A reader e-mails on the anti-smacking law
Some extracts from an e-mail a reader sent to me. I suspect he speaks for many people:
I would like politicians to know why the anti-smacking debate is important to me and people like me– This is why National and John Key need to be be careful about something that they consider unimportant.
I voted for John Key in the last election but I voted for Helen Clark in 1999 and 2002. I like John Key and believe his positive attitude is good for New Zealand but if he continues making those statements like yesterday I will vote for Labour again, or ACT (at least Rodney is against this bill). This is not a threat just a fact. Myself and my wife believe that the Government should spend my money to pave the roads, keep my safe and provide a bit of entertainment (ah la Richard Worth). I expect nothing from the government unless I am completely screwed. (that is why I would hate to vote for Labour again)
I am a father of 3 girls ages 5 and under. I have never smacked two of them and the other one (who I love equally) does get smacked about twice a year. She is stronger willed and more likely to bully the others. She is probably more like to succeed tooJ
The reason I am so angry with JK’s attitude is because I have to deal with the normal bullshit everyone else has to deal with like housing costs, bills, rates etc but the fact that if my wife or I feel that a smack is deserved occasionally is my business not anyone else’s. The fact that CYFS can take our children away if we break this law would destroy us. Therefore we will do whatever we decide to keep our little world together, even it means voting for someone I don’t like because I don’t expect any from the government I really don’t care who’s there. Most of my friends are the same we all work hard and try our best to bring up good children (we don’t all succeed every day). …
I know that an occasional smack works with some children and makes them better people. This is not a debate that Plunket (who have lost touch with parents) and the Government need to worry about as there are thousands of Parents who “know” the same thing. New Zealand is basically a good country and it is the fear that my children could be taken away that is more important to me than any economic policy, climate change strategy or social welfare policy could ever be. If I lose my job I have my family, if I lose my family I have nothing.
This fear may be unfounded but Sue Bradford’s law does not allow for people like me – people who abide by the law and care about their family. The party (or person) who can allay this fear will win the next election. Chester Burrows amendment to s59. I thought was perfect. It would actually secure them the next election by implementing the wishes of the people.
I am sending this email because John Key lost more votes with his attitude over the smacking referendum then he will ever lose over Richard Worth, Melissa Lee or Christine Rankin combined – none of them effected my life, this bill does.
I want John Key to be our Prime Minister after 2011 but he needs to understand he needs to treat this issue with respect. The thought of Phil Goff being the next PM is horrible but it might happen if John Key thinks this current law works – it doesn’t because it makes parents criminals.
I encouraged the reader to send his e-mail to the PM and his local National MP.
![](http://a3.twimg.com/profile_images/387476525/rainbows_1024x768_normal.jpg" rel="image){kind=small}
June 18th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Just fyi,
John Boscawen’s member’s bill is basically Chester Burrow’s ammendment.
Hopefully it gets pulled out today.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Sounds like the ‘Fear’ that the old lady had during the US presidential elections when she told John McCain [Re. Barack Obama presidency] ‘Hes a muslim!’
Fear constructed by the lies and slander spread by political opponents, in NZ the likes of Family Fi(r?)st
June 18th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
John Key’s refusal to take a position on the referendum is disgusting political cowardice.
If that’s the best he can do for the people of NZ then he can pack his damn bags and fuck off.
Bring back Don brash.
He at least had some personal courage and conviction.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I am sending this email because John Key lost more votes with his attitude over the smacking referendum then he will ever lose over Richard Worth, Melissa Lee or Christine Rankin combined – none of them effected my life, this bill does.
I know I’m pissing into the wind here, but this bill will only affect your readers life if he assaults his children so severely that the police decide to prosecute him for assault, at which point the Bradford bill will prevent him from being aquitted on the grounds of reasonable force.
So if he’s planning to seriously assault his children and expects to end up in court for it then the new section 59 bill will have a big impact on his life and he should definitely vote to have the Bradford amendment repealed, if he’s simply going to smack his kids now and then it will have even less of an impact on his day to day life than Worth, Rankin etc.
[DPF: You should read his e-mail more carefully. His fear is not the Police but CYFS. All it takes is for a kid to mention to a teacher that Daddy once smacked her, and the teachers tells CYFS. ]
June 18th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
The writer is correct in everything he says. The bill is not working as it should. Sure the Police are not doing much prosecuting but they are interfering needlessly in family privacy and intimidating parents. They are reporting to CYPS and parents are placed in limbo often for months, powerless at the tyranny of their offspring..One recent talkback anecdote was of a 7 yo. who following the coaching of her schoolteacher reported a parent for smacking her to the Police. The Police visited and reported her to CYPS. CYPS went through the process and decided no further action was needed and advised the parent eight months later…SOCIALIST would say that this type of benevolent oversight shows the law is working. NATIONAL and JOHN KEY should state the contrary.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Excellent. Let’s hope Key gets a clue and listens about this issue, it’s not done and dusted and if he brushes it aside he’s on track to being one-term Johnny. Take note John, you’re losing confidence from people who voted you in.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Disgusting, draconian, socialist law. Government needs to get the hell out of our lives.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
DPF – you are absolutely spot on in your assessment of sentiment. I think this referendum will produce a result that will compel our politicians to change the law more because of symbolism and emotion than anything else. A change will have to be seen to be made that re-empowers parents with the right to bring up their children as they see fit. It will be a symbolic kick in the goollies for political correctness and the nanny state. John Key needs to smarten up quickly on this issue.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
The repeal of Section 59 did not affect arresting behaviour.
Anyone who says differently is selling something.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Danyl, it is not about whether parents are actually likely to be prosecuted for a smack, but the fact that they are made to feel like criminals for doing so. It’s not about how many prosections, it’s about how the parents are made to feel.
That’s what Key obviously doesn’t get, as apparently a lot of people don’t get. This law makes us feel bad. I tend to try to not let people who make me feel bad have too much influence in my life. So I will vote against someone who makes me feel bad.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
“I am sending this email because John Key lost more votes with his attitude over the smacking referendum then he will ever lose over Richard Worth, Melissa Lee or Christine Rankin combined – none of them effected my life, this bill does.”
I have been a cheer leader for John Key…… Until now.
As far as I am concerned he has lost my respect for his stance on this issue, it is clearly very important to a great many NZ’ers and his dismissal of it is appalling, he had nothing to lose and everything to gain.
This was his opportunity to consolidate support and he blew it.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“Bring back Don brash.
He at least had some personal courage and conviction.”
That he completely sold out on once he had a shot. His liberal beliefs all went out the window.
But facts has always been irrelevant to your rants Redbaiter, so why would this be any different.
Understand the writer of this emails concern’s, but I believe the fear is more based on the misinformed reporting on this issue by the media and lobying by lobby groups than the reality of how this law is in fact being implemented. If this turns out to be not the case JK has said as much that it will be adjusted.
Scaremongering.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Danyl, why do you, an intelligent person tow the party line with this garbage?. You know as well as I do that Bradfords law was about (and only about), implementing radical human rights ideology on NZ parents.
Have some self respect.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
A law which most people ignore is “working”…can anyone spot a beer-related advert in there anywhere?
If anyone (this means you JK or you Ms Bradford) is at all unsure about the difference between a “smack as part of good parental correction” and, oh I don’t know, a punch in the teeth…let me know, I’m happy to demonstrate.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Danyl, it is not about whether parents are actually likely to be prosecuted for a smack, but the fact that they are made to feel like criminals for doing so. It’s not about how many prosections, it’s about how the parents are made to feel . . . This law makes us feel bad.
What’s your address? I’ll send you a tampon.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
What a delightfully refreshing post.
I have three children, the eldest is 14, youngest is 9. they are high achievers in school, blue/red belts in karate and competent musicians (shameless boasting I know, but hey, I love my kids.)
All were smacked at one time or other when they were little (the middle one by far the most), although all smacking pretty much stopped completely after the age of five. they had learned their lessons and were old enough to be reasoned with. It seemed to work for us anyway.
I know people who don’t believe in any corporal punishment for their kids, and if it works, good for them. But I have a natural abhorrence for people who have never, and will never spend a cent on my kids yet seem to think they have the divine right to come into my home and tell me how I have to raise them.
Bugger off is all I can say.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
RightNow, The only person making you feel bad is yourself… perhaps if you didn’t hit your kids you would have nothing to feel bad about.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Danyl, it is not about whether parents are actually likely to be prosecuted for a smack, but the fact that they are made to feel like criminals for doing so. It’s not about how many prosections, it’s about how the parents are made to feel . . . This law makes us feel bad.
Seriously though – do you ever slap your partners ass? Do you play rugby or any other kind of contact sport? Martial arts? Ever sparred with someone during training?
If so, did you FEEL BAD knowing that you were technically committing assault, even though the police were never, ever going to prosecute? Did any of these things make you feel like a criminal? Or did you not even think about that idea for a second because it’s so obviously absurd?
June 18th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
And redbaiter I think you are right on the money.
JK seems incapable of seeing anything wrong with the law. He still thinks getting into bed with HC was a brilliant thing to do rather than letting her hang herself.
Maybe he just can’t admit he is wrong. I see Garth is trying to see him to outline lots of incidents where good parents have been penalised/prosecuted. I wonder if he’ll make time to see him?
June 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Danyl Mclauchlan (522) Vote: 1 1 Says:
June 18th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
What’s your address? I’ll send you a tampon.
Just send it care of Sue Bradford, and don’t forget your return address because I’ll be looking forward to her coming round and paying you a visit.
Really good response Danyl, but can I suggest you need all the tampons you have, you c**t.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Someone should send this reader a fresh pillow, so that when our new Smacking Police Overlords (whom I, for one, welcome) come to take his babies away he will have something to sob into. He won’t need it, but the message might start to sink in.
Honestly the histrionics around “The Anti-Smacking” law have cheapened the discussion to the point where it just isn’t worth it anymore.
Bin your referendum paper – it bears very little resemblance to anything in S59 (even if you’ve read it) and is blatantly leading you to vote “Hell No – how dare the gummint tell me how to be a good parent!”.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
A law that doesn’t allow for the law abiding is the killer.
Bradfords bill removed the defence of reasonable force. It simply defies reason. This one issue was the most polarising bill of the Clark years, and with more people against it than any other.
All politicians foregt this at their peril.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
No, because there is the defence of consent (admittedly an issue the courts have been a bit fuzzy on). The repeal of s59 removed the equivalent defence for parents.
Got any more crap arguments, Danyl?
June 18th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Seriously though – do you ever slap your partners ass? Do you play rugby or any other kind of contact sport? Martial arts? Ever sparred with someone during training?
I don’t recall any MPs bringing a private member’s bill specifically to ensure that those things are counted as crimes of assault. If one ever does, it will become a legitimate comparison – but until then, it’s not.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Oh, the middle class outrage.
Some evidence would be nice – how many parents have been turned into criminals because of this law exactly??
And haven’t these whingers ever heard of a chinese burn? Or psychological torture? Where’s their imagination??
June 18th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
“I know I’m pissing into the wind here, but this bill will only affect your readers life if he assaults his children so severely that the police decide to prosecute him for assault, at which point the Bradford bill will prevent him from being aquitted on the grounds of reasonable force.”
And it is very unlikely that it will be used by anti-smacking weirdos to force their bizarre ideology on the rest of NZ.
It is also impossible that the law will lead to miscarraiges of justice.
Hang on, I just thought of something. Removing the defense of reasonable force means that reasonable force is no longer a defense. It removes discretion in judgement. It means if you smack your child, and somehow through some fluke you end up in front of a judge, you will not be able to say the smack was reasonable.
Checks and balances. Nice things to have in a justice system. Shame Bradford doesnt agree. Then again, she IS a Green.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
there you go point proven.
Already the comments are riddled with lies and misinformation.
Always good to see bullshit anecdotal points aswell ‘my kids are fine and I smacked them’ yeh well I wasnt smacked and I’m fine. douche.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Wow, whoever this dumb shit is I stopped reading after this paragraph:
I voted for John Key in the last election but I voted for Helen Clark in 1999 and 2002. I like John Key and believe his positive attitude is good for New Zealand but if he continues making those statements like yesterday I will vote for Labour again, or ACT (at least Rodney is against this bill).
It’s ignorant people like you that are the reason there’s populism rather than principles in politics.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
“yeh well I wasnt smacked and I’m fine.”
No you’re not, you’re a socialist. Sure sign of something desperately wrong.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
“If so, did you FEEL BAD knowing that you were technically committing assualt, even though the police were never, ever going to prosecute? Did any of these things make you feel like a criminal? Or did you not even think about that idea for a second because it’s so obviously absurd?”
Danyl, your rosy little idealistic example does not wash in reality however.
I contacted my school about the bullying of my son, and subsequently agreed to a visit from the school social worker.
After she sat down in my living room to discuss the issue she eventually, out of no where asked my boy “what happens when you are naughty” to which he answered “its none of your business” (he was 6 at the time) after a very uncomfortable pause she said that due to the law she was required to ask the question regarding smacking, I assume much like the domestic abuse question asked of women whenever they come into contact with the system.
This is NOT about child abuse, it is about ideology shift with an agressive implementation taking place primarily based on guilting parents such as my wife and myself.
The only reason we were not investigated was due to the social worker saying “I won’t write that down” when my wife indicated we do ocasionally smack our kids. It came down entirely to the political oppinion of the social worker whether we would be investigated by the gestapo.
Remember, my boy was being assaulted at school under the care of the state, I try to do the right thing, and all of a sudden I have a social worker in my house asking us about smacking!!
This is social engineering, end of story.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Nothing the current Government has done has made me as angry. Canned the tax cuts. Fine. Going ga-ga over climate change. Fine. Can’t help that there seems to be a world-wide push to make money off the new kyoto tax scheme. NZ being part of it I have to bear with gritted teeth while reduced sunspot activity is making the planet colder.
Like the writer of the email I can cope with insanity around me. Just.
But when that insanity is a constant, indirect threat to my family that the Prime Minister thinks is nothing, when he thinks that the referendum question can be ignored, never-mind that it is a really clear, easily understandable question. And he knows what it means. Only an idiot would not understand it.
I am just furious. I voted for National this time around because Labour is scary. Labour’s social engineering ideas are off the planet. Financial measures are easily rolled back in comparison to the social changes that government is imposing upon the country.
This issue is THE TEST of what this Government stands for. And they are failing, horrendously.
I still remember what John Key looked like when he helped Helen Clark pass that bill. He was happy. He was pleased with himself. He looked like he was finally in with the big boys, nevermind that he walked all over the good parents of NZ in doing so.
The gloves are now off at NZ Conservative. National and JK gets no more wait and see from me.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
“JK seems incapable of seeing anything wrong with the [anti-smacking] law.”
Is JK supporting the leading New Zealand Child Expert from Baarnaadoze who heads the Vote Yes Please Campaign and is making money out of a scandalous if not defamatory attack on the Vote No Campaign under the slippery mask of humour. Be prepared to be offended! This expert demonstrates how light smacking for naughtiness (disobedience, dishonesty, disrespect and dirt-digging etc.) leads to neurological hyperarousal, which in turn can increase anxiety, attention deficits, hyperactivity and general distress in children”. A MUST SEE video (graphic salacious satire content documented with actual phone text records).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfrwuBxc5w8
June 18th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Amazing that so many people say that parents are not stopped from smacking by this bill and then want to defend that it is needed.
Even when it is clear that it has done NOTHING to protect one single child.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
It’s done very little of anything at all. So why all the concern about it?
The only children it was ever going to protect were the people who beat their children then get off by using S59 – and that’s not many.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Then why is it needed at all Ryan?
Why the need to abuse and brand everyone against with extremist retoric like Bradford did?
June 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
This email should also be submitted to newspapers as an op ed.
Of course the police and CYFs would keep a low profile on this while there is a referendum in the wind and also while there is a National govt.
Things could easily change down the track. How about teachers surveying children about how parents discipline them (a child could use this as leverage against parents, something anecdotal evidence suggests is already happening). Or how about CYFs Plunkett etc giving parents a questionaire asking how they discipline. Very feasible given the right political cover.
The fear felt by the writer of this email is real and logical. John Key would gain huge kudos if he pushed for the Borrows amendment which is all it would take to remove that fear.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
And why this expensive crusade Ryan? Why did Bradford’s bill get through in the first place? It seems there was a single incident over the last ten years, where a mother used a riding crop on her child and was let off with the reasonable force defence. Surely the issue should have been about the judge in that case?
June 18th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
DPF, any chance of finding out how much govt funded NGOs are spending on their Vote Yes campaign? The fact they can use my money to lobby for something I am totally opposed to absolutely disgusts me, and, imo, amounts to a full blown scandal.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
And the support by Unicef for the Yes vote is the very reason they no longer receive my monthly donation.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
The principle of a law that is not designed to be upheld is pretty nonsensical. If there is to be a law in this matter then it should either allow smacking or prevent it. Police discretion should not come into it – they should not be seen or used as judges.
Which means that the current law is an ass, and when faced with law-makers making ass-laws, just how are we expected to earn respect for the law – Do the law-makers want us to feel that it is ok to break laws? Or do they want me to feel like I am a criminal because I have smacked my child?
If you want to criminalise child-beating – then how about criminalising child-beating (but define that clearly). The law-making abilities of the previous government was pretty crap – here is a chance for National to do something about at least one of the crap laws. Unfortunately, with a populist leader, it won’t be touched with a bargepole in case national becomes ‘associated’ with the debate…
June 18th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Chris G said “there you go point proven.
Already the comments are riddled with lies and misinformation.”
Indeed Chris G – “lies and misinformation” directly from your keyboard – given that it was YOU who wrote (@12.13pm)
“Fear constructed by the lies and slander spread by political opponents, in NZ the likes of Family Fi(r?)st”
Your deliberate slur does wonders for your credibility.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
If parents “are made to feel like criminals” – why doesn’t the media stop calling it the “anti-smacking law” or “so-called anti-smacking law” and call it the ammendment to section 59 of the crimes Act to start with – that might stop some of the paranoia
June 18th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
If John Key ignores the results of the referendum (and we all know what the result will be), I bet there will be greater civil unrest than Helen ever caused.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I don’t recall any MPs bringing a private member’s bill specifically to ensure that those things are counted as crimes of assault. If one ever does, it will become a legitimate comparison – but until then, it’s not.
There was no section in the crimes act that allowed someone to be aquitted of assaulting their wife on the grounds that consent to be assaulted was implied, nor was there a section that allowed you to assault me without fear of conviction on the grounds that we were members of opposing rugby teams.
If those things DID exist then presuambly they’d get amended out after a couple of high profile cases, just like the section 59 amendment. And presumably we’d hear the same hysterical nonsense about how the government was preventing ordinary people from playing rugby, slapping their partners ass etc.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Every parent who has smacked their child since the law was passed. Just because they are not caught, investigated or proscecuted doesn’t mean, according to the law, that they did not commit a criminal act. A burglar who steals and doesn’t get caught it still a criminal in the eye of the law. A drink driver who makes it home is still a criminal.
John Key has misread this one. Big Time.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Parents ARE living in fear – whether justified or not, this is what the whole hoo-haa over this bill has done. It makes you second guess every little step you take when out in public with your kids, no over zealous affectionate touching, no leaving them in the car, no harnessing them (but better not lose them in the shop!), don’t talk too sternly, don’t grab too roughly when trying to get them to leave, don’t smack AT ALL (even if it’s a personal safety issue – who wants the hassle of defending yourself) – it’s all a fear we have to deal with that we shouldn’t be.
So, is it illegal for a 5yo to hit his mother as my child did the other day? If I laid a complaint would he be taken off me? If I was home he would’ve gotten a smack and time out, alas we were in public, and I had to have stern words with him – you should’ve seen the cheeky grin on his face.
Most of the disciplinary measures you can use when in public have an element of force about them, whether it be holding their arm firmly as you frogmarch them back to the car. Carrying them with a very firm grip as they throw their little bodies around in a tantrum (because they don’t care if they fall, and the parent would probably be to blame then too). Threatening to leave them behind is completely negligent. Even holding them still while you try to talk to them is restraining them.
Oh yes, it must be my lack of parenting skills that my child isn’t perfect 100% of the time.
This law has me worried about how I am perceived as a parent, it makes me wary of how I behave in public with my kids. It sometimes puts me on edge, and causes arguements with my husband (he has a devil-may-care attitude). Was this the goal? To make parents, who are already stressed and strung-out from the incredibly demanding job that they do, second guess every parenting step they take?
Parents are human, subject to human emotions, and human frailties, however this law makes us feel demoralised, because we are supposed to be superhuman, and in control, and on top of everything all the time. My child is ALLOWED to express his emotions, but I am SuperMum – and I should be above it all, and able to cope with everything, and still have a lovely dinner in the oven.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Radbaiter said: Bring back Don brash. He at least had some personal courage and conviction.
And he knew how to lose elections.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Redbaiter said: No you’re not, you’re a socialist. Sure sign of something desperately wrong.
Ah, the social engineering agenda of the hard right – smack your kids to ensure they grow up to be capitalists.
Not sure it works though ‘baiter – more likely they’ll grow up to be thugs and child abusers.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
The vast majority of people who want to thrash their kids are pin headed christians.
Let’s see what god says about child thrashing.
From Genesis “22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.”
from Deuteronomy “21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear
from Proverbs 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
19:18 Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying
29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.
Ah yes, this is their loving god.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
It should be noted that various other Western Democracies have battled with similar legislative motives, but usually relied on a more accurate definition of smacking vs child abuse to resolve the issue of using reasonable force as a defence. This is so bleedingly obvious (and hence extremely understandable why Bradford didn’t get it), but to continue this idiotic charade when the opportunity exists to repair it is beyond the pale. To use the sledgehammer/walnut anbalogy would be pertinent here, if it weren’t so likely that the social engineering aspect was actually an intended consequence (the imposed guilt etc… for those that feel it…).
June 18th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
MNIJ – take your religious hate-speech elsewhere – please!
June 18th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Nickle complains his 5yo hit his mother – and if the father had been home the child would have got a smack …. hmmm – how can you fail to see what you are teaching your son?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
iv2, if you think this is hate speech, take it up with the bloke who wrote the bible, not me. I am the messenger, just quoting some of what the “good book” has to say.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
RightNow said: …it is not about whether parents are actually likely to be prosecuted for a smack, but the fact that they are made to feel like criminals for doing so.
So if they don’t want to fell like criminals, then they don’t smack. Easy!
June 18th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Someone on another thread came up with one – Jimmy Mason, who witnesses saw punch his child in the mouth – Rakaia George. there’s one who doesn’t know the difference. Go for it.
I’m not living in fear.
Haven’t heard any other parents of my acquaintance who’ve expressed such fear either. Maybe they’re fearing on the inside. Maybe it’s just you?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
MNIJ, you are a bigot, a liar, and an Idot. Keep posting. You offer the right plenty of ‘credibity by contrast’ when you spew hatred like that.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Toad
Who the fuck are you to tell the rest of us how to raise our kids?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
And even if it were true, the debate isn’t about the right *thrash* kids anyway…
June 18th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I am intrigued by this ‘fear’ thing.
I am a parent. I know lots of parents. Some of them may have at some time given a smack. None of them gives a toss about this law. Not one. To anyone I know it is an irrelevance – they don’t worry about it at all. An the referendum is a joke cos of the botched question.
And yet in the blogsphere, its all about who’s afraid of the big bad anti-smacking bill.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
no reread Nickles comment – child would have got a smack if at home, but because they were out she had stern words with him … the “cheeky grin” no doubt made her angry – but she had to caution her behaviour becasue she was in public. this is why we need restraint in our laws. Because acting out of anger is dangerous to children and only teaches them to act in the same way. Why is there a tolerance for a parent to do this to a child. My grandsons trantrum – we sometmes restrain them – but we teach ourselves to act with love and firmness and restrain our anger.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
# toad (1162) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 1 Says:
June 18th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Radbaiter said: Bring back Don brash. He at least had some personal courage and conviction.
And he knew how to lose elections.
He might, but you guys have far more experience.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Possibly, but what’s your criticism? “Sorry, you judged badly, because we can scientifically measure only a 4.73 level of reasonableness in the force used.”
The question is not why did Bradford’s bill get through in the first place. The question is why didn’t it just go quietly through, making a minor change with no effect on arresting behaviour and no need for all of this nonsense?
The answer is:
1. Sue Bradford was making a symbolic step against smacking – or perhaps a first step towards the further goal of banning smacking.
2. Conservative lobby groups saw it as a symbolic step against smacking – or perhaps a first step towards the further goal of banning smacking.
3. Both knew that the public wouldn’t particularly care about it if they understood how inconsequential the law change was.
4. Both therefore made it out to be the far more radical change it wasn’t – an “anti-smacking law”.
5. Meanwhile, the media sells more papers and gets more viewers if something is a raging controversy, so there was a strong incentive for them to avoid informing the public and rather play on their misinformed emotions.
6. Labour and National played to the misinformation also, seeing it as an opportunity to gain support from an emotional and misinformed public in the lead-up to an election.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Though I will again point out that the only time I heard anyone note that bumping into someone on the street is also assault was John Key on Close Up.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Sounded to me like it was the “witnesses” that needed the lesson, seeing as how the police were unable to present evidence of any injury to the child…
June 18th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
MNIJ, you are a bigot, a liar, and an Idot. Keep posting. You offer the right plenty of ‘credibity by contrast’ when you spew hatred like that.
Hatred? Direct quotes from the bible. Well, yes, god DOES seem to have a lot of hatred for his ceations. Have any of you ever bothered to read the thing?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
So in fact, this guy wasn’t criminalised by the law then? Is there anyone who has been?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
R”Sounded to me like it was the “witnesses” that needed the lesson, seeing as how the police were unable to present evidence of any injury to the child…”
I believe Mason pleaded guilty to the charge…
June 18th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Yeah, but it was probably the pinhead crack that got you labelled a bigot & an idiot.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Slightly off topic, but since MNIJ is quoting scripture here, I enjoyed this exchange on frogblog:
June 18th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
So he’s the only one criminalised so far? Poor victim.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Redbaiter (6553) Vote: 4 4 Says:
June 18th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
“yeh well I wasnt smacked and I’m fine.”
No you’re not, you’re a socialist. Sure sign of something desperately wrong.
Actually your incoherrent ramblings are a poster child for how brain damage can be caused at a very young age.
Ryan 2.13pm very good post.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
“Seth had stopped at the corner. He looked down at his brother, lying on the ground, slipping in and out of conciousness. He saw the concern on his dad’s face, and heard him say “wait Seth, we have to look after Zach”. Whether or not he understood how serious the situation, it was with loving fatherly discipline that Jimmy flicked his son on the ear as he started peddling away.
An off-duty police-officer stood nearby, and she immediately reported the incident. With a few minutes, six uniformed police officers stood around the Man and his two little boys. As Jimmy cradled his injured toddler in his lap, one policemen pulled out his notebook as another pulled out his radio and spoke brusquely to head-office.” – From Family First website
Witnesses included an off duty police officer and a school teacher. The assault on the child included swearing and the child was struck on the head by the father. The incident occured across the road from the police station, hence the vigorous attention of the police. The father was eventually charged with assaulting both his children although all but one of the charges were dropped and the judge ordered him to attend anger management. Police said the charges would also have been laid against the father prior to the change in section 59
We systematically trained your young children to stop on command. Before they were capable of doing so, we acted as if they were completely untrustworthy in situations near traffic – which they were.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
MNIJ,For someone who claims there is no God and the Bible is but a fairy tale you seem to spend an inordinate time quoting from it. Perhaps you know where the real true lies but your pig ignorant pride over rules your ability to see the truth in your bible quotes.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Interesting analysis on the issue of parents becoming criminals here…
I’d suggest your ‘reader’ reads it.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
The reasons for the quotes is simple – scratch those who are promoting this spurious referendum with its loaded and misleading question and you will find a bible waving fundie xtian pinhead. Quoting from their source text gives background to the anger and violence that informs their mindset. They worship an angry and violent god, is it any wonder they are angry and violent themselves? And as “god their father” is violent to them, logic dictates they be violent to their children.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
MNIJ said “iv2, if you think this is hate speech, take it up with the bloke who wrote the bible, not me. I am the messenger, just quoting some of what the “good book” has to say.”
I do MNIJ – I chat with him often! But I’m not the one quoting highly selective verses out of context to make a point.
For example, with the quote from Gen 22, you left out the bit about God sparing Isaac, because of Abraham’s faith. The passage you quoted was meaningless when taken in isolation. Perhaps you also need to read a bit of New Testament scripture – might I be so bold as the suggest Matthew 4, where the Devil quotes scripture at Jesus
PS – You might also like to use a more modern tranlation – might I suggest The Message transliteration…
June 18th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Ryan I agree that probably Bradford’s bill could have just gone quietly through. Alternatively there could have been stronger guidelines for the judiciary which would have achieved the same thing. It seems everybody wanted this to be a bigger story than it needed to be.
I appreciate a goal of working toward raising children without physical discipline. I don’t believe it can be achieved immediately by legislation. There are two major problems with that approach;
Firstly raising children without using other means that can also cause distress (I’ve seen incidents that amount to psychological torture, but hey they didn’t smack their kids)
Secondly to have an effective outreach program to parents to give them the tools and assistance they need to raise their kids in this manner.
To address the proposition that children should be afforded the same rights as adults – what protection under the law does my 4 year old have from being assaulted by other kids?
And saying children should have the same rights as animals – dogs are walked on a leash, and they need to be properly imprisoned (sorry, fenced). Is that the same as what you want for children or is it a case of pick and choose what works for your arguments? Should a child be put down if they bite another child?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
MNIJ – I think the Chirstians probably make up only a portion of those opposed to Bradford’s bill. I’m not one for example, and my reasons have nothing to do with the bible (although my favourite proverb ‘it is better to live on the roof than in the house with a nagging wife’ still holds true, what a timeless classic).
Out of curiosity MNIJ, would you rate smacking a child as better or worse (morally) than killing an unborn child?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
IV2 – “I chat with him often” I doubt that, as chat is a two way convesation. What”s he sound like?
“For example, with the quote from Gen 22, you left out the bit about God sparing Isaac, because of Abraham’s faith.” That doesn’t change the facts that a) god demanded death of a child, b) abraham was prepared to kill his so and c) the traumatic effect it would have had on a child.
You may think that worshipping a bloodthirsty megalomaniac is necessary to ensure your salvation; i prefer to live a good life here and now. And that includes extending protection of the law to children and protecting them from the predators of religion.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
RightNow,
I’m an anarchist at heart. I don’t like top-down solutions to anything. I am very much in favour of the positive educational means you suggest, and I would add that overall spreading attitudes of non-violence in other aspects of our society will have an impact on how we as a society treat our children. I’m not a huge fan of smacking, but I would not like to see the state punishing parents for doing it.
The reason I even involve myself in this debate is because of the sheer breadth of the misunderstanding about it. I wasn’t hugely concerned about the repeal of Section 59 – it was a very minor change to the law. I just get bothered by the almost total ignorance in the public of what the law change did.
News media and politicians both have a responsibility to leave their listeners and viewers clearly informed about these matters. Their collective petty point-scoring, lazy reporting and cynical viewer-grabbing are to blame for almost no one knowing the facts surrounding Section 59. And probably our education system, to boot.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Oddly enough the highest level of anger around here is currently being demonstrated by the commenter who believes least in the existence of any God. Go figure. In any case, anyone hazard a guess as to how many child murderers and violent abusers attend church each Sunday? Is it too many.. or not enough?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
RightNow (87) Vote: 0 0 Says:
June 18th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Out of curiosity MNIJ, would you rate smacking a child as better or worse (morally) than killing an unborn child?
An uborn child cannot be killed as unborn means not living. I believe it is far better to take care of the living. However, this is not a choice between smacking and abortion (as your loaded “unborn child” phrase infers), it is a debate about wether or not children should be afforded the same legal protections from assault as adults.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
John Boscawen’s bill is similar to Chester Borrows’ bill.
http://section59.blogspot.com/2009/05/john-boscawens-private-members-bill.html
I would like to hear from any of the anti-smacking zealots how this could put children at risk.
This argument is not about the safety of children. It is about who knows best how to raise children – the State or the child’s parents.
Parents have had to put up with State meddling and undermining parental authority at school. Underage girls are supplied with the pill and if that does not work abortions are arranged without parent knowledge. The father sometimes is many years older than the underage girl. The authorities are covering up serious crimes against girls in their care. Parents have not objected in mass because it has only happened to a few.
Now the State is intruding into the home with social workers and schools teacher trying to get children to inform on their parents.
The argument will not go away Mr Key. Come the election voters will a clear choice.
They can vote for Helen Clark in drag or vote ACT which believes that parents know better than the State how to raise their children.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
‘it is better to live on the roof than in the house with a nagging wife’
That’s bloody hilarious, though at the same time it’s quite possible that wives had a lot more to nag about back then.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
MNIJ said “IV2 – “I chat with him often” I doubt that, as chat is a two way convesation. What’’s he sound like?”
What’s he sound like? Well, I could answer that, but I reckon it would be better if you found out for yourself. He’s always there, so take a deep breath, and ask away …
June 18th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
In any case, anyone hazard a guess as to how many child murderers and violent abusers attend church each Sunday? Is it too many… Or not enough?
Followed any of the news regarding Catholics and Protestants in Ireland?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/1528939.stm
You’ll also note some of the most notorious murderers are generally people who were abused by their Christian parents as children.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Rebel – MNIJ claimed that people who believe in God are violent towards their children. That’s the height of bigotry wouldn’t you say? So I was asking for an assessment of the correlation between abuse and church attendance. My theory is that those who beat, maim or kill their (or, more probably their partner’s) kids are more likely to be welfare dependent, drug dependent, with dynfunctional non-traditional family structures… and probably agnostic/atheist. Of course there will be exceptions, and no doubt the Christian haters here will hit google to identify these, but IMO overall having a faith is anti-correlated with child abuse.
Edit: Your edit just proved my google point!
June 18th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
MNIJ: unborn doesn’t mean not living, it means the baby is still in the womb. You seem at ease with the mother being free to choose whether to kill the child in her womb, but not to decide to use physical discipline to raise the child should she let it live?
June 18th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
IMO overall having a faith is anti-correlated with child abuse.
Check out God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens – gives heaps of examples of how religious zealots commit horrible atrocities because they have ‘faith’ that it’s what God wants.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
getstaffed (3364) Vote: 0 0 Says:
June 18th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Rebel – MNIJ claimed that people who believe in God are violent towards their children. That’s the height of bigotry wouldn’t you say?
No, I said god is a violent, malevolent, evil, bloodthirsty, genocidal, homicidal mealomaniac. From that, it foolws that those who believe in him will accept those traits as being normal and will themselves have no problems in being violent, malevolent, evil, bloodthirsty, genocidal, homicidal mealomaniacs. Want proof? look at NAZI Germany or facsist Italy and Spain and how full the churches were each Sunday of “ordinary” Germans, Italians and Spaniards who made Hitler’s Mussolini’s and Franco’s vision possible.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Want counter-examples?
June 18th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Only if they prove that the god of the bible is not a violent, malevolent, evil, bloodthirsty, genocidal, homicidal mealomaniac.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Just a retraction of my earlier comment at 2:22pm – Mason did not plead guilty (it pays to check your facts – I don’t know what case I have confused his with…)
June 18th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
You said that it follows that those who believe in him will themselves have no problem in being violent, malevolent, evil, bloodthirsty, genocidal, homicidal megalomaniacs. (Well, mealomaniacs – an eating disorder?)
Then provided proof in the form of Nazis and the like.
That’s where counter-examples come in.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
“genocidal, homicidal mealomaniacs”
“mealomaniac” ?
Is God obese ?
I don’t think the “g” on you keyboard is working particularly well Fugs.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Ryan, its quite simple – were the churches of Germany, Italy and Spain 1933 – 1944 full on Sundays with people worshipping god who then went on and committed heinous acts ther rest of the week? Or did all the christians of Germany, Italy and Spain refuse to be part of the apparatus of killing? In other words, did they act on their beliefs or not>?
June 18th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Which simply proves that theism doesn’t prevent those attitudes and actions.
Your claim was that it follows that theists possess the attitudes you listed. (ie., that the belief causes them.)
June 18th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
You’re right Ryan, theism doesn’t prevent evil, it normalises it, thus making it easier for the perpetrators.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
In some cases, sure.
The same goes for good, though.
Theism doesn’t prevent good, it normalises it, thus making it easier for the do-gooders.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Actually, buy normalising evil, theism DOES prevent good and creates more evil.
People are not naturally evil, they require religion to make them so.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
How interesting.
Conversation has degenerated into Christian bashing.
Again.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
And we’re back to counter-examples.
Nonsense (to the latter).
June 18th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Poor old xtians, cannot accept questioning of their beliefs, have to turn themselves into victims. After 1800 years of persecuting othes, the worm turned and they’re uncomfortable about it, if only they could bring back the Inquisition.
Lucyna, stop playing the victim card and start addressing the disgusting habits of your fellow travellers.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
People are not naturally evil, they require religion to make them so.
And the answer, said the judge. If God meant to interfere in the degeneracy of mankind would he not have done so by now? Wolves cull themselves, man. What other creature could? And is the race of man not more predacious yet? The way of the world is to bloom and to flower and die but in the affairs of men there is no waning and the noon of his expression signals the onset of night. His spirit is exhausted at the peak of its achievement. His meridian is at once his darkening and the evening of his day. He loves games? Let him play for stakes. This you see here, these ruins wondered at by tribes of savages, do you not think that this will be again? Aye. And again. With other people, with other sons.
– Blood Meridian
June 18th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Hey MyNameISJack and Danyl McLauchlan:
Can we get back to smacking and the law?
Who gives a monkey’s whether your personal morality is based on the Golden Rule or whether there can be a golden rule with out a religion. Looks like you guys are nihilists to me. But that’s irrelevant to this debate.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
yeah – they’ve kind of taken over with a lot puffing and blowing …
June 18th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
MNIJ – Why do you spend so much time explaining your hatred of Christians? You must be a complete mess inside.
FWIW my business partner is an ardent atheist. We disagree on plenty, but you’d never know it because we focus our professional efforts and personal friendship on the things that we have in common. It works really well. You should try it.
But instead you seem to want to run around screaming into people faces, telling them how warped, disgusting and pathetic they are – in absolute terms of course, never just in your opinion.
As I sad to borker the other day, if these was the slightest chance than becoming an atheist would make as intolerant, bigoted and downright nasty as you then I’d simultaneously convert to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity.. anything really to prevent me becoming as ill as you clearly are.
Get some help.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Lucia, I think religion bashing is more appropriate. I’m sure MNIJ feels equally negative about Islam as he clearly does about Christianity, and no doubt Judeaism. I also think (and I’m giving him a bit of credit here) that he is not actually bashing genuine Christians (i.e. those that get the basic principle in the teaching of Christ was to love one another) but rather the organisations that often seem to care more about protecting their institutions and having big expensive buildings to show how great their god must be, and those that commit outright murder in the name of their gods.
There is a lot to bash, and there is also much to hold up and respect, such as the social services like the food banks, soup kitchens, counselling services. There is a lot these organisations do that fills the holes left by successive governments (left or right, there seems to be more demand for social services than what the government provides for).
MNIJ is over-generalising but there is some truth to the arguments he puts forward. I’ve read (mostly from the USA) of cases of fundamentalist Christians causing death to their children through extreme discipline. But as a proportion of the population I doubt that is more rife than cases of child deaths caused by atheist parents. I think people don’t have to be religious to be nutbars. And in either case it is not something that would be covered by any clause in s59 anyway.
MNIJ, I put it to you that more people have been killed in recent history in the name of socialism than in the name of religion.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
getstaffed (3365) Vote: 0 1 Says:
June 18th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
MNIJ – Why do you spend so much time explaining your hatred of Christians?
I guess its all about the rank hypocrisy of christians, the vast majority of whom have never actually read the bible, they just regurgitate their childhood indoctrinations.
But its not hatred of xtians, it is an antipathy to the destructive nature of all religions.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Ok – here’s my view you lot … humans are capable of violence and killing each other. They are also (and not necessarily the same ones) quite capable of great love and selflessness. – You are not going to win on a “He says She says” type of regious- anti-religious debate …. the only outcome is you’re going to keep arguing till you get bored and stop ….
June 18th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
The writer sums up the situation very well and reflects the views of the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders. With four children I also found that the discipline required for each child was totally different. Raising my voice for one was sufficient yet one of the boys normally required a smack to get into line. This one method works for all is absolute rubbish. John Key better amend his ways rapidly as the honeymoon is over! To ignore the strong message from good concerned New Zealanders would be a great mistake!
June 18th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
On the wording of the questionnaire. The referendum question is unfortunate. It is ambiguous and leading on many levels. To include the word ‘good’ in a referendum question is not good. The mere inclusion of such a leading term greatly increases the liklihood of affirming responses which is prejudicial. It’s simplistic, for instance what does ‘smack’ define? An open palm only? does it mean an open palm to the head, serious enough ouf of the family home to constitute a likely successful assault charge? does it mean closed fists? it is no use to say ‘of course it means such and such, u idiot’ because I guarantee you that people will and do apportion different meanings to the word smack. The use of the word ‘criminal’ again is leading and prejudicial, think of the question with ‘criminal’ removed. I suspect you feel a reduced reponse of hostility to the question, and take a more objective, measured approach. Of course no one wants to be a criminal, ever, so how can you answer ‘yes’ to being deemed a criminal for doing something ‘good’? There is a legitimate issue over CYPS involvement etc, but for all of you true blues out there you have to see that this question cannot and will not give an accurate viewpoint of the popular consenus on this issue. A question should be asked, but the wording needs to be changed. I admit growing up I needed and deserved a smack at times, but just remember there is a lot of domestic violence in this country, a lot, and much of it is decidedly unreasonable. This bill seeks to protect those kids who are suffering major punishment who dont necessarily deserve it, and gives them a means of redress. The question then becomes, to prevent inconvenience (albeit severe) to parents, should actually vulnerable kids pay the price?
June 18th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
How many thousands of words have been posted about this bloody smacking thing? All about the pros and cons of smacking/disciplining kids.
You are all pissing into the wind and as long as your arse points down you will never convince the ‘other side’ of your point of view.
The ‘smacking bill’ has got nothing at all to do with the welfare of the nations children. It’s all about OWNERSHIP …. the government wants to OWN all of you people. Both sides of the fence. And the lefty lickspittles with their frontal lobotomies want to help them.
A bill introduced by an MP that was not voted in, working for a socialist people engineering party that got into power with the barest minimum of votes is controlling how a whole nation can raise their OWN children, it is an absolute disgrace.
I just can’t believe how anyone can support this as an acceptable situation.
If John Key wants to treat us as ballot numbers, as the previous disgusting government did, he’s lost my vote.
Be a good poll for you to do DPF …. “How does John’s attutude affect your view of National?” “Good, Bad or Ugly?”
June 18th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
MyNameIsJack , Jesus loves you bro, let it go, its over.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Amen to that Shunda
June 18th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Yes… and that’s the point. NZers are being asked to give their interpretation, not some pre-packaged, outcome pre-determined wording collated by polititians who have proven themselves completely full of contempt for the democratic process. If you feel that wording invites aliens to dinner and you don’t like that idea then vote no. or abstain.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Would love to see MNIJ in a fox hole, have been told atheists are rather thin on the ground when it comes to hiding in fox holes.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Key has stuffed up. He will have kicked his own National rank and file in the guts here.
One minute National the next Labour Soft/Maori.
Mr Jandal (AKA Flip flop) strikes again. Sorry John but it is true.
Sometimes, John, you have to make a decision that isn’t “Compromise/hold the centre ground” because sometimes
people like a leader to be a just that and sometimes the centreground is a quicksand.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
“But its not hatred of xtians, it is an antipathy to the destructive nature of all religions.”
I can’t help myself, here are some figures for action Jackson:
Deaths attributed to Christianity.
The crusades 1 000 000
The Spanish inquisition 350 000
Witch hunts 100 000
That is just terrible and is clearly a result of “some” deluded people.
Now the deaths from atheist based regimes from only the 20th century:
Marxist China 77 277 000
Soviet Russia 61 911 000
I think I would rather Christians had more say regarding parenting than Atheists, they seem a little less “destructive”
June 18th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
If you want a way to begin fix this country, then…
-bring back corporal punishment.
-bring back smacking
-kick the girly boys out of the country.
June 18th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
wreck1080, the “girly boys” are everywhere man. Bring back Buck and smack Bradford types into kingdom come.
June 18th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
WebWrat: If John Key wants to treat us as ballot numbers, as the previous disgusting government did, he’s lost my vote.
He had your vote? You must be as stupid as the person who wrote the letter in David’s OP and didn’t know the difference between voting for Labour and ACT. It’s pathetic how all of a sudden people like you get on your moral high horses and think your vote is something that has any value or worth that you can brag about. Key made the compromise with Clark BEFORE the election, yet you still went ahead and voted for him. Therefore it’s your own fault for being such an idiot in the first place dumbass.
June 18th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
None of you will know the effects of this draconian ownership of your lives until it comes into your home. Twelve yr old daughter has a disagreement with her hard working solo dad. Disagreement because an 18 yr old was hitting on her.(She’s nearly 6 ft tall and quite gorgeous) He was meeting her on the way to school, supplying her and her mates with booze for their drink bottles,(school failed to pick it up till told, denial first until the truth emerged) and clearly had only one intention.
School was asked for help, police were asked for help cyps were asked for help. No one could be bothered so Dad confiscated cellphone so meetings could not be arranged.
Week or so goes by and he was called by police, daughter had gone to school and said to teacher he had smacked her. Six months later they are back together as a family, both girls were removed by cyps, Dad had to give up his work, lots of legal bills, absolutely soul destroying for all of them and it was simply not true and was the unfortunate result of a petulant 12 yr old.
In case you are wondering Dad had never been in trouble with the law, had always worked, loves his kids to bits and fortunately has now been able to restore his family.
Loss of many thousands of dollars, totally had his head fucked with by all those screwed up women that have screwed up lives, do a cyps course and become cyps staffers with the intent of getting even with any and every man on this planet.
To be fair the police withdrew very quickly once the facts were established but not cyps. The person who caused the distress in the first place is still running around with no consequences trying the same thing on someone else’s young daughter. (Its a small man thing.)
If we need just one reason for this law to be amended its that it gives people like cyps the right to interfere in every family with no consequence’s for any actions they take.
My Dad has had no apology, no reimbursement of any lost income, nor any expenses. That sure as hell makes it hard to bring up three teenage kids and put them through college. ( I forgot to mention his son. Cyps even wanted to take him away. There is a lot more bad in the cyps side of the story but this is not the place to air that. They are unaccountable, unreasonable and staffed with broken down Nazis. ( and before I get demerits for that I suggest that you try them out and see. Unfortunately they don’t deal with the ones that really matter, just the nice white ones.)
June 18th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Rebel Heart.
Do me a favour an point out where I said I voted for National.
There’s a good boy.
Now you can wipe the shit off your chin.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Great email DPF- puts the whole effect of this legislation on ordinary decent families very well.
John Key needs to man up.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Viking2, is Bob McCoskrie aware of the case?
June 18th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
DPF: You should read his e-mail more carefully. His fear is not the Police but CYFS. All it takes is for a kid to mention to a teacher that Daddy once smacked her, and the teachers tells CYFS. ]
Rubbish!
June 18th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
WebWrat: Rebel Heart. Do me a favour an point out where I said I voted for National. There’s a good boy. Now you can wipe the shit off your chin.
You said he lost your vote, implying that he had it in the first place, dumb fuck. Eat your own shit that you failed to wipe off your own ass fool.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
You are a rather vile creature Rebel Heart.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Actually I didn’t vote at all.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I don’t see how the posted letter changes anything. It seems to be a letter that has numerous arguments against it and lots of emotional statements that generate support for it.
“Ordinary decent families” need not worry about the repeal of s59. It’s the same as any other sort of crime e.g. Murder is murder. We have laws against Murder and it doesn’t stop the killing. The repeal was not supposed to solve child abuse.
Viking2 – really sorry that this happened but it is nothing to do with the repeal of s59. The daughter could just as easily said that she was swung on a washing line and it wouldn’t have been about a smack. The repeal of s59 was never about smacking either.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
1: Smacking your kid has always been assault
2: Anti Smacking bill repealed s59 which stated “reasonable force for the purposes of correction” or similar which allowed Timaru Lady to get off from whipping her son with a horsewhip
3: That acquittal was the catalyst for the change to s59
4: fact: No parent has been taken to court for a smack on the bum
5: fact: I smacked my niece when she ran out on the road, and didn’t listen
6: Fact: A woman bailed me up and kept me there until a cop came
7: The cop told the woman she was wrong as the smack was needed to teach my niece running on the road is wrong
8: The law is working as stated
9: If you want to smack your kid with a 2×4, get prosecuted, and say “reasonable force” for your defence, well then, you’re just a child basher aren’t you. A dirty nasty filthy piece of scum.
10: If you smack your kid with your hand, once, on the bottom, then police aren’t going to bother prosecuting as “it’s not in the public interest”
11: If you smack your kid with your hand, once, on the face, well then, that’s assault on a minor and a totally different story.
Seriously, you lot need to get over the hysteria and realise that all s59 ever used to do was give criminals an effective “out” by claiming reasonable force after using a whip, kettle cord, bottle or even a piece of wood. Smacking your child has ALWAYS been assault, and June 21, 2007, didn’t change that fact at all.
Have you heard of anyone being convicted for smacking a kid on the bum? Nope.
What about throwing your kid at the wall and getting a reduced jail sentence after pleading the old s59? Yep.
Rest in Peace Lillybing, James Whakarau and the rest. No one really cares that your caregivers (who would call them parents) would, if prosecuted now, not be freed after just 6 months in prison, but more like 5 years.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Isn’t it amusing seeing the pro-smackers get so angry when someone dares to tell them to stop. I bet you just want to hit someone aye?
Sit down and take a deep breath …
Count to ten …
There there diddums …
Don’t worry you are still a “real” man. You still control things. Just because leftie pansies took away your right to hit slaves and women, doesn’t mean children will get away. And if they do well then you can still hit your dog. Or maybe just a wild animal if the stinkin SPCA gets involved.
Don’t cry. Men don’t do that. There’s always outer space after all (you can hit aliens still can’t you?). Big guy don’t you dare even pretend to think of alternative strategies. That just encourages others to try to tell you what to do. It’s all about that in the end aye?
Make yourself feel better and give yourself a slap. Will help you sleep.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Well, kinda.
PC psychobabble bullshit is at the heart of both issues.
How about a bit of Henry Thoreau?
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root”
Wise words.
Fuck them.
AboutWell past time we all said that to them. Repeatedly.June 18th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Seriously, DPF, does that reader’s email speak for YOU?
It certainly is one of the more dorky comments I’ve seen on this subject and reeks of ignorance, is the writer in his teens or something?
aladin
June 18th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
The anti-smacking law should be repealed.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Gumby – you still haven’t ‘clicked’ have you? The issue here isn’t smacking. It’s that of the state meddling in the role of parenting. If Bradford was directing a withdrawal of bacon and eggs form the breakfast menu I would be protesting just as loudly. But if it makes YOU feel more secure thinking that these protestations are all coming from insecure males then can I suggest a nice lie down and a consultation or two with a therapist.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Gumby said: Isn’t it amusing seeing the pro-smackers get so angry when someone dares to tell them to stop. I bet you just want to hit someone aye?
Well said Gumby! Hey, your last name’s not Roachclip, is it? I used to know a Gumby Roachclip, but lost touch with him.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Seriously – you need to get your facts straight. 18 attempted uses of s59 in 13 years and most of them thrown out and the thugs rightfully convicted.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
“I used to know a Gumby Roachclip, but lost touch with him.”
Greatly to your advantage I would guess.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Now, later in the evening, when relaxed, you have a sense of humour ‘baiter. I like that!
Pity about the rest of your day when you are so aggro about us “filthy commies”.
Hey, I even gave you + karma for that comment.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
I find it amusing when the anti-children brigade get so confused they believe the methods used by parents throughout thousands of generations are suddenly for no apparent reason, unacceptable.
Talk about fucked in the head. Somehow, the entire human race has managed to survive till now without this smacking ban. Many countries still allow it but puzzlingly, remain as successful as they ever were. Yet somehow you idiots think it’s required. Immediately.
I see.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I am not Mr Roachclip (and like Mr Clinton I do not inhale). Yes I think the issue is different for many. One is more about unnecessary state control, the other more about unnecessary force. I don’t want a nanny state but this doesn’t cross the line for me. In fact it’s the line I hold with my children.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
reid spewed: …the anti-children brigade get so confused they believe the methods used by parents throughout thousands of generations are suddenly for no apparent reason, unacceptable… the entire human race has managed to survive till now …
Um, reid, how many wars have been fought over those thousands of generations? And how many people have died in them? Has it occurred to you that bringing up children to think that force is the way to get what you want may have at least in some part led to that?
The human race has survived – but be honest, we are stuffing up the climate, we are enganged in resource wars, we are engaged in religious wars. Not really a good look from where I’m sitting.
Surely we can have a greater aspiration than to just “survive”.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Old men make wars, young men fight them, toad.
Surprised you didn’t know that.
BTW, the young men usually don’t have a choice and whether or not they were physically disciplined by a loving parent probably didn’t make much difference, according to world history as currently written.
I quite agree, toad. So why the fuck are you people munting on about totally irrelevant issues and failing to attack the real root causes behind these dynamics, such as the people who make money out of these things?????
June 18th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Here is an interesting review of S59 (old and new), yes its Family First, but I don’t think the facts about the law are in doubt (10 mins long!).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxiYobjbeO4
Makes you wonder what drugs Bradford is on?
June 19th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Zestysea– flippin fruitcake nutbar.
Can only imagine what darlings comingoutof your house,unleashed on a unsuspecting public.
If you dont smack your kids for bad behavior,unsafe acts or dangerous acts fine,your call your kids after all.
But I smacked my kids at various times,have not for about 2 years,oldest16,14,12 and 10.
They will make mistakes in furture but atleast they know the basics of good and acceptible behaviour.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:17 am
“Don’t cry. Men don’t do that. There’s always outer space after all (you can hit aliens still can’t you?). Big guy don’t you dare even pretend to think of alternative strategies. That just encourages others to try to tell you what to do. It’s all about that in the end aye?”
Keep posting Gumby, you’re doing a super good job of representing the anti smackers
June 19th, 2009 at 1:00 am
But how did you know it was about you?
June 19th, 2009 at 1:00 am
Gumby’s behaviour as an adult indicates he should have been soundly thrashed far more often as a child.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:20 am
I like how MyNameIsJackoff managed to turn a lefty ragefest about the anti-smacking bill into some disjointed rant about Christianity being responsible for the Holocaust or some such.
June 19th, 2009 at 8:07 am
lilman – my kids and grandchildren are fine thanks, watching one of my daughters parent 2 lively pre-school sons with pride – I was hit often when my mother was angry and I hit my daughter. Now we look at what they understand, what they don’t, when they are ready to learn and when they’re not.
Jimmy Mason was yelling at his children saying f*n listen f*n listen! He was making such a scene it drew attention from every one around. No one learns in that situation much less a three year old and a two year old. Ive taught adults in similar situations that those kids were in and believe me even when you yell abuse at adults in a confusing situation they can’t think and either panic or get angry. Kids who are often yelled at learn to ignore it. They tune out the abuse.
We don’t smack for dangerous acts, I was talking with her on the phone and heard her clearly tell her her 3 yeard old. “Get down from the window sill, its dangerous, you’ll falll and hurt yourself” This what we’ve been working on since they were babies. If you listen to parents (and teachers) instruct their kids you’ll be surprised how often they don’t give clear instructions that the child can understand – now whether he obeys her after that depends on his mood, but she is strict and he knows she WILL follow up on her words.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:42 am
“Gumby’s behavior as an adult indicates he should have been soundly thrashed far more often as a child.”
Why stop when I became an adult. Surely smacking would do me good even now. It’s always such a positive experience at any age lol. Oh that’s right, when someone can hit back you are not so brave.
“Keep posting Gumby, you’re doing a super good job of representing the anti smackers”
I’m only anti-smacking against children. I don’t see any honour in unnecessarily hitting someone smaller than you. I’m all for smacking others eg ignorant bullies. Pick on someone your own size you.
PS : Shunda, can I have some poppadoms with my curry?
June 19th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Redbaiter said: Gumby’s behaviour as an adult indicates he should have been soundly thrashed far more often as a child.
‘baiter, but that comment says it all. The spankers keep rabbiting on about how a “light smack” should be lawful, but here you are advocating frequent “sound thrashings”. Which is where you end up if you advocate using force for correctional purposes and the “light smack” doesn’t correct.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Toad- You’re a complete jerkoff.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I am the person who wrote the email
I just would like to reply to a couple of the points raised
1. I agree with Chester Burrows amendment to S59 anything more than that is assault
2. NZ is made of predominately Anglo/Saxon, Polynesian (Maori), Chinese, Indian ethnic groups – none of the countries with predominately these ethnic persuasions ban smacking. Why are we? Just because the UN and a bunch of European Countries want to. There is NO evidence that a light smack is bad for a child.
3. This issue is not discussed but I have friends who do not smack and have been so holier than thou over this issue – but their children kick, bite, punch and scream to get what they want.
4. I am a better parent than Sue Bradford will ever be and I cannot stand the fact she could judge me on my parenting ability.
5. And most importantly I love my children and the thought of them being taken away (even if it is irrational) is too much to comprehend – but I believe that I must do what is best for my children to become good adults and I believe an occasional smack helps some children as it stops situations escalating. That is why I believe the political party who can allay this fear will be very successful.
6. That is why Chester Burrows amendment is so good – it defines what is a smack.
7. If you are a parent that does not smack then I congratulate you but just because it works for you doesn’t mean it works for everyone – as all children are different and all children respond to different forms of discipline.
8. Even if John Key disagrees with the referendum – that is democracy and I believe that he has been dismissive of this referendum and needs to be more respectful to those that hold a different view.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I don’t know for sure but in the countries that allow laws against smacking aren’t the offenses mistermeanors like a parking ticket? Isn’t New Zealand the only country in the world that actually criminally prosecute honest parents? That might be a solution, after having so many mistermeanors, that would smoke out the bad parent and then criminally charge him or her. John Key better do something or he will be a one term Prime Minister.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I just realised something. Most parents who hit their children do so because they are ignorant or lazy (or perhaps both). Neither of these groups are likely to vote in the referendum anyway (won’t know how to or can’t be bothered). In the pro-smacking lobby, only the meanies (“if it moves hit it”) or the rabid right wingers (“no-one tells me what to do about anything”) will mobilise.
I don’t think there are that many mean parents in NZ, and the rabid right are too selfish to have kids anyway. So it should be a low turnout from those loonies. Perhaps you better threaten / smack these other parents to make them go out and vote?
June 21st, 2009 at 6:34 am
The real problem is the subjective element now inplace re smacking and wheather a person will be prosecuted on the whim of an attending policeman.Good law is objective…concerned with facts and clearly defined standards of right and wrong already in place before a potentialy criminal action is commited.Bad law,like Bradfords mess is subjective…people are never sure just what is allowed and whats not….this leads to fear and trepidation…as we are seeing by the opposition to this Statist nonsense.
On that basis alone the law must be repeled….it fails the most basic test of law making in a supposed free and civilized society.
June 21st, 2009 at 8:25 am
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas- look at WHO wants to be able to bash their kids-
An alliance of groups urging a “no” vote includes lobby group Family First, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and the Federation of Islamic Associations.
Being allowed to thrash their kids is the first step, next it will be “honour killings” where it is more honourable to murder a daughter than anything else an ignorant musselman can do.
June 21st, 2009 at 8:29 am
It is rather disturbing that insane malevolent maniacs like illy snorker live in this country.
June 21st, 2009 at 11:48 am
As I see it the reasons why the law was changed are:
1. Children are being beaten and killed by there parents in large numbers in New Zealand.
2. Apparently the judicial system has found it difficult to prosecute cases of physical abuse where the parent has claimed they were disciplining their child and this law makes it easier to prosecute people on the basis of any observable smack.
Reasons against the law -
1. When I hear of those who are beating their children I am outraged not just by the violence but by how the abusers’ actions are impacting on the rest of us. Why should responsible parents have this law foisted upon them because of these so-called parents who are for the most part utterly irresponsible.
June 21st, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Is it? Has anyone come up with an example of an honest parent who has been criminally prsecuted since the section 59 defense was removed?
June 21st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
feck me, true colours now eh? How about this:
Should a sound thrashing as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:43 am
“Is it? Has anyone come up with an example of an honest parent who has been criminally prsecuted since the section 59 defense was removed”
But sure as eggs one will be….and then the floodgates will open….sorry but this is bad,subjective law…..and needs removing.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 am
“Is it? Has anyone come up with an example of an honest parent who has been criminally prsecuted since the section 59 defense was removed?”
No but plenty who have been persecuted.
Plenty who are in fear of the social agencies sticking their nose in.
Plenty who hate the government for interfering in raising kids when “it goes against human nature – Herr Klark (1996)”.
So no maybe no prosecuted criminals, but plenty of people who have been made to feel inadequate because they can’t bring up their children like those holyer than thou people and plenty of kids who now have yet another “right” to avoid responsibility with.
Leaving in fear of the establishment, is just one step removed from a police state.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
concernedparent: “I am a better parent than Sue Bradford will ever be and I cannot stand the fact she could judge me on my parenting ability.”
Does anyone else see the problem in that statement?
I dunno, maybe a judgment on someone elses parenting followed by a said distaste for peoples judgment in return?
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
James,
Do you know why no one has been arrested because of this law change? Because it did not change who gets arrested.
The.
End.