Dr Robert Larzelere
The Herald has a story on Dr Robert Larzelere, who Family First has out here regarding the smacking ban bill. Dr Larzelere is acknowledged as one of the world’s leading experts on disciplining children.
What I like about Dr Larzelere is he is so moderate on the issue, unlike the extremists who equate serious child abuse with smacking, and on the other side those who think a daily thrashing is good for the soul (not that there are many of those).
Dr Larzelere makes the case that smacking is most effective as a back-up discipline, not a primary disciplinary tool, and only really for kids aged two to six or so. And this I suspect is the common sense approach most parents take – you don’t smack as a first resort but if for example they are refusing to do time out or something.
At the end of the day though it is not even a debate about whether or not smacking is the best way to discipline a child. Is is about whether the state should be banning smacking and telling parents that we are deciding this issue on your behalf.
There is considerable evidence that it is better to breast feed your kids, than artificial milk etc. But does the state pass a law mandating that all mothers must breast feed until at least a year old? No.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:37 am
A much better expert than Ruby Harrold-Claesson.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:34 am
“Dr Larzelere makes the case that smacking is most effective as a back-up discipline, not a primary disciplinary tool, and only really for kids aged two to six or so.”
Almost word for word what I said on your site months ago, He reads Kiwiblog!
A back-up especially when time is short.
“…does the state pass a law mandating that all mothers must breast feed until at least a year old?”
Now you’ve done it.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:44 am
“Is is about whether the state should be banning smacking and telling parents that we are deciding this issue on your behalf.”
On behalf of a majority of kiwis I have decided that we must understand that this government in their blind and vengeful wisdom has not bothered to ratify a UN agreement endorsing mum and dad as equal persons (Hellion and Ogress hate fathers). The infantile of a twisted government say they care about children and the family, which in reality is abhorrent hypocrisy spoken by deranged feminist activists!
All this concern about the plight of vulnerable children by government is mere window dressing as this freakshow of fools has twice voted at United Nation’s level not to support the equal status of mothers and fathers? Surely it would be in the child’s best interests to treat parental genders the same! It’s makes the concern for spanking the children seem rather meaningless? Equal = remember that word at school? Yeah right!
Do you think a socialist contagious conscience could give the honest answer? Thought not – welcome to reality as the Labour/Green social engineering brigade is being exposed, as foolish making no sense ogresses.
People are blind to the truth that this government is the most family unfriendly in our short history. The behaviour of Clark, Bradford, Maori Party, Media etc.. is beyond belief . They think they can fix child abuse overnight by signing a bill of bullshit. This government is incapable of providing any practical solutions to avoid child abuse, however they enjoy creating fatherlessness with adversarial tactics for effect, which promotes child abuse! Go figure because I don’t understand this hypocritical nonsensical totalitarian nutbar government.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:19 am
Mr Farrar, can you name one “extremist” who has publicly opposed the S59 debacle who advocates that a “daily thrashing is good for the soul.” I suspect you have created a straw man. On the other hand, every day there are extremist proponents arguing publicly that smacking equates to serious child abuse.
To place Larzelere as a voice of moderation amidst those two extremes is deceptive and misleading. We are facing one extreme here–the radical secular fundamentalists. And they have garnered a motley crowd of supporters who, apparently out of some misplaced sense of guilt, naively believe that supporting Bradford’s Bill represents a serious blow (if you will excuse the term) against child abuse.
Sadly, they are deluded. The evidence shows, as the good doctor has pointed out, that bans on smacking only increase family violence and abuse. And there are sound behavioural reasons why that is always likely to be the case. Given New Zealand’s appalling record of child abuse, a ban on smacking here will most certainly produce an increase in child abuse and general family abuse of the worst kinds.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:38 am
John – I said there were not many. What I had in mind was one or two of the people on the protest at Parliament who had signs about how you should whack your child to save them and you from hell.
I agree there are far far more extremists and zealots on the other side of the debate.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:50 am
I agree there are far far more extremists and zealots on the other side of the debate.
Rubbish. A lot of anti-smackers don’t equate smacking with child abuse and are not extremsists. There are only a few who hold that view. However, if being anti-smacking is extremist, then so are many people in the pro-choice camp who seem to think smacking is the only, or best form of discipline.
Larzelere says:
smacking could be counter-productive for children of 7 or over when they were old enough to “internalise” the rules of good behaviour.
For months I have been saying that. Smacking is a very blunt and largely ineffective form of discipline. As much as I think Bradford’s bill is a waste of time, the one positive thing that might come out of removing S59 is that parents might start using some alternatives to smacking. They may even come to the realisation that other methods get better results.
However, I agree that the state changing laws to get to this outcome is the wrong way to go about it. A decent education programme would be far more effective in achieving that goal.
The evidence shows, as the good doctor has pointed out, that bans on smacking only increase family violence and abuse. And there are sound behavioural reasons why that is always likely to be the case.
Actually, when you ban smacking, but don’t give people good alternatives, you may see an increase in problems. However (as I keep saying) there are better alternatives to smacking and IF you ban smacking, you HAVE to provide alternatives.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Two sides to every story:
Feedback: Dr Larzelere Claims Un-Scientific
Wednesday, 2 May 2007, 11:24 am
Opinion: Scoop Feedback
Letter To The Editor: Dr Larzelere Claims Un-Scientific
“Dr Robert Larzelere, who claims to be scientific in his support for smacking children makes outrageously unscientific allegations about changes in children’s behaviour in Norway since that country introduced a smacking ban (NZ Herald, 1 May). He relies on anecdotes from ‘his colleagues’ about parents ‘not knowing how to control their children’.
The unfortunate facts are that in his own country which has a culture supportive of violence toward children there are eight times the number of deaths of children at the hands of their parents than there are in Norway (Unicef report, 2003). There is no scientific evidence that Norwegian children are better or worse behaved than American children. Only that more of them survive their childhood.”
Dr Ian Hassall
Auckland University of Technology – Institute of Public Policy
Linda A
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
He is a fundamentalist Christian who is @ odds with all other research in this area. Notwithstanding his supposed ‘reasonabless’ here, lets at least acknowledge the context.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
David
The extremist you mention actually merely citing scripture. It concerns me ( as a theologian) that some people think merely citing scripture makes one a dangerous fanatic
The statement is a proverb. Its genre is comparable to phrases such as “the pen is mightier than the sword”. No one considers this proverb to mean that writing is ineffective when done with typewriters or fighting must be done with swords. Pen and sword stand as illustrative examples of fighting and writing.
Similarly when one utters a proverb stating that using a rod may save a childs soul from hell one is not endorsing daily beatings. “Rod” is here (as elsewhere in scripture) used as an illustrative example of discipline. Moreover the words “soul” and “hell” translate the Hebrew “nephesh” (which means roughly or self life) and “schoel” (which means “the grave”).
When the genre and context are taken into account. The text states only that disciplining a child, correcting adverse behavior, will in many contexts save his life.
Now it would be odd for a text that uses corporal punishment as an illustrative example of good disciple to entail it was bad discipline hence it can be legitimately argued that the text implies that corporal punishment is a permissible form of discipline. But to suggest that the text teaches you must daily beat up your child is nonsense.
Matt
May 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
There is considerable evidence that it is better to breast feed your kids, than artificial milk etc. But does the state pass a law mandating that all mothers must breast feed until at least a year old? No.
WTF ??
June 30th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Dr Robert Larzelere is the world’s leading expert on child discipline issues. He has done extensive research in child discipline for the past 20 years or more. I agree wholeheartedly with him in his criticism of the Swedish anti-smacking legislation and its consequences.
Graeme Edgeler, Wellington, NZ, wrote about Dr Larzelere: “A much better expert than Ruby Harrold-Claesson.”
While I have no intention whatsoever to compete with Dr. Larzelere, I must inform you that I am only a Swedish lawyer, who works in the Swedish court system, inter alia with cases where parents who have smacked or not smacked their children have been accused of child abuse, arrested, remanded in custody and fined or imprisoned and their children have been taken from their care and placed in foster homes or institutions.
I am also doing research on the Swedish anti-smacking law for my PhD.
I can also inform you that I took the initiative to a letter to the Swedish Chancellor of Justice – signed by 23 lawyers, including a former prosecutor and a judge who formerly served in the Administrative Court of Appeal in Gothenburg – requesting an investigation into the gross failures of the court system to guarantee parents a fair trial. For those of you who understand Swedish I invite you to see http://www.nkmr.org/lvu_utan_saklig_grund.htm
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Lawyer
President of the NCHR
http://www.nkmr.org
July 1st, 2007 at 12:43 am
Both Dr Robert Larzelere and Ruby Harrold-Claesson speak a heck of a lot of commonsense.
They’ve got their heads screwed on the right way, as opposed to the majority of our Parliament.
And Labour MP David Cunliffe eh? Votes to say that parents must not use any force in correction, and then turns round and publicly smacks one of his own children…
Ah, the ironies…