the right to smack children, just because they are the same species as us and they talk the same language and they are our children shouldn’t give us the right to be able to inflict pain on them.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
James Sleep
10/10 for having the guts to post in favour of the Bradford Bill – with NZ sentiment so strongly against it it is the blogging equivalent of farting against thunder.
But James you must do as David says, read the preamble of the Bill. If the intention is not to criminalise parents for a light smack (as Bradford, Clark and other supporters claim) then why state that the intention of the law change is “abolish parental force for the purpose of correction” which is statute language for making smacking illegal.
Greg O’Connor is a credible commentator on police issues – he was a very effective detective prior to his Police Association role and having met him and had debates with him, he is a formidable advocate. If he says the police will investigate complaints they are highly likely to. Why pass a law that is designed to be honoured in the breach from its inception?
James – you are probably too young to have been involved in many CFYS cases. I’ve seen the ugly side of incompetent and arrogant social workers who use the law to act capriciously with devastating effects on families. Almost all social workers try hard to be fair. One of the reasons why this amendment is so universally loathed is that parents dont want to take their chance that a zealous cop or CFYS worker will turn a correctional smack into a police record and a compulsory removal of the child from the home.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Here are my predictions:
1. The Bill will become law.
2. Good parents will continue to be good parents.
3. Bad parents will continue to be bad parents
4. Some good parents will continue smack their children during those stressful moments (and they will continue to feel shitty for doing it, long after the child has forgotten about it). They will not be prosecuted.
5. Some parents will continue to discipline their children with force, and gain an increased contempt for the law generally. The majority will not be prosecuted, a small number will be.
6. Some parents will work at developing ‘non-smack’ parenting strategies.
7. The police will be more inclined than at present to prosecute for apparent violence in the home, when there are notifications etc.
8. An increased number of parents will be accused of violence against their children at the time of relationship break ups and custody claims, it will become yet another tool in custody disputes.
9. John Key will assume power and will not change it, as it will not have made a lick of practical difference to the vast majority of people.
10. As with the right to hit one’s wife for correction, the right to strike children will slowly cease to be accepted by society.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I put this right back to you, JS.
Children are not dogs, cats or rabbits. Though in the case of dogs, a smack is a very good correctional method. Smack a dog for doing something bad, he wont do it again. People are not allowed to BEAT their dogs. Just like they arent allowed to beat their children.
Children are not adults. This is the point you have illustrated so well yourself. We do not let them drive, drink, smoke or vote. You argument here is idiotic, and you should be embarassed for making it.
We DO smack animals. We are not allowed to cruelly beat them. We use riding crops with horses. Cattle prods with cows.
When we pat our dogs we use more force than when we discipline them. But the difference is the intent and the dogs are aware of this. That is why mild physical discipline and cruel beatings are so easy to distinguish. A mild smack on a dog is no worse a physical contact than any other normal contact.
A smack on a child is exactly the same. If we rough house with our kids we probably use more force than when we smack them. The difference is the intent.
Everyone rational person on the face of the planet can distinguish between a smack and a beating. Why is it that you and your ilk fail to make that distinction? Why, in a discussion about smacking, do you constantly bring up gross physical abuse? Can you really not tell the difference? Are you THAT stupid?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
JC, a child is not an adult wife.
The acceptance of females as equals, with equal rights and responsibilities, was one of the major reasons why wife-beating became to be considered a bad thing. When the assumed superiority of men over women disappeared so did the justification for spousal discipline. Who are you to discipline another adult who has the same capacity for rational judgement you have?
Are you really saying that children will come to be considered equal to adults? That they will have the same rights and responsibilities as adults from the moment they are born?
Why are people being so fucking stupid?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Kimble: In ‘my predictions’, I stated: “As with the right to hit one’s wife for correction, the right to strike children will slowly cease to be accepted by society”
Yet you assert “Are you really saying that children will come to be considered equal to adults?”
I said no such thing (nor did I imply it). How on earth did you draw that from those words? Whether striking is acceptable and whether groups are “considered equal” are not the same thing.
For many groups of people, the ’smacking of pets’ is considered unacceptable, yet it simply does not follow that these groups now ‘consider pets as equals’!
Now if I may borrow your words, why are people being so fucking stupid?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Who told you it was illegal to smack pets?
You hysterical lefties are just making shit up as you go. Next you’ll play revisionist and claim smacking has been illegal for last hundred years or some such shit.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
It is interesting that Bradford advocates the law treating children as adults with regard to smacking/assault, and yet the Greens were howling against the proposal to lower the age at which a child can be prosecuted as an adult for commiting an adult crime.
The double standard is just as evident when you consider that Bradford is also an abortion advocate.
If a child has the same rights & protections as an adult, then an unborn child should be afforded the same protections.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
One point I haven’t seen raised: I have seen parents inflict sheer terror in their children without lifting a finger, especially adult men (but also mothers) screaming in anger at cowering little kids. I’m sure the damage from that behaviour is at least as bad, but probably much worse than a smack.
Does Sue have a nifty little solution for that type of emotional “assault” too, or is that somehow acceptable? Is she saving that, to be addressed in future Green/Labour party law?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Yes I think JC has hit the nail on the head. Absolutely correct, the bill of course will technically make parents at wrong when they hit their children but police will not have their priorities set on finding parents who lightly smack their kids. Because it is made illegal parents will start to look for alternatives to correct their childrena dn I think its a great bill to do that, as well as stopping child beaters geting away with their crimes.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
“It is interesting that Bradford advocates the law treating children as adults with regard to smacking/assault”
I imagine her reasoning is that children are 1. more vulnerable than adults and 2. are at present afforded -less- legal protection against assault than adults.
It is not a ‘double standard’, it is totally consistent with her other position.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
” imagine her reasoning is that children are 1. more vulnerable than adults and 2. are at present afforded -less- legal protection against assault than adults.
It is not a ‘double standard’, it is totally consistent with her other position.”
You missed the bit about abortion.
The unborn are afforded the least protection of all, because Bradford & her ilk regard them as less than human, and yet it could be argued that the unborn are the most vulnerable of all.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
James Sleep says……….but police will not have their priorities set on finding parents who lightly smack their kids.
James, do you have information that we do not know about??
How do you know what the police priorities are??
Greg O’Connor has stated publicly that police will have to investigate any complaint of smacking under this new bill.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
James you made the comparison between physically disciplining a wife and child, I didnt. Do you really think that if the wife wasnt considered the equal of the husband (ie not the same mental capacity) that physical discpline would be as frowned upon as it is now?
You do not discipline you wife because she is your equal. You do not need to discpline her, physically or otherwise. On the other hand children need to be disciplined/corrected. It is the disciplining of adults spouses in general that is archaic, not simply physical aspect of it. And it is YOU that drew the parallel between spousal and parental physical discpline, not me.
Many groups of people consider the BEATING of pet unacceptable. A smack is not a beating. The sorts of loons that would find smacking a dog unacceptable (and on par with gross physical mistreatment, even though in reality the smack is nothing more than a tap) probably DO consider animals the equivalent of humans.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
If my dog bites someone I can legally get him put down.
If my wife assaults someone I can legally call the cops.
Now knowing full well that the previous 2 options aren’t available for children and also remembering that timeout requires the use of physical force, what child policing agency should I call?
April 26th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Totally agree with you Peter S.
The govt has made it legal in this country to kill an unborn child, yet they want to make any sort of smacking of a child an illegal act.
What do you say to that James C??
April 26th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Sue Bradford explicitly said two years ago that she would like to make smacking illegal. She didn’t think that it was the right time to do so back then, but now it looks like she’s going for broke!
April 26th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Ok, from now on if anyone says that smacking is wrong and illogical because you cannot smack an adult the way you would a child, they are a fucking idiot for life. No chance of parole, no appeal to a higher court, no extenuating circumstances. Idiot For Life (IFL).
If you have made this argument you are not thinking at a higher level than everyone else, you are not being particualrily insightful, you are not contributing anything to the discussion. You are an IFL.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
“I imagine her reasoning is that children are 1. more vulnerable than adults and 2. are at present afforded -less- legal protection against assault than adults.”
I’m sorry, but WTF?!?
Have you never heard of “assault on a child” – children have far, far more protection against (real) assault, including at least 2 government departments to protect them.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
The argument so far:
Smacking is already illegal. Even though it isnt.
The bill doesnt make smacking illegal. Even though it does.
The bill isnt even intended to make smacking illegal. Even though it explicitly does.
The police wont enforce it. This requires that you dont ask, “well, why pass it then?”
Police will be too busy ith more important crimes to worry about parents who smack. Yeah, just like they are too busy solving murders to sit on the side of the motorway and give out tickets for being 7k over the limit.
Lets check on the score,
‘Those opposed to bradfords retarded law’ – 27
‘IFLs’ – 0
April 26th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Unfortunately, this is far more than being about if the police prosecute. It’s what CYFS do. It’s what parents will be forced to do, when confronted by CYFS.
James, you missed a fewpredictions off your list:
* The number of children into foster care will noticeably increase.
* Parents will willingly place children into foster care when threatened by CYFS to do so, or risk “having them permanently removed” during a period of investigation.
* Investigations will spin out longer, due to the increased case loads
* The number of children abused in Foster Care will skyrocket.
These predictions are supported by the Swedish example – stats the anti-smacking crowd ignore.
The other issue is on a matter of a difference of opinion on the effectiveness a light smack can be as discipline. I agree most parents probably do not apply this well, and some mothers and fathers with grown kids are probably guilt ridden that they smacked their children in anger, not discipline, and are all too eager to do penance by banning smacking.
That too is an over-reaction, as those kids still grew up ok – worse emotional damage is often inflicted than a passing smack – and all it means is that parenting skills need to be increased. But making this illegal is foolish.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
“but police will not have their priorities set on finding parents who lightly smack their kids”
So what’s the point in making laws that won’t be enforced?
BTW Kimble & Murray, while it is not illegal to smack dogs, it is frowned upon these days as a training tool, with its place being taken by positive reinforcement rather than punishment.
But I see what you’re getting at – what I’d call a light smack would probably be interpreted by my dog as a rather wussy patting, but as you say, the dog knows the intent from other signals – hence no need to actually smack, dogs want to please.
That said, I’ve given her a good enough nudge with my foot, to almost count as a swift kick to stop her from doing something potentially catastrophic to herself.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
The Bradford model for life:
Prebirth – No rights, No responsibilities
From Birth to becoming a Parent – All rights, No responsibilities
Parenthood – No rights, All responsibilities
April 26th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Peter, I never stated that you did not have a point about abortion, my only point was in regards to criminal liability for minors and section 59.
Kimble, again, I did not in any way assert that ‘children would be equals’, you wrongly imported that into my argument. Again, how did you get that from those words? Is does not even come close to following logically, as I stated above.
You state: “And it is YOU that drew the parallel between spousal and parental physical discpline”
I did no such thing.
Show me in my words where I did that? I compared the slow process of change in societal acceptance of of the two forms of ‘discipline’, that is all. Any assumptions beyond that are your own. Do not attribute something to me that I did not state.
These are the facts:
1. We once had the right to strike our wives.
2. It was also once largely socially acceptable.
3. We no longer have that right.
4. It is also now longer acceptable, and the acceptance does not necessarily coincide with the law change.
5. We have the right to smack our children.
6. It is largely socially acceptable.
7. There is a law change that will remove the right to smack our children.
8. At some point “the right to strike children will slowly cease to be accepted by society” (my exact words)
The fine points of the rights and wrongs of either form of discipline (wife or child), were NOT mentioned at all. Nor were the two ‘compared’ for any purpose aside from a predicted change in social acceptance. NOR DID I IN ANY WAY assert that children would become accepted as ‘equals’. Those were imported by you.
You are either intellectually dishonest, or incompetent. There is no other possibility.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I think James C had a point that the law affords children slightly less protection in the physical sense, and that children are more vulnerable to physical assault than adults.
However, as is always the case with real life, reality is more complex than that.
Children are afforded better protection under the law than adults in many areas, and, in the case of punishment for offences the state is particularly hamstrung in its ability to mete out punishment to children.
It has always been something of a trade-off.
Children cannot be prosecuted or imprisoned.
Trade off-
The law has given parents licence to administer physical discipline in lieu of the state applying mor draconian measures.
Bradford’s bill ignores and forgets all of the reasoning behind why these things were in place.
An unfortuate and unforseen result of the law passing is that there will be very few measures left that can be used to correct/punish serious offending by children.
Another negative consequence will also be an increase in serious assaults on children- exactly the opposite to what people are trying to achieve.
Why will the assaults increase?
A smack, administered early, whilst the parent is in control, can stop trying behaviour in its tracks.
The problem is that general behaviour standards amongst children have been deteriorating for some decades now, and the smacking ban will accelerate that.
Real beatings come from frustration- where someone loses control(and a person out of control won’t be stoped by a law).
Lowering standards of behaviour is going to raise frustration levels in parents, increasing the liklihood of parents losing the plot and going over the top.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
James C,
You are rather quiet on the rights of the unborn child.
I would say “checkmate”
April 26th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
“Peter, I never stated that you did not have a point about abortion, my only point was in regards to criminal liability for minors and section 59.”
Fair enough James.
I added the bit about the abortion issue because I feel that Bradford is inconsistent in her views.
Were she, say, anti-abortion too, then I would give her far more credit for the anti-smacking views than I do now, because it would be applying the same logic and standards.
I feel that she is picking an choosing what she wants to apply the logic to.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
haggis,
It may be that James actually agrees with rights for unborn children- if that were the case then I for one would be the first to give credit to him for being consistent in wanting protection for children.
If this is the case, he may simply be sticking to the part of the issue where he does agree with Bradford.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Agreed Peter S,
But for one who is so supportive of the bill, his views concerning the rights of the unborn child would be of interest.
They may be 2 separate issues, but for someone who supports the rights of children, I would be keen to read his opinion on the rights of an unborn child.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
In response to James Sleep’s assertions, I’ve been trying to find a decent list of cases where S59 has been used successfully as a defense. The best I could come up with so far has been the Maxim Institute’s (Why does that name ring a dodgy bell for me?) original submission on the issue.
It is a PDF document available here. What is interesting to note is that they do list all the cases. And out of the 60 cases they list, in only 6 has S59 been used successfully as a defense, and in the summary of those cases it has been deemed acceptable by a court (Judge, jury – you know – a group of people agreeing after hearing ALL the facts)
It makes for an interesting read, leastways.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
i don’t even know where to start, and am not keen for the wave of nastiness that you lot hurl around if anyone disagrees with you, but for goodness sake! How about not savaging posters just cos you don’t like their spelling or their age? How about getting your facts right? And how about acknowledging that Greg O’Connor is not the official voice of the New Zealand Police?
April 26th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
ah..!..look..!..it’s kumble..!
i was talking just the other day about the old-skool frothers ‘n ranters..
and then..up you pop..!
and still with yer inchoate/incoherent outbursts..eh..?
and look..!..there’s lucyna..!
careful..!..or soon she’ll be telling us god spoke directly to her..
and told her it is aok to whale/whack into nippers…
d’ya know that religion is one of the few things that had to invent(?) a problem.(.namely hell..)
to justify its’ existance..?
food for thought/doubt..eh..?
(but sshh!!..don’t tell lucyna..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 26th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
“Children are afforded better protection under the law than adults in many areas …”
Except for physical assault. In that regard they are afforded less protection in law. And physical assault is central to the discussion.
And to whoever stated “assault on a child”, you clearly missed a defence called section 59 (it’s kind of topical at the moment too).
The vast majority of assaults on children come from their care givers. Their caregivers presently have a defence at law if their action was “reasonable force for correction”. That is a fact. What happens from that point on can be debated.
Peter, I think your abortion argument has merit, however one would quickly fall into a rights argument that I do think is entirely apposite in regards to section 59 (or a ‘point of existence’ argument). Any apparent inconsistency you managed to show on Bradford’s part does not impinge on the changes to section 59 having merit, (it could just be that the current abortion law is wrong). And it is the merit in the changes to section 59 that is in point.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
i don’t even know where to start, and am not keen for the wave of nastiness that you lot hurl around if anyone disagrees with you, but for goodness sake! How about not savaging posters just cos you don’t like their spelling or their age? How about getting your facts right? And how about acknowledging that Greg O’Connor is not the official voice of the New Zealand Police? You love accusing the other side of disingenuity, but this criminalisation hysteria is just silly – that’d be analgous to the police ‘having’ to investigate (and prosecute according to you lot) every instance of people driving at 103 km, or shoving their way to the front of the bar. C’mon!
April 26th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
“You state: “And it is YOU that drew the parallel between spousal and parental physical discpline”
I did no such thing.”
FFS, James, here!
“10. As with the right to hit one’s wife for correction, the right to strike children will slowly cease to be accepted by society.”
You cannot mention physical discipline of a spouse and that of a child in the same sentence and then claim that the two a distinctly seperate with no relationship between them.
By saying that one will go the way of the other (and given that they have so much in common) you are implying that the reason for the one going will be the same for the other. If you didnt intend to make that implication you should have been more careful with your words so that a reasonable person couldnt infer it.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
“We once had the right to strike our wives”.
Really, what century are you referring to? The Iron Age or the Stone Age? Such is the logic of the anti-smackers that they have lost the debate before it has even begun.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
“And physical assault is central to the discussion”.
No, James, smacking is central to the discussion. There are already laws in place which cover physical assault.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
hey bunctious,
if “shoving your way to the front of the bar” was punishable with the forced removal of your children and the government was bringing in a law explicitly making it a crime of assault (on par with beating your wife) giving police no option but to act on it any witnessed transgression or tip off from CYFS, well maybe then your analogy would be worth more than a pinch of shit. As it stands however…
April 26th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Kimble: “You cannot mention physical discipline of a spouse and that of a child in the same sentence and then claim that the two a distinctly seperate with no relationship between them.”
Quite true, but I did not do that. That relationship between the two was the predicted similarity in changing social attitudes. Nothing more.
“By saying that one will go the way of the other (and given that they have so much in common) you are implying that the reason for the one going will be the same for the other. If you didnt intend to make that implication you should have been more careful with your words so that a reasonable person couldnt infer it.”
All that means is that (according to you) I am implying that the two are both objectively wrong. Even if that was the implication, it would still not follow that a person can then infer that the ‘reasons’ for them “both being wrong” must be the same.
A reasonable person would infer no such thing. A politically motivated person would make a quick assumption and infer something that is not contained in the words.
As an aside, I agree that the link in terms of justification is an unsound argument. But I did not in any way push that argument. I think you realise that on reflection, and should show some guts and apologise. It was not a reasonable inference, it was an assumption.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Peter S.
Your prediction about an increase in child abuse for the reasons you state is not reasonable. If a parent is thoughtful enough to cease to smack their children because of a law change, I find it likely they will be thoughtful enough to find an alternative method to smacking before that level of frustration occurs.
My main problem with the bill is that CYFS’s credibility has been questioned several times of late, and it should not pass until that credibility has been restore.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with James C’s predictions.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
“”And physical assault is central to the discussion”. No, James, smacking is central to the discussion.”
*yawn* The section 59 defence is one for what would be physical assault in its absence. So ross, in the absence of section 59, smacking is physical assault.
If you can’t comprehend that, why would you bother entering this debate. I am not twisting anything.
the rights and wrongs of it are being debated, but if you’re one of those that want to pretend the debate is not what it is, then have it with someone else.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
while it is not illegal to smack dogs, it is frowned upon these days as a training tool, with its place being taken by positive reinforcement rather than punishment.
Bingo!!
I think more time should be spent on this (i.e. alternatives to smacking) rather than all the other nonsense we have had to put up with in this so called smacking ‘debate’.
It is possible to be a good parent without needing to smack. That doesn’t necessarily mean I think smacking is harmful, as some might make it out to be. However, it does appear to be largely unnecessary and less effective as other methods.
While I see Bradford’s bill as a complete waste of time, I also think the hysteria over it has been a complete waste of breath. Nothing will really change if/when this bill goes through. From a civil liberties perspective, my right to smack a child isn’t a civil liberty I can get all that worked up over. There are far more serious threats to civil liberties than the right to smack your kids.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
James,
My reply:
“We are not able to smack our dog, cat, rabiit whatever.”
Actually we are allowed – the law prevent cruelty, not smacking –
“We cannot go and hit another adult.”
Actually, we do and can in any number of specific cases; i.e as a member of a rugby team I can tackle an opponent under rules – if I punch them I have ‘broken the rules’ and punished. More importantly, as a society we have given specific people (i.e. the police) power (the right) to LEGALLY assault members of the public – i.e. with batons, pepper spray, police dogs, etc. once again in specific situations. By opposing this bill, the parent is asking for less power over their children than the Police have over any of us – by saying that they should have the right to physically discipline their child as appropriate.
“We cannot go and smack an adult we have issues with.”
(Most) Adults can be reasoned with – ever try reasoning with a 4 year old in the middle of a tantrum?
“So why should the law allow us to smack children?”
As a parent I am responsible for the result of my child’s actions, so I must be able to exert some control.
“Pets can be worse than childrena dn its illegal to go and hit them and get them into line.”
No it is not. The threshold for prosecuteable behaviour is still quite strong – cruealty. Did you know that the racing industry have specific rules for legal ways a jockey can whip their horse?
“Why should we have the right to smack children, just because they are the same species as us and they talk the same language and they are our children shouldn’t give us the right to be able to inflict pain on them.”
And yelling at them doesn’t cause them pain? Shutting them away for 5 minutes or more doesn’t cause them pain? Of course they are crying because they enjoy it! Pain comes in many ways, nature is not nice, pain is natures way of letting you know something was wrong and as a very effect neural feedback mechanism to learn not to do it again. I would rather smack my child then hug them to let them know I love them but not their actions than shut them away for 5 minutes at a time, letting them think that as a parent I am rejecting them.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Unfortunately, this is far more than being about if the police prosecute. It’s what CYFS do. It’s what parents will be forced to do, when confronted by CYFS.
James, you missed a few predictions off your list:
* The number of children into foster care will noticeably increase.
* Parents will willingly place children into foster care when threatened by CYFS to do so, or risk “having them permanently removed” (cannot even visit them) during a period of investigation.
* Investigations will spin out longer, due to the increased case loads
* The number of children abused in foster care will skyrocket.
These predictions are supported by the Swedish example – stats the anti-smacking crowd ignore.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Bunctious,
If James Sleep wants to debate on a thread with adults, then he needs accept their comments.
The point I tried to make, was that I thought his argument was naive, and his time would be better spent at school, learning the basics of our language.
And no one takes the nastiness seriously, people only get ugly on this site when they have nothing better to say.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
“ … And how about acknowledging that Greg O’Connor is not the official voice of the New Zealand Police? You love accusing the other side of disingenuity, but this criminalisation hysteria is just silly – that’d be analgous to the police ‘having’ to investigate (and prosecute according to you lot) every instance of people driving at 103 km, or shoving their way to the front of the bar. C’mon!
Posted by bunctiuos | April 26, 2007 3:11 PM”
Well bunctiuos, it is like this. The Police will have their hands tied quite tightly behind their backs on this one. Any reported case of a child being struck is automatically a case of domestic violence. The Police are obliged to investigate every case of domestic violence. They already spend countless hours attending reports of domestic violence.
One of the outcomes of a report of domestic violence against a child is that a decision must be made if a defence under S59 is likely to be successful or not.
If not, the accused perpetrator will most likely spend the next 24 hours in a cell during which time the child is just as likely to be placed in the care of CYFS pending a CYFS investigation into the circumstances of the child (and other children in the household).
Without a defence of “reasonableness” (and BTW this is the measure that changes over time and in accordance with the social climate of the time) a chain of almost unstoppable events will occur possibly ending with a criminal conviction (sufficient to prevent the “perp” from being employed in many industries or travel to many foreign destinations for the rest of his/her life), the removal of a child (or several children) from their parents, financial disruption to the household including but not limited to the ability to service debts like mortgages and HP, and the stigmatisation of a family in the community.
I am surprised that you find it odd that many good, honest, loving and caring parents are concerned about this issue.
Phil u accused opponents of the Bill of whipping up fantasies/soufflés and others have used the argument that it is no big deal, let it go and see what happens. Frankly IMHO I would rather prevent a catastrophe of unintended consequences than be a party to picking up the pieces of what looks like having some far reaching negative effects. Except that it will be an almost impossible task to undo the damage. Refer to Zymurgy’s Law of Evolving System Dynamics. “Once a can of worms is opened it is impossible to fit all the worms back in the same can.”
April 26th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Having sat back from this thread for good reason I am appalled at the writings of the left particularly the delinquent James Sleep. Do me a favour please go back to watching playschool as your rot rhetoric that is pure garbage and painful to read. The whole argument about anti – child spanking/smacking /discipline bill is an absurd and rather pathetic attempt at trying to address escalating numbers of abused children. Sue burn the bra Bradford talks piously that it is our fundamental thinking that must change, children should have freedom of rights. This is idiotic social engineering. e.g. I suppose that is why my two alienated daughters got lawyers and psychos at six years of age. John Key correctly states that it is totally unacceptable and clouded law – police agree with him. Sue burn the bra states – the solicitor general will sort all the odds and ends out. Poor David Collins I bet he has a bad headache!
April 26th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
David S,
” If a parent is thoughtful enough to cease to smack their children because of a law change, I find it likely they will be thoughtful enough to find an alternative method to smacking before that level of frustration occurs. ”
Parents will feel compelled to follow the law, but, whilst the law will remove parenting tools that exist, it will not replace with any that did not previously exist.
The problem is that with some children the alternative forms of discipline are either completely innefective or so difficult to apply as to make them unviable.
I’d love to be proved wrong with my prediction about increased frustration & increased serious child beating.
But I very much doubt I will be, and only time will tell.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
D4J,
About time you showed up.
This debate needs to be dragged back from the left and put where it should be.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Haggis I am with John Key on this the whole sorry saga, as it is utter pc nonsense.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Peter S,
I think you make a very good point.
What alternative do we have for children that cannot be reasoned with?
People suggest time-out, but is that more abusive than smacking.
I knew of a guy that was put in a cupboard, for time-out, by his anti-smacking mother.
He committed suicide at the age of 25.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
“This debate needs to be dragged back from the left and put where it should be.”
Goodness, that really does invite some specific directions.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Careful llew, that type of suggestion would get you charged with sedition.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
“D4J,
About time you showed up.
This debate needs to be dragged back from the left and put where it should be.”
- hilarious, turning to D4J for help. Honestly, he never drags a debate anyway but down. I mean look at his contribution so far – ‘utter PC nonsense’? – its like he’s a parody of the right. At least he hasn’t called anyone a bitch or made hollow, cowardly threats of violence yet, I suppose.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Does this country still practice jury nullification? Could the law fail to gain prosecution because juries see it is so flawed?
April 26th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Sam I know you hate me – that’s cool -just making a point mate – take a chill pill mate .
April 26th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
unaha-closp,
I guess you could have a hung jury.
Prosecutors would have a hard job finding impartial members of the public to be on the jury.
What do you think, Mr Cairney, since you seem to know so much about the law?
April 26th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Sorry, what’s the point? What does ‘utter PC nonsense’ acutally mean?
Don’t hate you dude, not much a of a hater.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Peter S./Jenni -
Anyone who wonders about the alternatives to smacking seriously needs to watch super-nanny aye.
No-one likes smacking their kids, that seems to be the one thing everyone agrees with. like Andrew B. said, it may be argued that this bill is pointless, but it sure isn’t the end of civilisation.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Dave this debate is getting boring….i think there are few in Greens and Labour that deserve a good smack for wasting our time with pointless legislation.
Red Rasputin
http://redrasputin.blog.com/
April 26th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Is anyone keeping track of all the LIES surrounding this legislation??! The Left appals me
April 26th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Good point, David S
Perhaps the govt will fund each family to have a super nanny, and we won’t have to worry.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Jenni,
I’m confused, how does putting a child in a cupboard count as time out? This is clearly abuse.
Surely most children can be reasoned with in some way (except maybe autistic children).
For example: for a smack to be an effective punishment, wouldnt the child have to “reason” that there is a reason why they are being smacked?
If not, then you would just be hitting your child randomly.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
The problem is that with some children the alternative forms of discipline are either completely innefective or so difficult to apply as to make them unviable.
Peter S, you are spot on. It is the “difficult to apply” bit that makes other forms of discipline unattractive. Smacking is so much easier. Of course, it is no more effective than other forms of discipline and usually less effective.
What alternative do we have for children that cannot be reasoned with?
Jenni, there are many many many alternatives to smacking that work extremely well. If other forms of discipline don’t work, you can bet your bashing-spoon that smacking won’t either.
Also, people don’t commit suicide after being timed-out in a cupboard. There were other reasons for that suicide, and trying to link it to time-out is absurd.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Why the hell are the people of NZ even letting a ridiculous bill like this to even get off the ground?.
Just looking at Sue Bradford on the telly makes me throw up,how did an idiot like this get anywhere near parliament?.
What, does she think criminalizing good parents from a disciplinary smack is gonna change our violent society?.
We all know who the offenders are, who go too far when smacking becomes abuse or bashing with intent, and those are the ones our agencies should target.
Could start by prosecuting heavily all those savage teens who are using UTUBE to air their graphic displays of criminal violence against the defenceless.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Jenni,
I’m confused, how does putting a child in a cupboard count as time out? This is clearly abuse.
Surely most children can be reasoned with in some way (except maybe autistic children).
For example: for a smack to be an effective punishment, wouldnt the child have to “reason” that there is a reason why they are being smacked?
If not, then you would just be hitting your child randomly.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
I agree, Southern Man.
If you read my thread, I gave you an example of someone who saw putting their child in a cupboard was suitable time-out.
It’s open to abuse.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Jenni,
Hopefully time-out does not involve a cupboard for the majority children and this is just an extreme case of bad parenting. Although I am sure that many a child gets locked in a cupboard.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Andrew Bannister,
You have no idea, why he committed suicide, and don’t suggest the link is absurd.
In counselling prior to his suicide, the fact that he was put in a cupboard by his mother, was identified as a major reason for his depression.
It was unfortunate that these issues were not resolved.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
My point, Southern Man, is this.
As with trying to define light smacking, it is difficult to define what is acceptable for time-out.
Parents need to be very careful of the pychological damage that sort of punishment can do to children.
It might be fine for 90%, but not ok for the rest.
Will govt legislate on that one, too?
April 26th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Jenni,
Just a hunch, but wouldnt it be rare for a parent to be into putting a child in a cupboard and at the same time against hitting a child?
It just seems like an unusual combination.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Andrew Bannister,
You have no idea, why he committed suicide,
No I don’t, but I do know that being put in a cupboard wasn’t the reason.
and don’t suggest the link is absurd.
But it is absurd. People don’t top themselves because they were locked in a cupboard. There must have been a lot more going on to drive him to suicide.
That doesn’t mean I agree with locking kids in cupboards as punishment. However, your link is even less plausible than Anderton linking smacking to animal cruelty. And remember, that was absurd.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
The Sue burn the bra bill is set to make many on the gravy train happy =”Dysfunctional and dangerous cyfs “,clever lawyers and the nutbar consultant clinical psychologists look set to be the winners on the day .
April 26th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
dad4justice,
you come across as a little bit sexist with your “burn the bra” comment
this gives the impression that you are not sympathetic towards ’social justice’
which would make your name a little ridiculous
April 26th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
SM -I just want you to understand that I cannot tolerate feminazi’s who fail to treat mothers and fathers the same . Not fair – kids need mums and dads = that’s my social justice .
April 26th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
The Labour Party refused to ratify Article 13 of the UN convention stating that men and women need to be treated as equal parents and the family as a central group of society. This lack of legal global recognition gives them no right then to legislate against a major group of society that they won’t formally recognise.
Yet, hand-in-hand with the Greens, they see fit to interfere in telling us how to parent in our own homes, when the majority are doing just fine without Nanny State interference.
If the Labour and the Greens were truly concerned about child abuse and not the real agenda of the intrusion and division of the State, they would target the high-risk groups associated with child abuse eg low maternal age, low parental education, poor knowlegde of contraception , welfare beneficiaries and Maori. There should be tagging of parental courses alighned to benefits and monitoring, but hell, we can’t alienate the lefty vote now can we??
April 26th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Thank you sally – all this social justice and they can’t even sign a UN agreement to treat mum and dad the same . The bastards are a disgrace to common sense !!
The UN wants answers from government over a mans case in family court !!
God help us !!
April 26th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
dad4justice,
Fair enough, but I don’t agree with your statement that children need both a mum and a dad.
I think a child can get by just fine with either just a dad or just a mum
April 26th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I agree SM – the difference I see between kids that make it and kids that don’t , most often is one caring and loving adult .
April 26th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Since Dad4Justice has hijacked yet another thread, check out his latest contributions to James Sleep’s blog under the “Tax Cuts To Come – With A Positive Outcome – Future Proofing New Zealand” thread:
James you feminasi worshipping loon. Suck on Helen Klark’s dick you piss-filled scum?
And:
James you braindead lamer squirt – you have no idea how sick this Liarbour government has become? Stick you dick up Helens ass and see where that gets you?
Way to go Dad4Justice – you just hit the sewer vat!
April 26th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
There’s something ironic with this statement:
Hopefully time-out does not involve a cupboard for the majority children and this is just an extreme case of bad parenting. Although I am sure that many a child gets locked in a cupboard.
We could say:
Hopefully smacking does not involve being thrashed for the majority children and this is just an extreme case of bad parenting. Although I am sure that many a child gets badly beaten.
So lets ban Time-Out to stamp out this practice out. Obviously, time-out is tantamount to solitary confinement etc etc. That seems to be the Green approach to smacking.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
ZenTiger
For the record I never said I am anti-smacking. I just didnt agree with the cupboard punishment being used as an analogy of how time-out works.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Busted I did not write any of what you quoted – hell I must be hurting someone high up . You are a pathetic liar busted !!!I would not EVER waste my time going to a dumb jerk like james sleep blog and posting a comment .
Try another angle Mrs Disgusting !!
April 26th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Kinda looks like your lingo though. And I’ve seen you pop up on other sites with similar trashy lines.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Gone strangely quiet on us D4J?
April 26th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Busted – you are a sick person – I wouldn’t post a comment on james sleep’s blog snog for all the the tea in China . I think you have clearly shown us all that you’re a deluded puss -ridden liar !!
April 26th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Oh yeah D4J, could you show us those “letters” you told Fred (in a thread last night) you have from John Howard and Phillip Ruddock saying that they “understand your situation”? Or are those more lies from D4J?
April 26th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Busted are you in a state prison??? – if so I can get you wasted up bigtime bro !!!
April 26th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Shorter D4J: do these “letters” exist or not?
April 26th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Hold the aces busted, as there is an election coming and you know I got plenty of letters in a safe . Busted bangwang, or are you inside for safe cracking ? Did you try using your dumbarse head ?
April 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
So the answer is “D4J made it up”.
Go figure!
April 26th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I’m getting sick and tied of reading the stupid comments from those on the left. You people make out that you hold some high moral ground, what a pack of tossers. Could one of you please explain to me why Liarbour MPs are been forced to vote on the repeal of S59. Surly this issue should be a conscience issue, but no, the MPs have no choice, WHY???. If this is such great law then why not test it, I would bet the farm that Dear Leader knows that this is bad law and is more driven by her stupid ideology and a deep wish to lick green arse. Let her MPs decide but oh no we can’t have that can we. For any law to be good law the will of the people must be behind it, this very clearly does not have the will of the people behind it nor would it have the will of 100% Liarbour politicians. Democarcy has well and turly left New Zealand.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Hey D4J, Tim Selwyn and I once had a very heated discussion online, do you think you can get him shanked for me? Afterall, that is the most reasonable response.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
3 Nov 2005
Philip Ruddock to d4j – “ I thank for your interest in this matter and your comments about the Prime Minister. However, if you are in Australia, please contact my office to see whether I am available ”
I have had two letters from Philip Ruddock since that first letter and my submission was accepted by ozy government – number 47 Shared Parenting Bill . You should read that submission busted , got you maggot !!!
April 26th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Busted in cell number one ( next to toilet )I am going to blog it all, as things get hotter, did you know George likes my emails that I always send him – no wonder he laughed at you !!!
April 26th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
And the New York Times are nice people too .
April 26th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Not good enough D4J.
You claimed that John Howard and Phillip Ruddock both said they “understood your situation”. The letter you’ve quoted from (assuming you haven’t made it up) is a fob-off letter from Phillip Ruddock. And any submission made to a government forum is accepted for consideration you doofus brain. So that doesn’t prove anything either.
It’s probably easier to say you made it up?
April 26th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Yes absolutely.
Its really funny how Dad4justice hangs around going on about me and my contribution.
I actually debate the issues D4J doesn’t give any contribution at all. I’m starting to get worried he’s stalking me. He is always going on about my age and the number of times I have participated in Sexual intercourse.
D4J I’m going to give you some of your own advice, how about YOU go back to playschool and back to teenagehood and get over your sexual fantasy’s then maybe when you come back to this debate you won’t be obsessed with how old I am and my private life you creep.
You will then be able to look past all of the above and debate the issues!!!!! That goes to everyone just like D4J!!
James Sleep
April 26th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Busted James Sleep = offal pit please , its by the green tent on the right !!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Dam even the offal pit rejected them , oh well you can always have a mould’s favourite fizzy drink – SLIME-ADE !!
April 26th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
So the Bradford law change will outlaw physical correction of any kind, any age. Is the mental health infrastructure ready for children afflicted by the upsurge in verbal abuse that will now occur as the alternative to present discipline. Negative comments, harping, psychological blackmail, emotional pleading and trade-offs, double standards, hidden agenda, and mistruths leading to low self esteem, depression, and magnificently fucked up children – great, especially for one to three year olds – Thanks, Sue. I mean: the example we have is the way politicians deal with each other – our children are bloody doomed. The evidence you may demand: just look at the intellectually and morally screwed way this law change is being handled – QED
April 26th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
D4J: we are still waiting for confirmation that you “made up” these letters. And an apology to James Sleep might be in order too.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Haha you want justice D4J for parents hahaha!!!
Well I wouldn’t be surprised if you don’t get justice in a court as a parent. The comments you posted against me on my website:
“James you feminasi worshipping loon. Suck on Helen Klark’s dick you piss-filled scum?”
and
“James you braindead lamer squirt – you have no idea how sick this Liarbour government has become? Stick you dick up Helens ass and see where that gets you?”
What kind of person who wants justice for parents says that, seeing you are so passionate about this I presume you are a parent. D4J I really do feel sorry for you children if they have to endure such negativity you gave me.
Sue Bradford Bless their souls……
April 26th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Busted James Weep – what do lairbour bogies call slimy bugs that move quickly ? Fast Food .
SMACK them BUGS !!
April 26th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
D4J is on the run… can’t debate the issues…
April 26th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
James if you the CHECK the friggin IP address you will its not me .I would never blog on your dumb snog blog !!! Bad luck Helen -trying to SET ME UP EVERY WHICH WAY #### #### . I will ring police about it now eh – boy ? Big game now scumbag Klark bitch snake !!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Having sat back from this thread for good reason I am appalled at the writings of the left particularly the delinquent James Sleep. Do me a favour please go back to watching playschool as your rot rhetoric that is pure garbage and painful to read.
Posted by dad4justice | April 26, 2007 4:16 PM
Notice how D4J’s first post on this thread targets James Sleep? And he claims to have never visited James Sleep’s blog?
*Bullshit detector*
April 26th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Sofia:
“The evidence you may demand: just look at the intellectually and morally screwed way this law change is being handled – QED”
- and just look at the bloody intellectual level of the way comments above are headed . . . QED
April 26th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
You wind me James Sleep you are making a big mistake to call me a liar – ask police !!!
April 26th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
James go back to school you Liarbour playthingie!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Busted I have NOT or WILL not visit a cocksucker terp boy’s blog you scumbag !!!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Well I apoligised to DPF when I said the wrong thing and you were the first one D4J to tell me that you hope I get done for defamation. You also told me I should apoligise along with the rest of your abusive comments.
Maybe you need to look at your own comments.
Everyone can see the comments from Dad4justice towards the bottom of the page off this link below:
http://sleeponpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/04/tax-cut-to-come-with-positive-catch.html
I feel sorry for your 22 year old twin sons and your 12 and 14 year old daughters. They have been brought up in such negativity.
You really shoot your own self on the foot by telling me I should go back to kindy garden because I’m so immature and then you now abusing me.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I agree with you side show bob, its embarressing to watch so called educated adults rolling on their backs scared of a BARREN women(poor pahtetic male labour members of parl,) who will have ruined their pathetic lifes if they dont follow the path of the very strange feminists ( NOT, FEMALES LADIES ETC)just strange unisex women,shit its a bad time to be a male(boys in schools are failling men commit suicide)look at the things that are our (leaders)airbrushed helen ,POWERFULL unelected reinvented sue b,, and people like the powerfull????sonic ,a big bang comming out of a load of hot air, shit even the male sperm count is down , ,just another reason to hate the red changing to pink brigade I.P Freely
DONT SMACK MEMBERS OF THE LABOUR PARTY , THINK BIGGER, USE YOU IMMAGINATION
April 26th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
David Farrar they’re at it again the 8.34pm comment was not me . Good bye – I don’t know why I bother ? Peter Joseph Burns . F4J in solidarity d4j
April 26th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
So that post on Cactus Kate’s blog: was that you?
Looking at the photo of a deluded young lad with that Beyer thing gives me the screaming shits. I doubt his elevator goes all the way up, as he looks like he is a few sandwiches short of a picnic, but they both look like they need a solid blast of black flag propellant hydrocarbon irritant spray. I can’t believe how dim twitted they are .
Another piece of wisdom from D4J.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
D4J you have just contridicted you hole argument. What you are saying now proves the point that you were the person that wrote the abuse.
I really do wonder why you are working for Dads to bring justice, by all means you have proberbly beaten your wife and got caught and are still one of the people who think that is right.
You make me Sick, and the thought that you raised children, SICKNING!!!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
James Sleep I did not make those comments on your blog = Fact. – Busted – Helen Klark – go molest your teddy bears and accost the anaconda ! You are sick people you commie red dogs , can’t wait for payback of truth !!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
D4J, do you honestly think anyone ‘high up’, as you say, gives a crap about you? Seriously dude, that’s really really delusional. I mean, yeah there are people in junior positions associated to some degree with the government who read this blog, but they don’t care the slightest about you, they don’t even take Farrar seriously – as a dog-whistler he’s pretty unsophisicated (afterall he’s appealling to the likes of your good self of the true right, not pulling the wool over the eyes of the critical thinking centre). At best, his blog is a rhetorical training ground for the junior left.
As for your letters from Howard and Ruddock – those are form letters dude, I’ve seen dozens of them in my puff, and its bizarre you can’t see them for what they are. There’s always crazy jokers writing in to officials that have to fobbed off.
And you need to cut down on the violent, maschonist, things you scream at anyone who you think is against you. It ain’t healthy.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Oh and why do you go on about my spelling mistakes you make more mistakes than what I do?
You really bring shame on yourself don’t you
April 26th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
James Sleep
D4J has probably beaten his wife and got caught… Did he get discharged without conviction like Sitiveni Sivivatu ?
Hos is this discharge without conviction sitting against your argument that it’s illegal to beat your wife so we need to ban smacking ?
April 26th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Goodnight Sam Dixon I give up on this social mess that New Zealand has become . You make me sick and I got better things to do than to fight with you lying communists !!!
April 26th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
James Sleep – you are a twisted plaything for the sickos in lairbour – HOW DARE YOU ABUSE MY CHILDREN AS THEY LOVE THEIR DAD TO BITS – ALL 4 of THEM !!! THEY LOVE ME !!!!!
How dare you , you little rat !!! @###%%%
April 26th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
I never stated wife beating was legal I used that as an example of what I think he is proberbly thinking!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
James Sleep I will fucking smack you in the head for what you said about my children – fuck you little bastard , you leave my children out of this!!!!!!!!! gggggggggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
That may well explain how D4J’s marriage began to unravel, Burt, but who knows? There are two sides to every story – and D4J does himself no favours at all with his crazed rantings on these threads.
Maybe he should set up a blog – with PDF documents to support his claims – and we could make up our own minds?
But that’s still not an excuse for hijacking every thread with psycho-babble.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Wow, im so pleased to be taught,by sam dixon that what we say is shit and as,no one cares,so why bother, David Farrar,take tomorrow of , as the minor labour official that monitors our pathetic,blog site is waxing helen and painting her toe nails , sorry D F have a early night.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
How dare you James Sleep !!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
James
I didn’t say you said wife beating was legal…
Earlier in this thread you said
“We cannot go and hit another adult.
We cannot go and smack an adult we have issues with.
So why should the law allow us to smack children.”
Yet a case just this month saw an adult discharged without conviction for ‘hitting’ another adult’…
Excusing my typo, which I correct this time plus highlight a few words – lets try again.
How is this discharge without conviction sitting against your argument that it’s illegal to beat your wife so we need to ban smacking ?
It appears to me that the law is not banning the smacking/hitting of adults as you suggest!
April 26th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Sorry Kimble, but you take the cake on this thread; please don’t be too offended, but I couldn’t resist:
Kimble has great observation skills:”Children are not dogs, cats or rabbits”.
And he/she has a huge respect and understanding of dog training methods: “Though in the case of dogs, a smack is a very good correctional method. Smack a dog for doing something bad, he wont do it again.” Hmmm, if only it were that easy, maybe you should attend a puppy socialisation class, Kimble?
And how in hell would you discipline/train a performing dolphin, jump in its tank and smack it? Really….
And then THIS: “The acceptance of females as equals, with equal rights and responsibilities, was one of the major reasons why wife-beating became to be considered a bad thing.” Well, thanks everyone for finally ‘accepting us as equals’ and not beating us anymore, what took you so long? Now it appears you’re disgusted at the thought you might have to treat your children as ‘equals’ as well?
And another crack: “Who are you to discipline another adult who has the same capacity for rational judgement you have?” So, what about adults who don’t have the ’same capacity for rational judgement’, like (as I’ve said before somewhere) your drunken girlfriend, mother with Altzheimer’s, or argumentative mate? You think a loving smack would be in order? of course not, just like your stupid arguments about a Bill that will only be good for NZ.
And here’s Kimble again: “Why are people being so fucking stupid?”
Dr Suess would just love you.
Linda A
April 26th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I have never hit a women in my life = Fact .
James Sleep how dare you abuse my parenting ability – you slimy little bunt !!!
How dare you abuse my CHILDREN !!!
Natural Justice James boy !!!
April 26th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Linda Axford
I don’t think you know what you are talking about re: Wife or child beating.
Try being punched to the floor for trying to ring the Police when your father is beating your mother… then when the neighbours call the Police and they turn up and all they do is have a quiet chat to your father… Oh and don’t forget that after they leave…. it’s game on for round II.
This is the history of the “treat as equals” real story. The Police handling of demostic violence has changed a great deal in NZ over the last 30+ years – thank God – it had to….
I agree with Kimble. Thankfully rape withing marriage is now illegal as well. Until the mid-1980s there was no law against rape within marriage…
Lets talk about treating as equals with a few facts eh. Simply because woman had the vote many many years earlier than most countries, don’t confuse that with womans equality.
If you don’t believe me about the rape in marriage thing, read it here:
Women’s Voices, Challenges and Choices
April 26th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
D4J – young James said “You make me Sick, and the thought that you raised children, SICKNING!!!!!” – that’s an abuse of you, not your kids, clearly. You probably ought to take back your threats agaist his person – it is actually a serious crime to make such threats.
To me the threats you make, kinda funny actually, its like a dream world you’re living in.
Seriously guys, its very easy to get crazy in a forum, nothing good comes from it, and seems like D4J is in serious danger of bursting a blood vessel- probably better if we behaved as if we were talking to each other face to face.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Well you must be a very manipulative daddy.
For a dad to post such sick posts all the time it portrays to the general public that that is typical of you. So if your saying it to 15 on the internet then i’m sure you have said it to your poor children “who love you dearly”
April 26th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Attention PETER BURNS: are you threatening a 15-year old boy (only slightly older than your two daughters) with VIOLENCE?
April 26th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Noted Southern Man. I wasn’t suggesting your stance was otherwise, but the example you provided was relevant, in the sense that smacking gets lumped in with abuse all too quickly.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Is that how you react to your children when they annoy you, or shall I say the judge.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Mrs Disgusted , James spoof mouth weeper and of course Sam Dick – bollocks to all you – you childless freaks. Threats of violence – haha – you ain’t seen nothing yet – bye bye disturbed ones – what grippers .
April 26th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Exactly it proves my point that Mr Peter Burns of Christchurch beats his children. If he is so adament to “Smack me around the head” like hes threatened before I can see no reason why he has not, with that temper, harmed his children.
Please do excuse my realistic generalisations..
April 26th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
James Sleep
Still waiting for how you can assert that it’s illegal to assault another adult given the Discharge without conviction we witnessed earlier this month ?
This little inconvenient truth kinda throws the entire argument that there is an anomaly in the law for children into a spin don’t you think ?
April 26th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Exactly James. So PETER BURNS – care to tell us why your daughters were taken away from you? Were you an unsafe parent? Because, from where I sit, you seem pretty unstable on this thread.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Oh sorry James has Beyer got a diddle spoof mouth boy – I forgot -silly me as you’re the epitome of the new androgynous man on his victory tour . Did you come from that new planet superman discovered ?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Mrs Disgusting = Hellen Klark bitch = This is a product from textbook genocide that killed patriotism !! It is a bad species .
April 26th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
A simple question PETER BURNS: why were your children (at least two daughters, plus two sons also?) taken away from you?
I wonder why you can’t answer a simple question? Could it be that you’re hiding something behind your vile abuse?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Mrs Disgusting has a lemon face and a horrible haircut and she thinks she is a Babylonian Queen . Clearly deluded . Bin her Sir .
April 26th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Thank you PETER BURNS – it appears from your non-response that the authorities had JUSTIFIED CAUSE in uplifting your children.
But carry on with your pathetic rantings. Business as usual.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Edmond Randall Blue Right Conservative Red Neck – Lt.Col.Infantry U.S Army wants to assist Bat Cave Bomber Command against Mrs Disgusting .
April 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
I’m sorry I am 15 and i am absolutely disgusted with your immaturity and rudeness for mankind.
Why don’t you answer MG’s questions put to you.
Why were your two Daughters taken from you???
You are extremely unstable just to be debating the issue with a 15 year old socialist.
Do you have a problem with that or are you just out of your mind.
Its really weird how you go from debating an issue then you FLIP-FLOP and become creepy.
Oh and I hear your the “CEO” of “Children need parents trust” errrr poor trust or is it just a little lie to give you a title. CEO Peter Burns who is to unstable even to debate an issue with a few of people who do not agree with him, let alone a 15 year old.
You seem to be quite sexiest and also interested in my private life which includes being a virgon to no surprise ( I am 15)
So if your dirty mind is so interested in my sexual status, were you interested in the same stuff with your daughters??
Can you just enlighten our minds by answering those questions.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
I hope it wasn’t physical abuse or (shudder) sexual abuse, PETER BURNS?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Hi Burt: You say: “I agree with Kimble.”
What, that children are not dogs, cats or rabbits?” I commend you.
And then you say: “Lets talk about treating as equals with a few facts eh. Simply because woman had the vote many many years earlier than most countries, don’t confuse that with womans equality.”
Is that supposed to be a ‘fact’?
Spare me.
And here you go again: “If you don’t believe me about the rape in marriage thing,..”
Whatever are you on about?
Linda A
April 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
I only 15 – go change your soiled nappies stupid boy !!! No wimps here please !!!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I got to say. I don’t really think winding people up is helping anyone here.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Actually PETER BURNS you are the wimp for not answering simple qusetions!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Get nice and low James I am only 15 -who cares – not me dickwit and Miss Clark – Mrs Disgusting you are lower than that fetid fungus growing on the mole on your revolting face – you people can’t hurt me – do enjoy pulling the heads off your poor defenseless teddy bears .Do you smack your viper and hows Peter ? -yeah right!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
So your ignorence of the questions put forward to you MR PETER BURNS from CHRISTCHURCH tells me and Mrs Disgusting that you really did get your children (x4 poor little things) taken from you, now you are a very weird person who is thoroughly interested in my life and my Sexaul life this gives me the idea that you sexually abused your children, again maybe Im just sending out wooping realistic generalisations and I dear do apoligise for that (*Cough*). You are also extremely unstable and by that I again dear to say that I do not beleieve you are a family helper nor a CEO of a childrens trust. I think you are someone who did get your children removed from your care and from there started to deny your wrong doing and stand up against the government and courts to fight for other men(Most proberbly other sexual abusers)
Am I right, both myself and(Hopefully I have a mandate to say) Mrs Disgusting see it this way?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Hello PETER BURNS:
So now we have it: you haven’t explained why your children were taken away. Was it physical or sexual abuse? Or was it somethihng else?
You are hiding behind a torrent of vile abuse – we see the light!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
James your squall is boring – you are really like a silly boy canoeing upstream screaming to bystanders for help . I have a mandate (not a boydate) to not ever argue with deluded fools. Grow up and do your homework, as it is school in the morning silly boy . It is way past your bedtime lad . Goodnight idiot, as I can’t stand fools!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Shorter PETER BURNS: why were your children taken away?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Mrs Disgusting did your viper bite you ? goodbye maggot !! haha
April 26th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Mrs Discusting are you interested in talking further about a few issues outside of this website.
give me an email james4labour@hotmail.com thats the same with MSN.
I am being a bit stupid because we know MR PETER BURNS is going to start emailing me ewwww creepy
April 26th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Hi James – come home to daddy!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
You are mentally unwell James Sleep – you are a sad soul – I am disturbed by your alarming delusional psychosis . I really hope you can get some badly needed treatment . I am both shocked and saddened by your sad perturbed state. Please get some professional help .
You have set a precedence for stupidity !!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
If you put me a further uncomfortable position D4J i will be calling the police.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Hi James – come home to daddy!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
10 :50 not me David F
I will not be held responsible for anymore future comments on this thread .Goodbye – say and do what you want !
April 26th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Thanks James – I’ve made a note of your details.
I may write, but to be honest, I’d prefer to have discussions with you via your blog, and here, as that way we can both benefit from other perspectives. Good luck with keeping PETER BURNS out of your pants! Ewwww!
April 26th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
10 :54 Not me again .
What sick , sick , sick people
God please help New Zealand .
I have faith .
April 26th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
so….are like James, Mrs disgusted and D4J all the same person or just James and Mrs Disgusted?
Kinda new to this place so I dont know people and their many personalities yet.
seriously, can someone enlighten me
April 26th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
DPF
Any IP address checking you could do for us on this one ? Is there any IP addresses that show up across multiple ‘nicks’ ? It’s an easy thing to avoid, so no matches won’t tell us anything, but direct matches will.
Cheers.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Me communist ignoramous groomed by transexual to rebut logical argument with smears and lies. Hey Helun…got milk?
April 26th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
The funny games we play. Look it was a bit of fun eh chaps, back to the real debate now eh !
April 26th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
The funny games we play. Look it was a bit of fun eh chaps, back to the real debate now eh !
April 26th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Thank you Central over and out .Ten four big buddy – happy hunting .Bat Cave shut down -Cheers .
April 27th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Getting back to earlier SANE discussion on this thread:
james cairney,
who has been posting as something of a legal expert on this and the flag burning discussion,
Please tell us when it was legal to beat ones wife, under New Zealand law or the English law that preceeded it?
Don’t need to be exact,
was it 30 years ago, 60 years ago? 100?
April 27th, 2007 at 7:42 am
The internet really seems to bring out the worst in people, doesn’t it? Just reading through these comments scare me.
Either there are some really deranged people out there, or some sick, twisted person is attempting to make somebody look bad.
DPF, would you be willing to clear this mess up?
April 27th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Yes, sad how this thread degenerated over the night.
I don’t think it is relevant how D4J lost custody of his kids and that should not be used as a tool to wind him up to get apparent pleasure from it.
And to you Andrew Bannister, are you close to the case that Jenni discussed?
How do you know this person did not commit suicide because of being locked in a cupboard?
Do you know how many times this happened?
Maybe that was the trigger for his demise.
What gives you the right to presume you know it all.
I agree with her point, that just as much as it is difficult to define a light smack, it is difficult to decide what is acceptable for time out.
There are punishments that work for some and not for others. Parents know their kids and should have the right to choose.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:26 am
hi sg5, my understanding is that around 100 years ago there was an English common law defence that you could strike your wife for correction with a stick ‘as thick as your thumb’. But I’m not sure of the exact date.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:34 am
“Kinda new to this place so I dont know people and their many personalities yet.”
This one’s new to all of us!
Seriously DPF, I’d be interested to know how many IP addresses are the same too.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Yes, James C,you are right.
I believe that law was set in England in the 1400s, hence the saying “rule of thumb”
April 27th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Jenni,
Pretty much correct.
The funny thing is that few realize that the “rule of thumb” was introduced as a protection for women.
The principle is that it is almost impossible to kill someone with a stick that is no thicker than the thumb.
For the period it was introduced in, especially when compared to the law in many other countries of the same era it was quite progressive & enlightened.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Interesting, as the references I’ve found seem to debunk the whole “rule of thumb” / wife beating schtick. Most of those references do speak to the 16-1900s though, not as early as 1400.
However, a fairly compelling argument comes from an Oxford citation that says the origin of the idiom comes from carpenters using their thumbs as a measurement as they were already highly skilled in their craft and could make fairly accurate estimates.
Does anyone have a source that shows the supposed original, 1400s useage of rule of thumb?
April 27th, 2007 at 10:26 am
In this article it talks about the domestic violence laws and the changes made mid 1980’s.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/viewdocument.aspx?documentid=25129
Although it clearly states that rape was not illegal in marriage till mid 1980’s, it’s some what less clear for wife beating.
We don’t want the shame of the very recent past to be know….
I have attended situations were woman have been beaten, police attended and had no powers to do anything in the late 1970’s….
As for the actual law – I don’t know, my concern at that time was not the application of the law….
April 27th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Thanks for replying James.
In fact it has never been legal to beat ones wife, as far back as English law records allow us to search.
The idea that the phrase “rule of thumb” referred to legal wifebeating dates to the 1970s when a feminist read an old document, and apparently sincerely believing what she was saying, started promoting the idea that the longstanding phrase referred to spousal abuse. Basically it is an urban legend. More on that presently.
Over 300 years ago the various English laws which existed were collated and complied into English Common Law, which formed the basis for English law thereafter, and also that of countries arising from British culture, such as New Zealand. Common Law remains applicable, unless it is replaced or cancelled by subsequent legislation.
At the time it was compiled there was no existing law found to allowed a man to beat his wife. There were laws against wifebeating.
The compiler states in a commentary, in very general language, that it times past it was allowed to beat a wife but in our enlightened times that was illegal (he was speaking 300-odd years ago).
Problem is, his remark was so general that we have no idea as to how far in his past he was referring. The Tudor Period? Mediaeval times? Ancient Greece? The Stone Age? Well probably not as they didn’t know about the Stone Age then. (As an example in the New Testament there is a reference to what was allowable in times past, but not now (1st C. A.D.)—the speaker is referring to a law set 1,500 years earlier.)
No earlier English Law has ever been discovered allowing wifebeating, so we don’t know if there ever was one. He could have been referring to pagan times.
Our feminist reader, an American, came across an old record of court proceedings in America. Now America has quite a different system and with States setting their own laws. So anything occurring there can’t be automatically carried over to New Zealand or English law.
She found a case where an obscure, inconsequential Southern provincial judge had a man up on charges of wifebeating (which of course meant that there was an existing law against it.) The accused told the judge, I thought there was a law that said you could hit your wife as long as you didn’t use anything thicker than your thumb. Now a lot of accused will tell a judge anything in order to get off. In this case the accused was a poorly educated hick. The judge said whether or not there was some folk custom on the subject, he knew of no such law and anyhow it certainly was NOT the law of the jurisdiction they were in. The man was convicted.
Our dear feminist concluded from the earnest plea of the accused to be let off that there was some existing law allowing a person to beat his wife with an implement no thicker than a mans thumb. (NO SUCH LAW HAS EVER BEEN FOUND IN AMERICAN LAW RECORDS, despite the notorious multiplicity of laws in the U.S.))
Do I need to point out how specious this all is. The feminist then linked her imagined law to to the existing English phrase “rule of thumb”, ignoring its own history, and a legend was born. The story was passed round feminist circles and entered into Women’s Studies departments in universities, which are notoriously unscholarly. This nonsense was then promoted into other university courses such as Law. No one both to check the source.
(I know of several other such feminist generated myths. Never trust a feminist with a fact.)
That is not to say that a lot of wifebeating didn’t go on in the past, but it was kept behind closed doors. If it was publicly revealed that someone was a wifebeater, then they would have been publicly condemned. (Punishment varied. One early U.S. State law I like mandated 40 lashes or 5 years gaol. There was a reason to kept things hidden.) There seems to be amnesia that until y recent years it was considered cowardly to hit a woman. Heck that was still taught when I was a kid.
As regards the current topic, it has ALWAYS been legal for parents to use corporal punishment (utilising a strap or cane) to discipline their children under English Common Law. It has never been treated as assault. People that say it is assault ignore the legal meaning of the term.
(Similarly, the Old Testament Law, which influenced the development of English law, had very strict assault laws–stricter than our modern ones–but corporal punishment was never classed as assault. In fact parents who neglected to use corporal punishment were considered delinquent, and as having unruly children.)
S59 was introduced (when caning/strapping was the norm) to give guidance to juries in cases where the police thought what had occurred was not corporal punishment but just giving the kids “the bash.”
Removing Section 59 (as the Bradford Bill of 2006 did) would not ban smacking. In fact removing the “reasonable force” restriction would probably mean that some of the very few people convicted who used the S59 defence would get off if re-tried.
Someone pointed this out to fair Sue, so she came up with her new Bill which explicitly removes the Common Law right to corporal punishment. Abolishing common law is a big deal and people ought to know that that is what’s planned. Removing the Common Law right does mean that if you now touch your child in a way unwanted by them, it is an assault.
All the fluff Sue has pumped into her bill won’t change that, it’s just window dressing to con people, and is cancelled out in a later clause. It is unclear what this section means as a number of legal experts have remarked. So you’d better get a very good lawyer.
Recently Bradford was caught in an outright lie when she claimed that smacking was already illegal for over 100 years, AFTER she had altered her Bill because she was advised it wouldn’t ban smacking at all.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Llama,
You do appear to be correct, and the rule of thumb appears to be a bit of an urban myth.
According to Wikipedia “The first known usage of the phrase “rule of thumb” in direct reference to domestic violence was in 1976, in the book Battered Wives by Del Martin.”
It is interesting to note that I remember hearing some friends of the family (who were of retirement age in 1976- about when I heard them make comment) say that they were given a stick with a reference to the rule of thumb on it as a joke wedding present.
I’m not sure whether the reference was to English or Irish law, because the wife was Irish by birth.
It may also have been the thickness of the wife (or possibly husband’s) wrist that was the measure used at that stage.
But it would certainly predate the earliest reference Wikipedia could find.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Llama
“The internet really seems to bring out the worst in people, doesn’t it? Just reading through these comments scare me.
Either there are some really deranged people out there, or…”
Or there ARE some really derangeed people out there.
Peter Burns a.k.a. dad4justice is a bit of character on the local Net, and will go as far as a particular host will allow him. He may not know what his left hand is doing, but I doubt there is anyone pretending to be him. Not hard to see why he lost his….
April 27th, 2007 at 11:22 am
sg5,
Thanks for the very well worded and informative post.
Is there any chance of you posting some of your sources? I for one would be interested in reading more on the background to the subject.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:45 am
You want footnotes?
O.K., well I’m off to other things now, but I will chuck in some names etc., later.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:53 am
sg5 – “He may not know what his left hand is doing, but I doubt there is anyone pretending to be him. Not hard to see why he lost his….”
sg5 – That is not fair and David Farrar knows what my IP address is.Many dad4justice imposters’ lurk on the net -fact – retract that statement please !
April 27th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
sg5, nice post.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
sg5, while some of the posts do have the tone of d4j a lot of them seem more like a piss take by somebody trying to paint him in a bad light. Looking at how names are associated with comments here, there is no way for us to verify the identity of the person posting those comments short of DPF coming out and saying that comments x,y and z were indeed made by a person or were not made by a person. I’m hesitant to ascribe them all to d4j without some form of proof.
It is, after all, the internet and as you indicated – there are a lot of deranged people out there. I’ll still subscribe to the innocent until proven guilty maxim here.
Peter S, a quick Google search for “Rule of Thumb” will turn up a few hits, mostly the ones debunking the feminist association of that phrase. The one that read the clearest for me was the Canlaw (Canadian Legal represenative seeking group) one.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
I think there has been more than one d4j on more than one occasion here – I’d like to know for sure because if I’m wrong… well, that’s pretty scary.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Yes llew, I can assure you that it is a great worry to me .This imposter thing is to much for me . It has set a dangerous precedence !!
Peter B .
April 27th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Acting all Inocent now are you PETER BURNS from CHRISTCHURCH.
I think you were the person that threatened to “Smack my head in” and when asked if you are threatening me you said “You think thats threatening, thats nothing!!!!”
We figured out that you MR PETER BURNS OF CHRISTCHURCH are mentally unstable and infact by the way you threatened me last night it was hard to think you would never do that to your children. Is that why you got them taken from you?? Was it because of Sexual Abuse.
Last night you also said “James, come to daddy” that was after we asked if you sexully abused you children.
You are a creep MR PETER BURNS who aparently is the CEO of Children need parents trust.
Haha what a Joke……
April 27th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“Acting all Inocent now are you PETER BURNS from CHRISTCHURCH”
Poor form in my opinion James.
Have you checked the IP addresses of everyone who posted on your site as dad4justice?
i think I’d wait on confirmation before I came out swinging with allegations of child abuse.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
BTW d4j – when I say “poor form” I am alluding to the recently commenced practise of trying to “out” people’s identities & background when they prefer for whatever reson, to remain anonymous.
Such as those attempts with you… and your attempts with Sonic.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Llew, I think D4J is fairly open about his identity and his past, it’s probably his offensive style (often completely off-topic) that makes him a target. Perhaps unjustified, as there are others who are just as bad, if not worse.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
James,
When I was 15 I knew it all too. I have said tons of things that I look back on now and go “damn, I was a dick”
The good thing for me is that I never blogged those comments and they are not likely to ever come back and bite me in the butt (except when I was 17 and said “Jeezabeel cant win the Melbourne Cup”, people love to bring that up).
The things you say now are going to affect what people think of you for a long time. You never know what “important to your future” person is reading these posts.
Just take a step back and think about it.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
David Farrar James Sleep is a liar trying to set me up .
Please put a stop to this – its your blog and you know the rules ?
April 27th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
To Southern man,
You said that very well. What you put in writing can have an effect for a long time.
You never know, James Sleep might be wanting a job, and it could be D4J interviewing him!!!
And to Anon,
I agree with you.
D4J is open about his identity, and I don’t think that gives people the right to use that info to be so personal in their threads.
I think we all take his frothing with a grain of salt…he’s even called me a liberal lesbo.
But, I must admit he did apologise, which is a lot more than some of these people can do.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
“it’s probably his offensive style (often completely off-topic) that makes him a target. Perhaps unjustified, as there are others who are just as bad, if not worse.”
Without doubt on both counts. I just get nervous when sexual abuse allegations start getting flung around.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
“I think we all take his frothing with a grain of salt…he’s even called me a liberal lesbo.”
And me worse
But honestly, how do we know it was him that called us that?
April 27th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
James Sleep,
I think I would be very careful when accusing anyone of sexual abuse or being mentally unstable.
I especially would not be naming the accused on the internet, where your IPS address can be sourced, as it opens up the path to legal action being taken.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Haggis: perhaps D4J and James Sleep owe each other an apology then? The real Peter Burns must be responsible for at least some of the comments posted under “D4J”.
Llew: to put things in perspective D4J is no match for Redbaiter (who comes across as nothing more than a piss-take character).
April 27th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
llew,
Good point there.
But I somehow thought an imposter wouldn’t apologise.
I could be wrong though
April 27th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Kat: sound advice – but you should include D4J given this comment:
“You are mentally unwell James Sleep – you are a sad soul – I am disturbed by your alarming delusional psychosis . I really hope you can get some badly needed treatment . I am both shocked and saddened by your sad perturbed state. Please get some professional help .”
April 27th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Haggis: perhaps D4J and James Sleep owe each other an apology then? The real Peter Burns must be responsible for at least some of the comments posted under “D4J”.
Well, you two, how bout it?
April 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Anon,
Fair comment. I stand corrected.
I see Haggis has challenged the pair to apologise to each other
April 27th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I can confirm that an someone other than Peter Burns has been posting at Dad4Justice. If they do so again I will file a formal complaint with their ISP.
The new blog backend will allow people to register unqiue identities. Movable Type should allow this but for some reason it is broken on this installation.
I do not have the time to go through dozens of posts and work out which were from whom. I suggest Peter and James just both accept they have been victims of a shit stirrer.
I also give notice that I will start banning people who just use the comments threads to slag each other off.
April 27th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Peter Burns states he will not bury the hatchet as false sexual abuse allegations are criminal behaviour . End of story .
To my family members who read this blog- please ignore the comments from the scum that tried to slander my good name .
Future litigation is possible as the evidence is the thread !
April 27th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
DPF
Any possibility or progress on determining who the sad poster of obscene comments was ?
It would be a classic ’shot myself in the foot’ for James Sleep (or D4J) if there was a deliberate attempt to denigrate them via misleading use of another person’s ‘nick’.
April 27th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
DPF
If you can extract me a file of ‘posted from IP addresses’,'comment nick-name’ and ‘comment date/time’ – email it to me and I’ll do a full analysis for you.
Cheers
April 27th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
“If you can extract me a file of ‘posted from IP addresses’,'comment nick-name’ and ‘comment date/time’ – email it to me and I’ll do a full analysis for you.”
My first thought was that we should let it lay & move on.
Then it occurred to me I would quite like to know not (so much) who has been impersonating d4j & maybe others, but which posts are bogus.
We might review our judgements of d4j’s style of posting.
April 27th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Exactly llew
James Sleep is only 15 (apparently) if anybody was talking to my kids in a blog like that I would want to know.
Add to that that I do understand D4J’s position with his outrage at the sexist legal system.
The truth should be know.
It appears this thread was hijacked by a concerted effort to denigrate D4J… Anybody would think he was the EB and James Sleep was Helen Clark !
April 27th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I agree, this is rediculous. Someone has inpersonated D4J making me and a lot of others forming a negative perception about Mr Burns.
The person who really wrote those posts (At this moment I am being open and accept Mr Burns’s incistence that he was not responsable)made me feel threatened as they did verbally threaten me and I apologise to Mr Burns hole heartedly about the comments I made. Sadly we can only blame the person who did publish the posts and hope they can refrain from such thing in the future.
I am extremely saddened at the fact that Mr Burns Name has been slandered because of such actions from immature people who like to make the threads dirty.
Once again I apologise hole heartedly for what has happened.
James Sleep
http://www.sleeponpolitics.blogspot.com
April 27th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
James,
hopefully you can learn and mature from this nasty experience.
sometimes its just better to let things slide and not get dragged into what was a very very ugly arguement
April 27th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Southern Man.
Take some of your own advice!!!!
April 27th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Ok James, I will. I’m going to let your last comment slide.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
DPF
Let’s settle this – if it’s possible please send me a file and I’ll send you back my analysis.
James’s apology is well written, so much so that it makes we wonder why he can’t write his own posts and comments like that. Perhaps his apology was written by an imposter ?
Lets find out (as much as we can) who is really behind this hijacking of your blog.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Burt,
Before you do that (if you do),
can we make bets?
April 27th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Southern Man
Game on – I’m up for that
I made one post under a nick other than ‘burt’
“James Sleep & dad4justice live from Christchurch Police Station. | April 26, 2007 11:30 PM” which was calling for an end to the games and a return to the debate.
So I’m not scared of a full analysis. How about you ?
April 27th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
That was you!!!
lmao, didnt know that
I’ve only ever used the name Southern Man and yesterday was my first day posting ever.
Hmmmm, that makes me a little suspect.
Maybe I should bet on myself.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Southern Man
I’m off to the cake tin – Hurricanes are gonna whip them soft ‘Southern boys’….
May the best team win, you guys normally kick our butt….
April 27th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Burt,
I’ll watch it at home.
Hurricanes vs Highlanders spoils pretty evenly shared I think.
Could be a close game
27-25 to the Highlanders
April 27th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Oh, I live in Wellington now. Which makes my “watch it at home” comment not as dumb as it would have read.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I will see you in court in the future James Sleep . I will teach you a legal lesson you will not forget in a hurry . It is a police matter now boy -welcome to the real world and get yourself a very good lawyer boy !!!
April 27th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
To the imposter who just inpersonated dad4justice:
I think you need to stop while you are ahead oh and another thing, take me to court hahaha what a laughable thing.
Well lets see who wins, oh another thing I have myself a good lawyer already.
Lets see what the judge says about what you (Impersonater) has said to me……
BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!
April 27th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Boy sleep – You are really making it worse for yourself . Sad that blogging gets to this and sometimes I can see why my mates say – why do you bother with the stupid internet ?? I am sick and tired of you really , however thank you James as I think my friends agree with me when I say , that I hope you get the much needed help for your derranged thinking and comments . I have twin sons aged 22 and two young daughters who wish to say to you – “you are one very sick unit .”
I think I will let the children have their say about you – it is really sad that you don’t know what you are doing. Quick frankly I find you a very sick, silly and sad person . Say hello to George Beyer for me !!
April 27th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
sg5, thanks for the reply.
However, you really need to consider: Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 1, 1809, page 444:
“The husband also (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaving, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children; … But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds, …”.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Dad4Justice. I’ve been fielding complaints all week about you. Because of my sympathy for your position and the fact that someone for some of the posts has been impersonating you, I have been more lenient than I should have been.
I’m giving you a time out for five days. You can start posting again next Wednesday. But when you resume I do not want you posting about yourself and your issues. Sorry but this blog is not about you and your posting style leads to almost every thread being disrupted. You will be welcome to post on issues raised in threads.
I will take a similar dim view of those people who do little else than provoke D4J and insult him . If you do it again, I’ll ask you to take a break also.
Burt – I have no ability to extract as a group all comments. I would have to copy and paste each oen individually.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
James Cairney, that still does not connect a “Rule of Thumb” to physical chastisement. Blackstone goes on (The passage you are referring to was on page 432 btw) to say:
“But, with us, in the politer reign of Charles the fecond, this power of correction began to be doubted m : and a wife may now have fecurity of the peace againft her hufband n ; or, in return, a hufband againft his wife o.”
So in the “politer” reign of Charles the Second they were already putting it behind them. Some of it is difficult to read, but it certainly makes for interesting reading though! (Yale has it all online)
April 28th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Thank You DPF I understand at times I can provoke him, but I wrote the bad posts after his inpersonator went off about me and made me feel uncomfortable.
Peter Burns is not a child abuser, like I said when I felt threatened by the inpersonators threats. I has apoligised to Mr Burns and he continues to abuse me I thank you for your move David and hope when he does come back he can stick to the issues.
He might not be bad like me and a few people made him out to be last night but he just posts bullshit everywhere around the blogs and hijacks them.
I think personally Ive learnt my lesson from my previous actions, but sadly this man was the main person telling me to grow up etc etc and sadly its himself that needs to grow up and stop thinking he’s like the KING when really DPF is the KING
April 28th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Actually James, D4J hasn’t distanced himself from all of last night’s comments, so at some of them must be from the real Peter Burns. But whatever, who cares, let’s turn the page.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:09 am
You want footnotes?
O.K., well I’m off to other things now, but I will chuck in some names etc., later.
Posted by sg5 | April 27, 2007 11:45 AM
Posted onApril 27, 2007 11:45
-
I wrote all that from memory this morning. Have since hauled out the Britannica, etc. (yes I still use books!), so lets see how far off I was.
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (my edition is 1962)
“Rule of thumb [date of first known use] 1692 – A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical method. [It cites two examples: ‘The English...have in all their changes proceeded, to use a familiar expression, by the rule of thumb’ - Matthew Arnold; attrib. ‘Beyond this rule of thumb calculation, no experience could bring him to penetrate his mystery 1837”
Note that the meaning of the phrase doesn’t square with the feminists claimed derivation.
Dictionary doesn’t explain derivation but it was apparently a tradesmans’ term.
The collator of English legal custom referred to was Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), the most famous English jurist. [Note I was 50 years off with my “300 years” comment.] He first started disseminating his material in 1758, and published the 1st volume of the “Commentaries on the Laws of England” in 1765.
In America, where particular States did not have a specific law against wife-battery, offenders could be – and were – charged with assault.
The Massachusetts Bay Colony law 1655 (nearly 400 years ago) says “No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine.”
Inflation adjusted, £10 is a hell of a lot of money compared to our present day value.
In Maryland, 1882, one could receive 40 lashes tied to a post for wifebeating. In New Mexico fines could up to U.S.$1000 (not less than $200) or up to 5 years in gaol. (I don’t think they let you out after 1/3rd of your sentence either!) Again that’s a hell of a lot of cash when compared to our current values.
You would likely be excommunicated from your church for wife-beating.
Obscure southern judges:
from places like Mississippi in one example.
American feminist:
Del Martin of the National Organisation for Women, 1976, wrote
“Our law, based upon the old English common-law doctrines, explicitly permitted wife-beating for correctional purposes. However…the common-law doctrine had been modified to allow the husband ‘the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no bigger than his thumb’”
This was further elaborated on by feminist Terry Davidson in “Wife Beating,”
quote: “one of the reasons nineteenth century British wives were dealt with so harshly by their husbands and by their legal system was the ‘rule of thumb’ …Blackstone saw nothing unreasonable about the wife-beating law. In fact, he believed it to be quite moderate.”
In 1982 some “scholars” working for the United States Commission on Civil Rights published “Under the Rule of Thumb: Battered Women and the Administration of Justice” where they say “American law is built upon the British common law that condoned wife beating and even prescribed the weapon to be used. This ‘rule of thumb’ stipulated that a man could only beat his wife with a ‘rod not thicker than his thumb.’” and claim Blackstone “commented on the ‘rule of thumb.’”
Nobody bother to check, despite Blackstone’s work being one of the most widely read legal texts in history.
Blackstone never mentions the “rule of thumb” in his book, let alone approve of it. All he said was “The husband by the old law might give his wife moderate chastisement…” Whatever that refers to wasn’t legal in the century when he wrote.
Blackstone’s work is considered a classic of English literature so you should be able to track down a copy. Its text is probably online somewhere in which case you could probably search it for “rule of thumb.”
Peter S “I’m not sure whether the reference was to English or Irish law”
Well if anybody might have such a law, the IRISH might
But seriously, people always say, I remember or I heard that — but when you go to look there’s nothing there.
One of the Biblical comments alluded to:
“The rod and rebuke give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother” Proverbs 29.15
The fluff in Sue’s Bill:
59 Parental control 5
“(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to 15 good care and parenting.”
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) OR IN ANY RULE OF COMMON LAW justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).”
CAPS are my emphasis.
Part 1 is being widely quoted by Bradford supporters and Labour apologists, without mentioning that Parts 2 and 3 rule out anything remotely like smacking.
As an example if you pulled your 2 year old off the main road or away from an open fire and smacked them lightly on the hand and say don’t do that again you have committed an assault according to Bradford’s Bill.
If it wasn’t for the inclusion of Part 1, pulling them away (or picking them up against their will) would also be assault.
I think opposition would be a lot higher than 80+% if people realised that.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:58 am
sg5, I entirely agree with your analysis of Bradford’s section 59, however I have extreme reservations about whether ‘more than 80%’ would oppose it. Opposition to it was largley based it on it being an outright ’smacking ban’. It changes nothing that a few commentators are ’shocked’ that they never thought to actually read it months ago.
Spitting Llama, I accept the ‘rule of thumb’ may just be urban legend. I was responding to sg5’s question: “Please tell us when it was legal to beat ones wife, under New Zealand law or the English law that preceeded it?” And I responded with “my understanding is … as thick as your thumb”.
I was not really trying to show anything in particular about a ‘rule of thumb’, as opposed to showing the past law on domestic chastisement. The reason I qualified it is that I could not remember exactly where I had heard it, thus I realised the possibility of it being unreliable. I’m quite happy to defer to sg5’s well reasoned response in this regard.
One thing that is for certain though, is that Old England had some revolting conceptions of gender inequality.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
What a load of rubbish.
It looks like most of D4J’s comments were not actually his.
Without registration to this blog, none of the comments on any post – that is NO COMMENTS can be necessarily relied upon to really be that person.
Until David confirms the IP that is.
But until then guys, don’t believe every comment you read.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
DPF
You have banned D4J – none of my business really, it’s your blog and I have no issue with that.
But I just want to get one thing clear. James Sleep called you a molester on his blog and there was a kiss and make up apology. He’s now made similar accusations about D4J. He claimed to feel threatened…. Oh but he made an apology again, so it’s all OK now is it ?
Posted by James:
I don’t think “I am being a bit stupid because we know MR PETER BURNS is going to start emailing me ewwww creepy”
Followed by: “..Good luck with keeping PETER BURNS out of your pants! Ewwww!” from Mrs Disgusted.
There seemed to be a banter between James and Mrs Disgusted that hardly sounded like somebody feeling threatened. Add to this that there were false posts under the ‘D4J’ name between them. It looks to me like James and Mrs Disgusted had some form of collusion in their posting during this time.
I do agree that D4J brings the tone down sometimes, however there has only been two incidents, that I’m aware of recently, where somebody has been making outrageous claims against other people (very serious claims). In both of these situations the comments were made by James Sleep.
In the interest of letting other posters know what we are dealing with, can you please tell us if the posts circa: 9:40-11:30 on the 24th posted from James Sleep, Mrs Disgusted and outrageous posts from D4J appear to be posted in a sequence to deceive other bloggers?
Oh, one more thing. How many times will James Sleep be allowed to call people molesters, wife beaters, pedophiles etc before he is banned ?
April 28th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Ooops, that was the 26th – not the 24th.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Yes we must get it right burt, as the law is the law
April 28th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Thank you Sir for moderating ‘dad4justice’.
The fellow can get his own blog, which would be a much more appropriate place for his self-absorbed rantings.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
If DFJ has been punished then so should James Sleep. Wheres the justice??
April 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
No justice in this country Jessie James, as the sheriff often wears a blindfold ?
April 30th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
“when really DPF is the KING”
James, I know you’re young, and no disrespect to DPF, but ELVIS IS THE KING!
May 19th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
jbpz njkxosda nkblmwe nscl ecrtufh bykrtnlvw rytnc