Anti-smacking amendment proposed
March 19th, 2009 at 12:10 pm by David FarrarACT MP John Boscawen has said:
ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen today announced that he will introduce a Private Member’s Bill to amend the controversial Anti-Smacking law inflicted on New Zealanders by Labour and the Greens in 2007. …
“While addressing the concerns of those who felt that the original section 59 of the Crimes Act was too vague, my amendment to the law will protect from criminalisation those parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction.
“The amendment will change the Act so that: it is no longer a crime for parents or guardians to use reasonable force to correct children; there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force; parents and guardians have certainty about what the law permits; it is no longer reliant on police discretion for the law to be practical and workable.
I have not seen the bill and am interested in what the exact wording will be.
What I would do is base the bill on the Borrows amendment. This allows reasonable force for correction (in addition to the current grounds of preventing harm, preventing crime, prventing offensive or disruptive behaviour and performing normal daily task incidental to good parenting) but places severe limits on what is reasonable force compared to the previous law.
Specifically it excludes force if:
it causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory or trifling; or any weapon, tool or other implement is used
Now National voted for the Borrows amendment at the committee of the whole stage. So if John Boscawen gets his bill selected from the ballot (which may never happen) I think they would feel obligated to vote for it.
And if you put aside the zealots who think they should tell every parent in NZ how to raise their family, most reasonable people would acknowledge that the Borrows amendment would deal with 99% of the cases which have caused concern (the horse whip case etc) without criminalising hundreds of thousands of parents.
Note Curia (which I own) conducted the poll for Family First (on our normal commercial terms) on this law which was released yesterday (and is covered at Curiablog). I had no idea that John was planning a private members bill on this issue, and only found out when I saw his press release.
UPDATE: Sue Bradford has attacked me for the poll, and says it does not align to other polls. Now the 80% opposition to the law has occurred in numerous polls by numerous organisations and I totally reject the suggestion the questions are slanted. In fact the question even goes so far as to mention the Police discretion in the law – yet the public still say they do not support it.
Bradford points to a UMR poll for the Children’s Commissioner which had 43% support the law change and only 28% opposition. But unlike the Curia poll which actually asked people about the specific law change, the UMR poll just asked people if they supported the law change without describing it to them, and further asked them after they had asked them “Should children be entitled to the same protection from assault as adults”. The order of questions is very important and in the poll Curia did we asked people about the law change before asking any other questions.
The question Curia asked was:
In 2007, Parliament passed a law that removes a defence of reasonable force for parents who smack a child to correct their behaviour, but states the Police have discretion not to prosecute if they consider the offence was inconsequential. What is your view of this law?
I am extremely confident that the number of New Zealanders who oppose this law is much greater than 28%.
Related posts:
- Herald on anti-smacking law
- The banning smacking bill second reading
- Roughan on Smacking
- Mt Roskill public meeting on anti-smacking law
March 19th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
This is excellent news. Looks like common sense is breaking out in parliament. Who would have thought?
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
My biggest disappointment with John Key is voting in the antismacking in the first place.
Firstly, this let labour off the hook.
Secondly, this also means national supports the antismacking bill, they did vote for it after all. While I understand John Key negotiated a watered down version, I think that was still wrong.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
If this finds a better balance between stopping thugs abusing children, while at the same time placating the screaming “How dare you tell me how to raise my etc etc etc” mob, then it will be a good move for NZ.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Unfortunately any review of this law will have to legalise hitting children where as before the the situation was simple common sense.
In preparation for this law change I believe it should be made mandatory for all New Zealand voting age citizens to hit a leftie (or a pollie of any persuation who voted for this draconian bullshit in the first place) at least once a day – hard.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Oh dear, hasn’t he got something better to do with his time now the EFA is repealed?
Recycling the Borrows amendment would create unworkable law that would let parents get away with inflicting cruel punishments on their children.
The Borrows amendment attempted to define the degree of force that was reasonable by the physical outcome of the use of that force. It did not take into account that you can, for example, hit a child repeatedly with a rolled up newspaper without inflicting any physical injuries that are more than “transitory and trifling”.
It did not take into account that most parents cannot anticipate whether physical injury is likely to be caused by the punishment they are administering before or at the time they administer it, and whether any injury caused is likely to be more than transitory and trifling. Under the Borrows amendment parents could have got away with administering punishments that caused injuries that were no more than transitory and trifling 20 or 30 times a day. It did not take into account the mental trauma caused by physical punishment, irrespective of whether physical injury is caused.
And above all, it sends the message to parents that hitting kids is okay.
It would have been thoroughly bad law, and it is disappointing that John Boscawen is trying to revive it. There is no evidence to suggest that the current law is resulting in good parents being prosecuted for the occasional light smack, so why change it?
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Meanwhile, the original famous Timaru “riding crop” case has progressed thus:
The kid HAD changed his destructive behaviour for the better, according to the school and local community; and note that it was a jury that acquitted the mother after hearing the case and having the power to decide one way or the other under the old legislation.
But CYFS had to get involved, take the kid off his mum, and now, 3 years later, the kid is right off the rails, a juvenile delinquent, runs away all the time, has a drug habit, etc, etc, etc.
Wow, can’t this countries social engineers feel sooooo proud of themselves, ay?
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
And except for the fact they didn’t, you might have a point =)
[DPF: Oh did they only vote for it at select committee stage? Regardless they clearly indicated support for the Borrows amendment]
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I see that Boscawen has got the dog whistle out.
I had hoped this debate had finished. The right wingers had previously only incensed ordinary decent but uninformed New Zealanders to persuade them that something terrible was happening when in fact little changed. The law change rightfully said that children should not be subject to violence. The reality is that our jails are not full of otherwise decent kiwis incarcerated by the PC police despite the law change.
Following are some quotes from Police Commissioner Rob Pope when reporting on the effects of the bill:
During the six months to October 2008 “Police attended a total of 288 child assault events; 13 events involved smacking and 69 events involved minor acts of physical discipline. Four of the minor acts of physical discipline events were prosecuted. Two were resolved by Conviction and Sentenced: to come up if called upon 6 and 12 months, one was withdrawn due to successful adult Diversion and one is yet to be heard. ”
Also when the results from the second 6 month review period were compared to the results of the first 6 month period “[t]here has been a decline in the total number of child assault events attended by Police during this review period … There has also been a corresponding decrease in the number of child assault events involving smacking and minor acts of physical discipline.”
The source is at http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2008/section-59-activity-review/section59_crime_ammendment_act_2007.pdf
So maybe the law is working? Maybe the chance of another Nia Glassie is lessened.
Do you really want to go through this debate again?
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I applaud Johns intentions, but!
You don’t fix a three legged mule by nailing another leg on to it, you shoot it.
This law is arse and it should be reversed, not tinkered with. Bradfod needs to knew shes been taken to the cleaners as well.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
PhilBest said: The kid HAD changed his destructive behaviour for the better, according to the school and local community; and note that it was a jury that acquitted the mother after hearing the case and having the power to decide one way or the other under the old legislation.
I seem to recall Phil that the pro-spankers’ star in the Timaru riding crop case was the same woman who [deleted by DPF as a breach of court suppression orders]
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Haha, right on! In the THROAT!
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Move on. Lets have a couple of years evidence under the current law rather than fighting yesterday’s battles. Much more important things to change in the legislative dreck.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Oh boy, this old chesnutt.
The essence of this matter has little to do with wordsmithing an Act, and everything to do with ideology.
The social engineers will do anything to stop parents freely raising their kids. The authority of parents must be substituted with the unquestioned authority of the state.
I completely and utterly reject this notion.
Socialists – get your hands off my family.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Ya have to love the way Toad adopts his “We on the left are much smarter than the voting pubic” stance when he attempts to defend a piece of legislation that 83% of the population wants amended.
Its called democracy Toad, bloody get used to it.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Mickey Savage wrote:
The right wingers had previously only incensed ordinary decent but uninformed New Zealanders to persuade them that something terrible was happening when in fact little changed.
MS this is crap thinking on your part and shows your bias. as something has changed.
Some ordinary parents aren’t smacking their kids when they might want to. Why? because CYPS and NZPolice are involved where they shouldn’t be.
Part of the fear is the lefty trefty liberals/Politically correct in NZPolice and CYPS.
And for those who have gone on giving some attitude correction they take the risk of prosecution for a smack on the bum!
John Boy should have listened to the 80% of Kiwis who are middle of the road and voted NO in the first place.
I won’t trust him with our society until the law is repealed.
as i think do these others.
Murray
You don’t fix a three legged mule by nailing another leg on to it, you shoot it.
This law is arse and it should be reversed, not tinkered with. Bradfod needs to knew shes been taken to the cleaners as well.
Get staffed
Vote:The social engineers will do anything to stop parents freely raising their kids. The authority of parents must be substituted with the unquestioned authority of the state.
I completely and utterly reject this notion.
Socialists – get your hands off my family.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Now National voted for the Borrows amendment at the committee of the whole stage
Vote:Nope. Key and Clark did their famous agreement to avoid this happening.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
What exactly is he trying to fix? If it gets through the process, children will again have reduced legal protection from physical punishment by adults. Not very libertarian in my book. I’m with Toad and I hope John Key is still listening to Katherine Rich.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
big bruv said: Its called democracy Toad, bloody get used to it.
I am used to it, and that is why I am actively trying to convince those who think hitting kids is okay that they are wrong. That’s what democracy is all about – robust debate.
And if you want to start quoting percentages from surveys and opinion polls, you might be interested in this one:
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Probably because JB is not a libertarian. Like Roger Douglas he’s in favour of compulsion in a number of things – for example, they’d like to see Kiwisaver made compulsory.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Oh, and this from the 2006-07 NZ Health Survey too:
Now, if only one in 22 parents consider physical punsihment to be effective, what is it that motivates a much hiher proportion to actually use it? Loss of control, perhaps? That’s why the message has to be that hitting kids is never okay.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Toad is quoting a press release from Kiro?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA…….
I really hope this members bill goes ahead. Then we will see the sour face of Bradford as the realisation that she hasn’t convinced anybody of anything finally sinking in.
Meanwhile, the child killers continue in their merry ways….
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
>>that hitting kids is never okay
It’s sometimes ok. And can be effective.
Depends on the kid…..and the parent…..
Life isn’t black n white, Toad.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
MichaelNZ
“Some ordinary parents aren’t smacking their kids when they might want to. Why? because CYPS and NZPolice are involved where they shouldn’t be. Part of the fear is the lefty trefty liberals/Politically correct in NZPolice and CYPS. And for those who have gone on giving some attitude correction they take the risk of prosecution for a smack on the bum!”
So the reduction in reported violence on children is a bad thing?
“John Boy should have listened to the 80% of Kiwis who are middle of the road and voted NO in the first place.
I won’t trust him with our society until the law is repealed. as i think do these others.”
Perhaps you could address the points made in the Police report:
1. Very few extra prosecutions (four) resulting in either diversion or light penalty,
2. A reduction in reported violence on children.
Could you then say why the change in the law was a bad thing?
“The social engineers will do anything to stop parents freely raising their kids. The authority of parents must be substituted with the unquestioned authority of the state. I completely and utterly reject this notion. Socialists – get your hands off my family.”
I am always amazed when this sort of comment is made. The suggestion is that Labour never did anything to help and only interefered. What did Labour do for families? Well … (deep breath)
increased standard of living, greater number of jobs, lower unemployment, significant increase in health and education spending, lower numbers in classrooms, interest free student loans, paid parental leave and an extra week’s holiday to name but a few policies.
I bet Michael also complained bitterly about how such incidents as the murder of Nia Glassie could happen. Does he not see a link between permitting the use of violence against children and how sometimes that violence can become excessive?
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Peter said: Toad is quoting a press release from Kiro? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA…….
Peter, Kiro was quoting results from a commissioned survey by a professional polling organisation, not expressing her own opinions, in the bit of her media release I quoted.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Toad
“I am used to it, and that is why I am actively trying to convince those who think hitting kids is okay that they are wrong. That’s what democracy is all about – robust debate.”
If that was the case you would not use terms like “hitting kids”, we are talking about a smack, nothing more than that.
I was disgusted at the way the Greens (Bradford in particular) lied through their teeth about this bill, who can forget the doozy about “no child deaths in Sweden” and “all men are paedophiles”.
You are not one who I would have picked to continue those lies Toad.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
big bruv
I thought that the left actually lost the branding debate. Calling it the “anti smacking bill” lost us the debate with much of the population. If it was called “we need to change things in the hope there will be no more Nia Glassies bill” then the population probably would have supported it.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
References, bruv, references. What she actually said re deaths from child abuse in Sweden was that there had been 9 deaths from child abuse in Sweden over the previous 30 years, when the actual number was 22.
So she made a mistake with the numbers, as politicians often do when trying to recall figures they do not have immediately to hand during an interview. That doesn’t mean it was a lie.
As for you allegation that she said “all men are paedophiles”, well, it is you who are telling the lie there.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Toad how about quoting from reports rather than media releases.. You`ll probably find that one of the surveys asks if children should be entitled to the same protection from assault as adults.
Well, of course they should. Just like my neighbour should not slap my kids if they nick his tomato plants, and I shouldn’t punch my neighbour in the face if he pokes his tongue out at me. Both are entitled to the same legal protection, and always have been. But the survey doesn’t ask should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?.
We all know why. They wanted to conflate assault with smacking again, given that most don’t think smacking is assault.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Spent the last week in Chch where I have some old mates. One works for CYPS and her friend also works for CYPS both work on the front line, both are raving lefties. They were saying that this law was the bees knees as it gave them the power to remove the child from the family.This law had giving them the right to fight for the child but the law hasn’t resulted in a downturn in cases in fact I believe they have only increased so obviously the solution lies somewhere else. Of course we were never going to see eye to eye They will be spitting blood if the law is repealed, so sad never mind. It seems to me this law as in most laws are brought in to regulate the lives of the 1 to 2% that abuse their children but in the process remove the right of the other 98% of good parents to discipline their children as they see fit. This is bad law and should be given the arse as it does not appear to be working.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
TOad, I suggest you do not put permanently suppressed names on other peoples blogs, OK?
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Huh?
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
mickysavage said “So maybe the law is working? Maybe the chance of another Nia Glassie is lessened.
Do you really want to go through this debate again?”
Whilst it’s true that there have been no instances reported this week of infants being put in tumble-dryers or pegged to clotheslines, micky ignores the fact that there have been at least two young children murdered this month (one in Marton, the other in Taupo), and as we speak a plumber by the name of Abhinesh Sharma is being tried for murdering a 16-month-old infant by slamming him against a wall while he was baby-sitting the child.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
dave said: …given that most don’t think smacking is assault.
Smacking is by definition assault, just as me patting you on the back to say well done [not on this topic though] would be. The real point of contention is under what circumstances should parents have a justification defence for assaulting their children.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
And from that same UMR poll
“Respondents were asked their level of agreement with the statement, ‘There are certain circumstances when it is alright for parents to use physical punishment with children.’ About three in five respondents (58 percent) agreed that there are certain circumstances when it is acceptable for parents to use physical punishment with a child (7 to 10 on a 0-10 scale). Twenty percent were neutral (4 to 6 on the scale) and 20 percent disagreed (0 to 3 on the scale).”
In other words, only 20% say that it is never alright for parents to use physical punishment with children. Same as all the other polls. 80% want the current law changed.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Toad
How about this, if the Greens are really unhappy at the prospect of this failed bill being amended then make a big noise about it at the next election campaign.
Remind the people of NZ how if elected as part of a left wing government you will immediately change the law.
Then lets see if you make the 5 % threshold.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
ACT TO BRING BACK THE SMACK ! ACT TO BRING BACK THE SMACK !!
Yes, the people of New Zealand are going to rally behind that sensible call. Key won’t touch it! Reckon I’m wrong? We will see.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Alternatively we could treat smacking as a form of alternative medicine, which the greens are very keen on. Imagine, say, Percusive De-energisation Therapy which uses manual application of force to dislodge negative energy from people and hence affect their health and behaviour. All you need are a few anecdotal reports of its efficacy – of people’s health improving within a week or two of its application, say. This sort of evidential standard is good enough for the greens to support it.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen today announced that he will introduce a Private Member’s Bill to amend the controversial Anti-Smacking law inflicted on New Zealanders by Labour and the Greens in 2007. …
HANG ON! Boscawen forgot to mention another party that ‘inflicted the Anti-Smacking law on New Zealanders …
Vote:The NATIONAL PARTY . What a silly oversight. How could he have forgotten that ?
March 19th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Frog mentioned a UMR survey. He said “if you want to start quoting percentages from surveys and opinion polls, you might be interested in this one” So here goes….
Among the 750 respondents surveyed by UMR were Maori and Pacific Islanders. But the sample of Pacific Islanders chosen was less than the margin of error and the sample of Maori chosen was just over double the margin of error, and the question order was a shambles.
So, respondents were asked whether they supported the law, then once they said they did, they were asked how much they knew about it. Of those that knew about the law change, most supported it. Of those ignorant about the law change, many knew that smacking was now illegal. So some were ignorant of the law but could state some of its provisions? That’s just plain weird.
What surprised me is that 30 percent said that physical punishment should be part of child discipline. That’s high. The rest were split pretty much evenly between disagreement and neutrality. But the report of the survey says that parents do not have absolute right to treat children as they wish – negating the opinions of at least a third of respondents.
So the survey admits that the sample is not representative of the population and then reports as if it is, while misrepresenting responses and conflating smacking and assault. How dodgy is THAT?
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I agree with Murray. “The law is arse and shouldn’t be tinkered with,it should be reversed.”
Totally agree-return to section 59 as it was before and I would add before corporal punishment was outlawed in schools.
The teachers need corporal punishment to regain control in the classroom. At present they have abrogated their responsibility to effectively discipline students and have handed the responsibility over to the police. So instead of teachers discipling students the police are doing it.
Restore rightful authority and responsibility to parents and teachers. Down with government control of people’s lives. And down with socialism and the nanny state!
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Sue Bradford claims that Family First’s research poll flew in the face of other research. Here is a summary of all research done over the past couple of years.
Ms Bradford is simply attacking the messenger rather than the message – that 80% of NZ’ers want her law changed.
AFTER LAW PASSED
Research International Feb 2008 74% parents should be able to smack
Family First May 08 85% want law changed to allow light smacking
TVNZ June 08 85% NO – do you think anti-smacking law should stay
NZ Herald Online Poll 25 June 2008 Should there be a referendum on the smacking legislation at this year’s election?
Yes: 3746 (81%) No: 878 (19%) Total Votes: 4624
Otago Daily Times 28 June 08 68% up to parents to decide
(280 votes) 21% children should be legally protected
11% depends on the case
http://www.littlies.co.nz/ July 2008 One year on, do you think the anti-smacking Bill has proved to be effective?
Yes (7%)
No (87%)
Unsure (7%)
NZ Herald Sep 08 Should smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ 86% No
Online 90% (2800 votes)
BEFORE LAW PASSED
Vote:MARAE DigiPoll (1,000 Maori voters) 80%
Anti-smackingvote.co.nz Apr 2007 70% (43,000 votes!)
http://www.antismackingvote.co.nz/poll+results Zenago Internet Solutions
Treasures website Apr 2007 85% (1972 votes)
Waikato Times Apr 4 2007 87%
TV3 TNS Mar 29 2007 69% (70% support smacking) **
TVNZ Colmar Brunton Mar 26 2007 83%
Research NZ Mar 26 2007 73%
Bay of Plenty Times Text Poll Mar 26 2007 94.6%
TV3 Website poll Mar 14 2007 89%
NZ News – Yahoo .com Mar 13 2007 92% (7643 votes)
TV3 News Poll Mar 2007 83%
NZ Herald Feb 2007 90% (3874 votes)
TVNZ website Feb 2007 87%
STUFF website July 2006 82% (6700 votes!)
TVNZ website July 2006 88%
Bay of Plenty Times May 2006 83%
Child Abuse Conference Feb 2006 82%
STUFF website Feb 2006 84%
Dominion Post Feb 2006 82%
STUFF website March 2005 86%
NZ Herald July 2005 71%
STUFF website June 2005 82%
March 19th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
mickysavage seems to think it is ok to pay for police to be involved in minor offences by sitting in court. That is a waste of money and the statistics show that the antismacking law isn’t working. How many deaths related to child abuse? 12 in the last 22 months as stated in the Herald. If I smack my child, I am not exposing him or her to violence. It sets limits, limits which should be in place but aren’t. talk to the teachers who keep asking for Police interference. The do gooders like Sue Bradford never explain this, nor does she want to know what really kills these defenseless children from abuse. She even stated it on TV. Mickeysavage, you know it is all about social control, not prevention of child abuse.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
mickeysavage laments
No mickey, the ‘bad thing’ is your redefinition of the term violence so that it encompasses perfectly normal, valid parental disciplinary processes. The next stop on this ideological journey was (and probably still is for you lot) the definition of violence to widen again to include any parentally applied limits or constraints.
Denied an X-Box? Physiological violence! No you can’t go out until you’ve done your homework. More physiological violence. Bring in CYFS, Police etc. Fiction? I don’t think so.. just a logical continuation of your ideology’s long march through our social institutions.
Physical violence as well understood it has always been illegal, and what we need is to have the law being enforced correctly. But that’s not the object mickey, is it? The objective is to progressively empower the state and to correspondingly disempower parents… so socialist ideals can be given increased hold on all our lives.
Your namesake is probably turning in his grave when confronted with the gutting of society in the name of an all-powerful state.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
What I find disgusting is the approach by those on the right who opposed the law change as it took away the right to raise their families how they wanted. I’m sorry but if you are aiming for a libertarian society then the right of the child not to be hit trumps the right of the parent to hit them every time. It’s all about negative and positive rights people, any positive right automatically effects others negatively, ie the right to welfare costs the taxpayer. A negative right (like the right NOT to be hit) doesn’t impact anyone but the children themselves.
We moved foward and made progress on this issue. Social Engineering should always be a last resort, but this time in protecting the rights of children it was necessary.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Key won’t be the Prime Minsister who legalises smacking. Dream on you crazy smackers.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I wish we could smack some braincells into the NZ Police. They make the keystone cops seem like scholars.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
theodoresteel – playing the “this right beats that that right, but this other right trump them both” is a recipe for disaster. You must be able to see the chaotic corollary of that thinking, surely?
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Theos actually correct with his points about genuine “negative” rights vs bogus postive rights and the conflict that ensures….this is at the crux of all the political conflict we witness on a daily basis…..its THE issue that needs clarifing and permanent resolution if we are to have a free,prosperous and moral socirty.
But the question becomes….if you are going to respect and allow the child to enjoy its right not to be smacked then how can you deny the child its logically equal “rights” to drink booze,engage in sexual activity,drive, stay out all hours,eat what it likes,act as it likes etc etc?
Not even Sue Bradford would go that far so theres a fly in your ointment the Theo…
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Same old argument, same old people. If you exclude cases of genuine abuse, there is no evidence that physical discipline, within the limits of the old law (let alone within the limits of the borrows amendment) has any negative impact on life outcomes for children. There is no reason to prohibit it unless you want to substitute the judgment of the state for the judgment of parents in the most appropriate way to raise their children. And I don’t see any compelling reason to do that.
As always, parties of the left, all about compulsion. Parties of the right, all about choice.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
toad “Recycling the Borrows amendment would create unworkable law that would let parents get away with inflicting cruel punishments on their children.”
I get your concern. But I would like to flick my son’s ear or top of the head or almost-pretend-kick him on the bum as the situation seems fit without being turned into a crimilal.
There are times when words alone do not control a 3-7 year old. When the danger they are in is eminent, a short sharp reminder such as a little flick or slap quicklu focuses attention. I would take no joy from having my child run over, dropped down a steep cliff or drowned because THE CHILD made the decisiont to ignore the 3-5 verbal warnings given BEFORE the physycal correction takes place.
There are times when a PRE-pubescent child requires an immediate intervention to prevent further harm. In those cases, you can not put up a reasoned argument. It’s time for pragmatism and a quick intervention that balances a small amount of pain and shock against the potential of life-long disability or death.
I still break the “anti-smacking” law under the circumstances described above, and would consider it BAD parenting if I did not take the risk of being prosicuted by the Police as long as the result is that my child(ren) are safer in the long run – even if it requires a short, sharp reminder that what Mum said was kind of important, just now.
I support any amendment that allows a loving parent to take action against any perceived harm that may come to their child by inflicting a small amount of pain to gain the attention of the child that has until then ignored all verbal attempts by the parent.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
ah crap – look at all the typos. Sorry about that. Message stand tho’. (2 mins wasn’t enough!)
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Section 59 needs to be reinstated back to how it was unchanged. It was quite satisfactory. That’s not to say that it was perfect; no such law is possible, but it has worked well for several decades and there was certainly no need to change it.
Bill.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
toad: “Smacking is by definition assault, just as me patting you on the back to say well done … would be.”
Really?
You think that a pat on the back is assault? CRIMINAL assault?
Ok, I think we’re done. I normally admire your sensibilities, even though I might not agree. But here you really have gone off the reservation.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Sue Bradford is not a Slapper – Yeah Right
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
it’s not only kids
Vote:but also a lot of grown
ups need a good belt
March 19th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Parents should NOT tell their children what is ‘right or wrong’ about having sex, say ministers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1152021/Parents-NOT-tell-children-right-wrong-having-sex-say-ministers.html
Look at what is happening in the UK under a Labour government. I hate to think what would have happened here if Labour got another term.
I have heard some of what goes on in schools here but it sounds a lot worse in the UK.
If National expects parents to be held accountable for their children’s actions like truancy they should support parents not undermine them. Supporting John Boscawen’s bill would be a good start.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Nothing wrong with hitting kids, one of life’s great pleasures and stress reliefs.
Hey, it’s only really effective if done really hard on the sensitive arse or other body parts below the neck (thick ears also).
I don’t think anyone with a shred of common-sense will ever consider Bradfords law change a step in the right direction. People are too soft these days and can’t take any sort of hardness & harshness in life which offends their pathetic liberal sensibilities.
A bit of advice for naysayers…..Handle it!
But, as it stands right now, I’m sick of the whole schemozzle surrounding this subject.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
DPF, in you update to the post responding to Sue Bradford you state:
The problem with that question, in the context of bias, is that it leaves the reader with the view that there are no circumstances in which reasonable force can lawfully be used. The reality of the law Sue Bradford promoted and that was passed with the support of the Greens, Labour and National by Parliament is far different. It permits reasonable force for the purposes of:
These are areas where the use of reasonable force can be objectively defined as that (and no more than that) necessary to prevent the behaviour form occurring or continuing to occur.
Contrast this with subjectivity of “reasonable force for the purpose of correction” which implies that the extent of the force can be escalated if the purpose (ie correction) is not achieves, and will therefore still be reasonable.
I agree with Sue Bradford that your poll question on Curia is biased, because it does not inform respondents that her Bill introduced several causes that can be defined objectively for which reasonable force is justified – causes that I suspect would allay the fears of many who responded to the poll Family First comissioned from you Curia polling organisation.
[DPF: Obviously I disagree. The fact is that the ability to smack your child to protect them from harm or stop them breaking the law has not changed from the old law to the new law. The key issue is the legality of smacking for correction. This is what the debate was about. This is what the referendum is about. This is what the law was specifically designed to abolish. So while you can certainly argue about question design (and there is no absolute right or wrong) I absolutely reject there was any bias in the question. It correctly described the law change. Incidentally I insisted on including the reference to the Police discretion, specifically so the question could not be seen as incomplete.
You may also be interested to look at http://curiablog.wordpress.com where I have compared in detail the UMR poll and Curia poll and found areas of agreement. For example only 20% of respondents in the UMR poll disagree with the proposition that it is sometimes alright to physically punish your children]
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Dazzaman said: Nothing wrong with hitting kids, one of life’s great pleasures and stress reliefs.
You sick fuck!
Yes, I do suspect you are taking the piss, but some people on the other side of the debate will take you seriously and support that argument.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
petal said: I support any amendment that allows a loving parent to take action against any perceived harm that may come to their child by inflicting a small amount of pain to gain the attention of the child that has until then ignored all verbal attempts by the parent.
Petal, I think the law as it stands achieves what you support already, as I have said above on this thread.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
toad, this law (along with most everything supported by the Greens) represents an advancement of state control, in this case with a attempted sweetener of having police more able exercise discretion.
When you can convince me that such discretion would be applied objectively and without political intervention to both EB’s and the ruling party elite alike, then the concept discretion has merit.
Until then it is a vacant and worthless promise of equity.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
petal said: But I would like to flick my son’s ear or top of the head or almost-pretend-kick him on the bum
Vote:Why petal, would you like to do that? Would it be impossible for you to not do that? You can expect to be able to do anything you like to your child, just because you ‘ would like to do it’. Some parents would ‘like to do’ odd things to their children. Should they be allowed to do as they wish? They may well think that those things are harmelss, just as you do, ear flicking and almost-pretend-kicks on the bum (what are those anyway?) There are limits set to how much physical force you can apply to your own children. Do you want to over-ride those long established limits and set your own and are you happy to have every parent set their own limits? Petal, are you a better judge than your community? After all, the community is made up of many, many parents.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
getstaffed, there are very robust legal principle regarding the exercise of discretion.
For example, discretion must take into acount all relevant considertions, and disregard all irrelevant considerations. It must be exercised on the correct principle derived form the legislation which confers it. And it must not be exercised in a manner that is “unreasonable” or “unfair” in the legal meaning of those terms.
Like you, I am not confident that the Police (amongst other Government agencies like MSD and ACC) have got it completely right re discretion. But that is a staff training issue, rather than a reason to revert to black-letter law which has some very unfair and unfortunate outcomes that do not take into account individual circumstances.
Vote:March 19th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Indeed there are. Their application is another matter. Say after me “It’s not in the public interest to prosecute” and think back to when and how this was used.
I think the law as it current stands has hundreds of thousands of loving parents potentially facing accusations of criminal violence towards their children, and being at the mercy of police discretion. I’d call this situation very unfair, with numerous unfortunate outcomes… not the least of which could the injudicious application of that discretion.
However you spin it toad, an EB would not get the same discretion applied as would a sitting MP. That is not a staff training issue.. it is one of the state manipulating law enforcement agencies for its own ends.
But we could argue the toss about this all night. The bottom line is I want the state focusing its resources on growing NZ and not on the advancement of socialist ideology which is sadly quite well entrenched in our public service, schools, universities and unions.
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 1:10 am
When does the referendum question get sent out in the post?
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 8:13 am
When I blogged yesterday on this I had not seen anything as to the proposed content of the Bill – this is certainly encouraging as something like the Borrows amendment would be good.
As I have previously argued, the law is always going have instances where people who should have been prosecuted get off and vice versa, adjustments to the law should always be tweaks to try to get the balance right as opposed to complete repeal.
I do, however, take issue with the concept that if the majority do or don’t support a law change then that is where the govt should go – laws should be changed because it is right to do so; the majority can be and sometimes are wrong. Just as we pull Bradford up on her appalling lack of ability to reason, so must we ensure that we reason correctly as well.
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Other parties have lapdogs and poodle, Sue Bradford has a lap toad.
How appropriate.
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 8:24 am
End of July. You’ll have three weeks (or thereabouts) to send them back.
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 8:53 am
With regard the referendum (exciting isn’t it!), will the various parties concerned leave it to the public to decide for themselves, or will they pressure them (either overtly or covertly)? I suspect the heat will be turned up. Should be plenty of material there for critics on both sides. Suffer the little children.
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Murray – your ‘lap toad’ allusion is brilliant!
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 10:34 am
How about an amendment to the Crimes Act to loosen things up a bit around spousal relations – we all know that kids benefit from a bit of gentle biff to straighten them out from time to time. Why not the spouse? Obviously, it needs to allow the use of reasonable force for correction purposes (the whole point of the amendment) so I’ve slipped that in to what I’ve cobbled together below (based on the current section 59 that applies to parental control).
Spousal control
(1) Every spouse and every person in the place of a spouse is justified in using force against their husband or wife if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the husband or wife or another person; or
(b) preventing the husband or wife from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the husband or wife from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good marital relations; or
(e) correction.
A runner for a Private Member’s Bill maybe?
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 11:00 am
big bruv (3055) Vote: 20 3 Says:
March 19th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
“Ya have to love the way Toad adopts his “We on the left are much smarter than the voting pubic” stance when he attempts to defend a piece of legislation that 83% of the population wants amended.
Its called democracy Toad, bloody get used to it.”
It isn’t just that, big bruv, it’s that under the old legislation, a JURY heard all the facts, had the power to bring assault charges against the mother, and chose not to.
It is THAT that Toad and Sue Bradford and all the rest of them, won’t accept, along with what NZ-ers say in polls.
The Kiwi Party has posted some extremely informative videos on this whole issue, that tell you what the liberal lefty media has not told you:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=rynso&view=videos&start=40
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Murray
Do you think if Sue Bradford kissed a toad she would turn into a princess?. It could be worth a go, nothing else seems to work. I guess the hard part would be trying to anethetise the toad.
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
You’re right Toad, I am……sort of, taking the piss & a sick fuck. Thank you!
Just to dismiss any ambiguousness about my last post,…..I’d really like to smack Sue Bradford. LOL
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I don’t think you could get a toad to hold still and then theres the spca to consider.
I am though wondering why those who used political blackmail to force this bill on us against the will of the people are being so vocal about trying to protect it when it has not save ONE SINGLE CHILD! And youth violence continues to rise as a result of undisciplined people not knowing what consequences are.
I would have thought an extended period of quiet reflection and not drawing attention to ones self would have been the smarter strategy.
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
DPF, my apologies. I did not realise that the Timaru riding crop case was subject to a court suppression order. My information about it came from the woman herself and her erstwhile associates, not from court transcripts or media reports of the proceedings, so I honestly had no idea.
I do find it somewhat bizarre though that a court suppression order remains in force after the subsequent events that transpired, so much of the public still think of that woman as the darling of the pro-spankers rather than the vicious thug she is.
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
“so much of the public still think of that woman as the darling of the pro-spankers rather than the vicious thug she is.”
Not really necessary Toad, that type of trolling is what we expect from Greenfly and Mickey, you are way better than that mate.
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Greens always think they have a moral right to speak for everyone even when they are in the tiny minority bb.
Its because we are all too stupid to be trusted to make decisions for ourselves.
Socialists, people who mistake nice ideas for good ones and never let their utter and complete failure to make them think again.
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I smacked one of my little darlings a while ago and it felt bloody good. The little shit did something he has been told not to do and should not even need to be told not to do (I blame the mother). Unfortunately for him I happened to have a big thick leather belt next to me. I have used this belt on occasion on one of my dogs but she now behaves when I rattle the buckle. The kid is not as smart ( I blame the mother). Anyway, I picked the belt up and whacked the afore-mentioned little shit as hard as I could. On his bare leg. Big red mark. Lots of jumping up and down, yelling and screaming followed. I really enjoyed it.
Vote:Needless to say the little shit learned his lesson and will not repeat his bad behaviour. So far anyway. You would think that kids in their thirties would know better than to disrespect their parents ( I blame the mother).
March 20th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
johnbt
I could not give a shit if you hit your kids, however if you hit your dog with a strap when I am around I will take that strap and shove it up your arse.
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
big blouse is a SPCA smack officer.
Vote:March 20th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
big bruv, I would like to see you try. My dogs might not like it. However, the dog is a Malamute and if you think that gentle persuasion will teach her to be nice you should stick to pitbulls. She is now six and a half and it is at least four years since she has been smacked. All I have to do is rattle the buckle. I believe it is called a Pavlovian response.
Vote:Then there is my rotty bull mastiff cross who weighs in at 60 kilos. To be mean to him I use the F word.
The reason I smacked my son was that he blew smoke in my dogs face and thought it funny (I blame the mother).
I do not abuse my animals or my children but my point was that , at times, a smack can be effective in stopping bad behaviour.
March 20th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
big bruv said: I could not give a shit if you hit your kids, however if you hit your dog with a strap when I am around I will take that strap and shove it up your arse.
Now, bruv, that’s what I don’t get about you. You are passionate about animal welfare (as am I) but for some reason seem to think it is okay to treat kids worse than you treat dogs.
In your book the arguments re “resonable force for the purpose of correction” don’t apply to the poor pooch caught destroying the vegetable patch, but do apply to the child who does the same thing. I just don’t get it.
Oh and as for: Not really necessary Toad, that type of trolling is what we expect from Greenfly and Mickey, you are way better than that mate.
How am I to defend myself? Usually, I would put up the evidence to support my contention that the Timaru riding crop woman is a vicious thug. But in this case, as DPF has pointed out in deleting part of my earlier post relating to this, there is a court order preventing me from doing so. So I’m on a hiding to nothing, even though I know I am right.
Vote: