Holmes on smacking referendum
July 26th, 2009 at 4:38 pm by David FarrarThe Paul Homes interview on Q&A was fascinating. Holmes was at his most hostile. He used every argument and language of those who support the anti-smacking law. He denigrated his guests as supporting violence, yet Cheryl Savil especially just sat there calmly and refused to allow Holmes to misrepresent her.
The video and transcript are here. I recommend them as good watching:
Cheryl you are a Mum two kids, how old are the kids.
CHERYL Ten and twelve.
PAUL And do you smack them?
So immediately tries to personalise it, but gets a calm response.
CHERYL SAVILL I have smacked them in the past, and I found it effective when they were younger?
PAUL How often would you have smacked them?
CHERYL Actually it differed between the two children, they’re quite different little characters, and one of them is quite a strong willed character and it’s interesting to point out that discipline is on the things and correcting a child is when we’ve used smacking, so when it’s you know you’re not to touch something and they’ve gone to touch it, well I have one of them that would actually eyeball me and be quite defiant in her behaviour so smacking was effective, a little light smack on the hand.
Something hundreds and thousands of parents may have done.
PAUL So why are you so passionate about the right to use physical violence against children?
And then we get the loaded language.
CHERYL Well I don’t think it’s a right, the terminology there, the right to use physical violence. Smacking is one of the things that parents can use as a technique to help discipline their children.
The calm response.
PAUL But why do we want to allow violence against children, I mean if an adult smacks, let’s use the word smack, if an adult smacks another adult it’s considered unacceptable, in fact it’s probably criminal, why should it be acceptable for a big person to assault or to smack a little child?
Here he repeast the pejorative term violence. Appears to concede and call it smacking. And then goes for anothe pejorative word – assault.
It is the equivalent of calling an unwanted kiss on the cheek, a sexual assault or violation.
CHERYL Well it’s quite a different relationship between a parent and their child than between adults. So a parent’s responsibility is to raise their child to become a responsible loving productive member of society, and that’s what I think is the issue here, the parenting role is very different to the role that we have as adults in relationship to each other.
And another calm rational response.
PAUL What did you use, a wooden spoon or the hearth brush or what?
Another attempt to attack the mother personally. he could have asked if she smacked with a bare hand or with an implement
CHERYL No I used a smack on the hand like that, or a smack on the bottom. When you actually show the footage often you’ll see a parent grabbing the child by the arm and whack whack whack whack and I don’t agree with that I think that’s going too far. So I need to really clarify that.
And another calm response, clearly saying what she finds acceptable and unacceptable.
BOB McCROSKIE
Well can I just clarify that, if you smack a child as they’re about to touch that’s preventing bad behaviour, but if they do it, if they do something naughty, and then you say you’re not to do that again I’m going to give you a smack don’t do that again, that is correction, that is illegal, and this is the minefield that parents are going through that you can smack to prevent that behaviour but not to correct.
McCroskie correctly points out the current law.
PAUL Nobody’s going through a minefield Bob.
The response being an unsupported assertion. And he is meant to be the neutral interviewer.
PAUL Parents are very calm, can I suggest to you everyone agrees, the Police, the government, both major parties, Bernardoes, Plunket, everyone agrees….
Paul think the lobby groups and the MPs represent everyone. Did he not wonder about why 300,000 people signed a petition, why it was cited as a factor in Labour’s loss, or why polls show 80%+ oppose the law. And he has the gumption to claim everyone agrees.
CHERYL I actually think it’s quite interesting that there has been this move away from smacking or from actual violence which we don’t agree with, you know anger in action.
PAUL Smacking, hitting, what’s the difference Cheryl?
Back to the language war.
CHERYL Well a big difference, you know there is a seriously big difference, if a child gets bruised that’s too far.
And a calm response again
BOB Same with time out Paul, there’s appropriate time out, but locking your kid in a dark room for three hours is child abuse.
I thought this was a very apt analogy. Any disciplinary method can become abusive. There is a difference between a light smack and a violent thrashing just as there is a difference between a time out and imprisonment.
PAUL What is your smacking history Mr McCroskie?
BOB I was smacked, and it did me the world of good. There was nothing wrong with it.
And again Holmes tries to personalise it, rather than debate the issues.
PAUL Well it was a simpler world perhaps, but go back to a situation that obtained before we amended section 59, kids in New Zealand were the only kids not protected from physical violence. They did not have the same protections afforded to adults and animals.
BOB Yes they did, they were protected because the smack had to be reasonable and for the purpose of correction within the parent child relationship, so kids were protected from violence, if a parent went too far they were prosecuted.
PAUL And they got off Bob.
BOB One or two got off, there were a couple of exceptions.
PAUL A couple of very brutal incidents.
BOB And that’s what we wanted to do was to amend the law, we agreed with Chester Burrows amendment, we agree with John Boscawen’s member’s bill, which simply more clearly defined what was reasonable and what was not, it was a win win situation, that’s what parents want, they want certainty in the law. At the moment we’ve got this mish mash, parents don’t know where they stand.
And this is a key point. As far as I know no-one is arguing to go back to the old law. The Borrows amendment would beyond any doubt take care of those cases where there was public disquiet about verdicts under the old law.
PAUL But isn’t it strange that in this day and age we’re having a debate about whether we should be able to assault children?
BOB No it’s not about assault.
And for the fourth of fith time Holmes uses the language of the small minority who support the law. It is Holmes at his most biased. He has lost basically every argument, so he resorts back to slogans.
PAUL Come on!
CHERYL It’s not assault. Assaulting children – in fact actually the footage that you showed of whacking a child over and over and over again, I don’t agree with that, that’s not what I’m saying, and that’s what – I talk to hundreds of parents, I talk to parents in the school ground all the time, and they say to me this is crazy, what’s going on with the law.
And again a good response.
PAUL Is this driven by adherence to the old biblical saying that to spare the rod is to spoil the child? Do you believe that?
BOB No I think we be disciplining kids, I think we should be bringing them up, we should be training them and they should have clear boundaries, they should be surrounded in a loving family and the question is should a parent who’s bringing up a loving family, is loving the kid, doing all the things right, and chooses to use a smack, should they be criminalised, I would say no, it’s as simple as that, 85% of New Zealanders are saying that.
This time Holmes tries to paint it as religious fundamentalism. But there are many people like me who support gay marriage, abortion on demand, ending blasphemy laws, minimal censorship, gay adoption, legal prostitution etc etc – yet think this law that criminalises so many parents is wrong and should be amended in line the Borrows/Boscawen bill.
I thought Therese Arseneu summied it up well on the panel discussion:
THERESE I think what the debate comes down to is that one smack that’s she’s talking about, that she agrees that if it’s multiply smacks it is assault, and I guess what you hear from their side is that they don’t take great comfort in the fact that the Police – you know the compromise that came from National that the Police will have discretion when it comes down to that one smack, it’s highly unlikely that any parent is going to be criminalised for one smack, but the problem is that parents don’t like that that one smack is considered criminal.
No they don’t. They resent it like hell. And the Borrows/Boscawen bill would change it so that it isn’t.
Related posts:
- CYFS and anti-smacking bill
- Sacha Coburn on anti-smacking law
- Why people are oppossed to the smacking ban law
- Parents and smacking
July 26th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Definition of ‘violence’, from wikipedia:
“Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt.”
Seems to fit.
[DPF: It can be argued it fits but Holmes uses a word that describes everything from what Clayton Weatherston did, to a light smack on the hand. A neutral interviewer would use the term that is the most precise definition - not one that conjours up images of bleeding, bruising and worse - none of which is advocated.
As I said, it is like calling an unwanted kiss on the cheek, a sexual assault. Arguably technically true but misleading]
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
So I take it that Paul never smacked Millie, and she turned out…errr never mind
[DPF: I thought it reflected well on both subjects that they never resorted to the cheap shot about Millie, despite Holmes insistence on bringing up their parenting and discipline records]
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt.”
Isn’t that what IRD does on behalf of socialists?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Paul Holmes is a narcissistic arsehole.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
He is like NZ Bono, just without the band.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
[DPF: It can be argued it fits
Yes it can be argued very easily. Because it fits. Like a glove. Perhaps like a boxing glove.
But yes, we are talking about Paul Holmes. Embarrassing that he is considered by many to be this country’s finest broadcaster. It seems dog whistles aren’t the preserve of the rabid right.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I am very surprised Paul Holmes has the gall to criticise anyone elses parenting. He can hardly hold himself up as a role model.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
[DPF: I thought it reflected well on both subjects that they never resorted to the cheap shot about Millie, despite Holmes insistence on bringing up their parenting and discipline records]
What a S.O.B
Vote:I can’t stand the guy.
July 26th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
He is like NZ Bono, just without the band.
Or the stupid wear-everywhere sunglasses.
Or the shit music.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
“Yes it can be argued very easily. Because it fits. Like a glove. Perhaps like a boxing glove.”
Only if you are blinkered by left wing ideology.
Vote:You and Paul Holmes are not that different hubris.
July 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
So it’s wrong to do as Holmes did and try and use a couple of poor outcomes (where parents got away with serious assaults) to change the law and disadvantage vast numbers of people.
Fair enough. I’ve been outspoken in my criticism of Bradford for criminalising the many to deter the few.
But has someone told Simon Power that it’s dishonest, self-serving and plainly ignorant to imply a handful of negative outcomes – on anything from provocation to parole – provide a representative picture of the way an entire system functions, and then to use those examples to whip up mass hysteria to support bad law?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
And David…the guy’s name is McCoskrie, not McCroskie.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
An unwanted kiss on the breast would probably be sexual assault would it ?
in the same way as a small smack on the hand is on the same is different from a smack on the bottom ?
I am so glad I don’t have to argue the for the right to hit my kids
Vote:Its so good being on the moral high ground, you know the same as all those child welfare agencies
July 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
You and Paul Holmes are not that different hubris.
Yes, if you insist Shunda-whoever.
I just wish I had his money.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
What’s New Zealand going to do about this silly law?
Who rules the country right now? The Moral Majority or the ghost of Helen Clark?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
I’m comfortable with the Borrows/Boscawen bill. I don’t think it would “fix” the legal side of things – there is never going to be a perfect solution to that, defining what is a reasonable smack versus assault is very difficult because there are so many variables. But changing the Borrows/Boscawen would sort out the criminalising issue and otherwise would be no worse than the current and previous laws.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
No he’s not.
You need a neutral interviewer to moderate between two people who oppose. If you have an interviewer who doesn’t challenge a interview subject when there’s no-one to put the other side you run the risk of running foul of broadcasting standards’ balance requirement.
[DPF: I expect the interviewer to put forward arguments to challenge their subject. But I don’t expect them to (esp on state funded tV) to adopt the language used exclusively by one side of the debate.
It would be like Paul Holmes interviewing Tim Barnett on his prostitution law reform and saying “Why do you want to make whores legal” and then refer to “whores” time and time again instead of “prostitutes”
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
If I might be permitted a little psychobabble, it’s hard not to think that the reason Homles is so apparently against smacking is because deep down he realises that becasue he didn’t smack his kid, she grew up completely lacking the self-discipline to keep off the P, and being the raging egotisitical narcissist that he is, he can’t bring himself to admit he failed, so he wants to convince himself by any means necessary that discplining his child properly would have been wrong and he was right not do it.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
# Shunda barunda (608) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating1 Says:
July 26th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Paul Holmes is a narcissistic arsehole.
He taught you well, Grasshopper.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
“Who rules the country right now? The Moral Majority or the ghost of Helen Clark?”
How true is that statement!!
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
WTF gives Paul Holmes the right to tell people how to raise their kids. Or the left wing at that.
Borrows’ amendment seemed like the most self-evidently commonsense approach to take , and perhaps it would have been a better approach for the Nats to have gone this way at the outset. In this instance the definition of smacking as most parents would define it, would clearly not be against the law. However using weapons etc would rightly be so.
Can someone please enlighten me as to why the law change was brought in in the first place, as I can’t see how it was broken. This is not in a smart arsed way, but would just like some context for the changes. I vaguely remember a woman getting acquitted for using some kind of pipe on her son who had autism ore something, is this correct?
And even if this was the case, IMO it is just the fault of a judge misapplying what is ‘reasonable’- one case hardly seems like a reason to bring in the The Crimes (Substituted Section 59- Socialists know how to raise your children better than you) Amendment Bill.
One things for sure about the Bill- it’s stopped child abuse dead in its tracks hasn’t it
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
What a prick!
Perhaps his junky daughter might have turned out a bit better if she had been whacked around the arse a few times.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Hey paul holmes…….If you put the wooden spoon around your daughters ass,maybe she wouldn’t be acting like she is now.Instead of a wooden spoon she got a silver spoon….
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
It would be like Paul Holmes interviewing Tim Barnett on his prostitution law reform and saying “Why do you want to make whores legal” and then refer to “whores” time and time again instead of “prostitutes”
No it wouldn’t.
‘Violence’ isn’t a pejorative term. It is what it is.
Violence.
“Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt.”
Smacking is a form of violence. The English language made it so. Not Paul Holmes.
[DPF: And timeouts are a form of imprisonment by your logic]
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Has anyone who is giving Holmes shit over how he brought up his daughter (as if they know) ever had to deal with a family member addicted to drugs?
BTW, I thought this morning he should have tried to challenge Cheryl and Bob, but I don’t think he did it very well.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
and:
Definition of violence from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (that’s the two volume one):
1. The exercise of physical force so as to cause injury or damage to a person, property, etc.; physically violent behaviour or treatment…
And of violent:
1. Having a marked or powerful (esp. physical) effect; (of pain, a reaction, etc.) very strong, severe, extreme …
2. Of an action: involving or using great physical force or strength…
The definition in Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (i.e. the dictionary from the University of Cambridge):
violent adj 1 marked by or using extreme physical force. 2 using or involving the use of such force to cause physical harm. 3 impulsively aggressive and unrestrained in nature or behaviour. 4 intense; extreme; vehement
From Websters, the premier American-English dictionary:
violent 1: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity…
Your definition isn’t very good. It does not accord with what the vast majority of people understand violence and violent to mean. Thus, most people recognise the substantial difference between the sentences:
Mike was assaulted and Mike was violently assaulted. Almost no-one thinks that the second sentence is tautologous. A violent assault is an assault which involves violence. Not all assaults do.
DPF again:
People should get over this one. A smack is an assault. Whether it should be a criminal assault is a reasonable question; whether there should be a criminal defence so that there is a category of legal assaults is a matter for reasonable debate. But a smack is is clearly an assault.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
nickb (27) 1 1 Says:
July 26th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
WTF gives Paul Holmes the right to tell people how to raise their kids. Or the left wing at that.
Perhaps it’s a deep-seated desire to give DPF even more page hits.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
If smacking = violence, then timeout = guantanamo bay
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt.”
Is that out of the UN mandated dictionary?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Holmes should be prosecuted for his abuse under the law as it stands… before the referendum makes his abuse on others exceptable.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
# Shunda barunda (611) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 26th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt.”
Is that out of the UN mandated dictionary?
No, it’s from wikipedia, so not exactly authoritative, but close enough for the likes of me.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Tell me hubris, is violence or physical force used on another human being always harmful?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
“If smacking = violence, then timeout = guantanamo bay”
You can’t back that up with definitions. Graeme is right about how “smack” is defined. There has been an attempt to turn smack into a positive term, something good done “lovingly”, but in many forms it is far from that.
Some forms of smacks don’t do any harm. Some smacks can go as far as killing.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
And that’s relevent how, Cerium, if no one’s proposing that harmful or fatal smacks should be legal ? Try to pay attention.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I had begun to think Holmes had improved as an interviewer but alas today showed he is still the left wing arsehole he always has been. Pity we didn’t get a lucid and detailed response from Therese Arsenau to enlighten the way she does so well on purely political issues.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
“Some forms of smacks don’t do any harm. Some smacks can go as far as killing.”
Really? as a parent without any “good political correction” I had no idea on how to control or gage lethal force.
Vote:Thank goodness for Sue Bradford!!
July 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
# Shunda barunda (612) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 26th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Tell me hubris, is violence or physical force used on another human being always harmful?
I don’t know, I’m not omnipresent.
Did your parents smack you, Chunder? Perhaps if they had done the opposite you wouldn’t have turned out to be such an insufferable little turd.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
The so called ‘enlightened’ like Paul Holmes have been bringing up their kids for 20 or so years now.
And look the kids are good citizens who never resort to violence or criminal behaviour the crime rate among the young has fallen drastically ….oh hang on no it hasn’t it is like the ‘rehabilitation’ of prisoners another failed experiment from the left that the rest of us have to wear.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Cerium said “Has anyone who is giving Holmes shit over how he brought up his daughter (as if they know) ever had to deal with a family member addicted to drugs?”
Ummmmmm – Phil U’s mother?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
“And that’s relevent how”
The voteno website is headed “Should a smack be a criminal offence?”. They seem to be suggesting any sort of smack should be legal. That is highly irresponsible.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Cerium would you stop pretending to be stupider than you are. You know full well that “vote no” are not advocating fatal smacking. You obviously haven’t read the site. “notice though, that whenever a supporter of the legislation is approached for comment, they automatically equate all corrective parental discipline involving light smacking with violence – and it is very seldom that any interviewer or journalist challenges that assumption. Responsible parents know full well, however, that they are not one and the same thing.”
Hmmm looks like they know more about you than you know about them
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Over 80% of the country apparently “get it” without too much difficulty, the rest are obviously too stupid.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
But voteno seem to be advocating for “smacking” without differentiating between safe smacking and unsafe smacking.
When advocating for “smacking” voteno can’t be sure everyone who get’s their message reads the fine print. This won’t be a problem for most parents, but it promotes a message of smack=ok and surely that isn’t a good thing to promote to violent or potentially violent parents.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I would be interested to hear a candid response from Paul Holmes about the discipline of his own children in their formative years?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Kaya, do the parents who abuse their kids “get it”?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
This whole point about comparing children to adults is deliberately misleading. You can’t force other adults into their room for time out either, kidnapping probably, a crime regarded as more serious than a simple assault. You can’t deprive them of their property either (no more X-Box for you for x days), that’s theft. So many authoritarians here who wish to impose their belief set on others simply don’t seem to understand that bringing up children involves some compromises.
As a deliberate use of anecdotal evidence, i only know of two people who will argue for voting YES, and they have the worst behaved, most disobedient and downright close to criminal behaving children, that its ever been my misfortune to meet. Anecdotes though, not universally applicable.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
A smack is not a hit in the same way that a smack is not assault, Graham.
Newspeak doubleplusgood.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
“Tell me hubris, is violence or physical force used on another human being always harmful?
I don’t know, I’m not omnipresent.”
Here’s a tip:
Vote:Should tackling as good defensive Rugby be a criminal offense in NZ?
July 26th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Cerium, feigning mental retardation does not help your cause. You understand perfectly well the point of the voteno site. Watch the Barnett video right on the front page, underneath the word “smack” which you are determined to pretend you don’t understand.
“This law treats a smack of the bottom from a loving parent with child abuse of the very worse kind, and has put good parents raising responsible kids in the same category as rotten, abusive nasty parents. Kiwi parents know the difference between light smacking and child abuse.”
The rotten parents who abuse kids do not give a shit what the law says. What they do is illegal, always has been, and always will be.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
# Shunda barunda (614) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 26th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
“Tell me hubris, is violence or physical force used on another human being always harmful?
I don’t know, I’m not omnipresent.”
Here’s a tip:
Should tackling as good defensive Rugby be a criminal offense in NZ?
Absolutely. Sadly, if you equate good parenting to ‘da national game/religion’, you’re a bit unsteady in the old head department, don’t you think? Oh, I see…another dog whistle! Pheep!
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
“Anecdotes though, not universally applicable.”
But powerful evidence none the less.
Vote:All of the parents I know that take the anti smacking line have rotten uncontrollable kids.
When you break it down though, the very notion of controlling a child’s behavior is abhorrent to the ideologues.
July 26th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
You watch HOLMES!!??
Oh dear.
Try getting out more.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
“Here’s a tip:
Should tackling as good defensive Rugby be a criminal offense in NZ?
Another dog whistle. You should open a pet shop.”
Should we ban contact sports or not?
Vote:If physical violence is always negative for human development then it needs to stop, you need to be consistent with your ideology.
July 26th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
PS, worse, you admitted it. Sheesh!!
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
“..Ed Snack (180) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 26th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
This whole point about comparing children to adults is deliberately misleading..”
not really..surely any law should apply to all..?
..and of course the parent/child relationship is an imbalance of power..
..it is really fascist in nature..
..the amount of power adults have over children..
..and nothing justifies children being hit..
..there are a multitude of other options..
..that don’t entail adults assaulting/smacking/physically hurting children..
(disclaimer:..neither of my children have ever been hit..i was not hit by my parents..
..this is a learnt/unlearnt behavior-pattern..)
..and one that is barbaric in nature..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Shunda, you are talking crap.
Vote:Some parents who don’t smack their kids do not discipline their kids enough (and some do).
Some parents who do smack their kids do not discipline their kids enough (and some do).
July 26th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
“..All of the parents I know that take the anti smacking line have rotten uncontrollable kids..”
which orifice did you pull that piece of bullshit from..?..shunda..?
btw..what age do you stop hitting them at..?..you hitters..?
..10..?..15..?
my boy and i cannot comprehend that whole scenario..
..of me hitting him..
..y’now..!..chop my fucken hand off first..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
“..and of course the parent/child relationship is an imbalance of power..
..it is really fascist in nature..”
Is it possible we have finally reached the total insanity of the leftist argument for the anti-smacking bill?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
how is it not..?..durf..?
y’know..!..strawman arguments to one side..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
“Shunda, you are talking crap.
Some parents who don’t smack their kids do not discipline their kids enough (and some do).
Some parents who do smack their kids do not discipline their kids enough (and some do).”
No actually I am telling you the truth, I have NEVER seen the anti smacking approach work, other than highly edited TV shows like super nanny.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Thus, I went for authoritative – the Oxford English Dictionary, the 21st Century Chambers, and Webster’s. And not one of them defines violence or violent in a way which would include a smack.
Violence does not mean what you seem to think it means. A smack is not violent. Smacking does not equal violence.
I never said a smack was hitting. “Assault” has a legal definition. The definition is hundreds of years old and the same around the world (in common law countries, anyway). Any intentional unwanted force is an assault. Not all assaults are illegal. Not all assaults are bad. What a smack is is debatable. What an assault is is very clear.
I didn’t define a “smack”. I gave the legal definition for assault. I also gave a number of highly authoritative definitions for violence/violent – none of which backed up you or wikipedia.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Hurf – nope, there’ll be far dumber to come. When the best “argument” they’ve got is an empty wordplay, it’s all downhill from there.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Haha totally agree Hurf.
Everytime I read this thread it makes me angrier. Who does Paul Holmes think he is attacking obviously wonderful and caring parents?
Pompous little wanker.
And philu thats great, I would respect your right to parent however the fuck you want- which is precisely what the argument is about. The amendment aims to overturn this, and criminalise 99.9% of parents who do an outstanding job and never cross the line into abuse or assault.
The amendment lumps these people, and people such as you philu,( if you were to choose to smack your child as part of ‘good parental discipline”) into the same group as lowlife scum who smash and beat their kids up.
This is the main focus of the argument.
Vote:And if I hear one self righteous, deluded raving lefty say “Oh but you are just arguing for the right to hit your kids” I think I might go insane
July 26th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“..it is really fascist in nature..”
Is it possible we have finally reached the total insanity of the leftist argument for the anti-smacking bill?”
And Philu’s statement is not even exagerated, that IS what the anti smacking ideology is all about after you peel off its carefully manicured front.
Vote:These people are nutters.
vote NO to radical fruit loopery in August.
July 26th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
# Shunda barunda (616) barks:
July 26th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Should we ban contact sports or not?
If physical violence is always negative for human development then it needs to stop, you need to be consistent with your ideology.
Apparently, your need for me to have an ‘ideology’, consistent or otherwise, is greater than mine. Thanks for caring.
But once again, you’re now trying to lovingly forge another dog whistle by linking consenting people on a rugby field (yeah we all love those All Blacks) getting smacked around, with smacking kids around. And surely not even you, with your loopy view of the world, can draw a bow that long.
Meanwhile, I’m just trying to get to 100 posts by the end of the night. That’s all your conversation is worth. Any port in a storm, though.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
yeah nicb..we used to be able to beat our slaves at will..eh..?
..i reckon taking away that ‘right’ from us..
..was the beginning of the slippery slope..
..eh..?
(bloody abolitionists..!..eh..?.
..messing with our ‘rights’…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Phil, very insightful -
“..and nothing justifies children being hit..”
… just as nothing justifies a shop assistant [that would be a job Phil] being subjected to an armed robbery??
“..there are a multitude of other options..”
like WORK?
“..this is a learnt/unlearnt behavior-pattern..)”
like watching your father sit on the couch bludging off hard working people and not ever making any kind of useful contribution and then laughing and sneering at people who support that lifestyle choice?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
did someone fart..?..
(ok..ok..i know it’s an oldie..
..but it’s still a goodie..
..and that is what a piece of shit smells like..
.eh..?.)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Phil, where’s the link???
I hadn’t heard that people with only one hand would receive a doubled benefit without ever having to W R O K again. You are indeed the Big Magpie – you were certainly the first to pick that one up!!! Well done YOU!
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Hubris – I see you’ve reached the stage of realising you’ve hopelessly lost the argument and now are doing the petulant child routine of pretending that you didn’t really care anyway, it was all just to get your post numbers up. You really are stuck in the mindset of an ill-tempered five year old. Maybe some discipline would’ve helped, but too late now I guess
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Is phool comparing children to slaves now?
Guess I was wrong. There are a few more circles of hell to pass through first.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Perhaps his junky daughter might have turned out a bit better if she had been whacked around the arse a few times.
..hmm , Id like to whack her ’round the ass a few times just quietly…
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
“But once again, you’re now trying to lovingly forge another dog whistle by linking consenting people on a rugby field (yeah we all love those All Blacks) getting smacked around, with smacking kids around. And surely not even you, with your loopy view of the world, can draw a bow that long.”
This is fun.
Vote:If physical violence is not inherently “bad” for the human race all of the time, then your “smacking is hitting, and hitting is violence, and violence is bad” bollocks gets blown out of the water.
It would seem that humans are capable of interpreting the context in which the “violence” is administered, which determines whether or not it is a negative or harmful experience.
So the guy that gets tackled on the rugby field doesn’t call the cops like the guy in the street may do if it happened there.
Just like the child who knows he’s behaving like a little brat realizes that a smack on the bum is a deserved punishment for his disobedience.
No harm done.
July 26th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Cerium – Yes some parents who abuse their kids probably do get it, but just as microchipping all dogs will have zero effect on reducing dog attacks, the anti smacking law will have zero effect on stopping psychos abusing and killing their children. It only makes criminals of otherwise good people.
Hurf Durf – these clowns are have no interest in actually achieving a common sense outcome, it is only the ideology that interests them and as we know – when it comes to the left they don’t understand common sense. 9 years of the last lot is proof of that.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Paul Holmes is drivel idiot
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
“Is phool comparing children to slaves now?
Guess I was wrong. There are a few more circles of hell to pass through first.”
Yep and once again, the slavery argument has appeared frequently on the Greens blog by various individuals.
Vote:Philu is not exaggerating, this is what many of the anti smackers believe!!!
July 26th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
“did someone fart..?..”
Wrong thread Phil. You should be over at the baby ‘T’ shirts one.
Nevertheless, its certainly a classic. Will the boy incorporate that in his next essay Phil? You know, the one you want to write for him entitled: “My Father the Role Model and How I Look Up to Him and Want My Life to be Just Like His” (working title: “I Want to Fuck Up and Blame John Key Too”).
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Kaya, I agree that “the anti smacking law will have zero effect” or close to that. I think the referendum will have the same minimal if any effect. That is why I would prefer to see actual abuse addressed. And part of that is understanding that some smacking doesn’t do any harm and some can.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
> PAUL: And they got off Bob.
Yes, they did get off, just like David Bain did. So should we change the law on murder because we think that Bain got lucky? Yeah, OK.
Paul Holmes shouldn’t vote in the referendum if he doesn’t know the difference between child abuse and a smack. His argument that you can’t smack an adult is nonsense, for two reasons. Firstly, some adults have been tasered, legally I might add. Now I am guessing that Paul wouldn’t want young kids being tasered. Does that make the law unfair? Apparently. Paul will no doubt be advocating the tasering of kids to rectify this injustice.
Secondly, there are plenty of laws that apply to adults and not kids. It is illegal to sell smokes and alcohol to kids; kids can’t drive beyond a certain age; kids can’t marry, vote or go to war. I’d hate to think that Paul wants all of these laws abolsihed so that kids can have exactly the same rights that adults have.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
wow..!..ross..!
..can we call you ‘strawman’..?
set ‘em up..
..and knock ‘em down..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Put it away (297) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating2 Says:
July 26th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Hubris – I see you’ve reached the stage of realising you’ve hopelessly lost the argument
I knew I’d lost the argument before it started.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Don’t hit children pure and simple no need for it whatsoever
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Under normal circumstances I think it would be unfair to draw Paul’s parenting skill or lack of them into the debate. However, he could have debated the issue with Sheryl without making it personal. In a lot of ways I quite like Paul. I thought he mellowed a bit a bit grew a bit humility after his daughter’s behaviour became public. He filled in for Leighton Smith last week and will do so this week. I called him about the provocation defence and he gave me a fair go.
I will try getting through to him tomorrow. I hope others will try. I will ask him if he thinks it was fair to make the debate personal and if he would like it done to him.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Kapital, you obviously didn’t get the question. Should a smack be a crime?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
And not many here seem to get the problem. What sort of a smack?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Should left wing whining as part of attempting to be reelected in 2011 be roundly ignored in New Zealand?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
What has left wing got to do with it?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Cerium, all kinds of smacks are currently crimes outside the narrow circumstances specified in law. That is the problem.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Should voting Labour slash Greens as part of good political correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I have several female friends that work on the front line at CYFS and they have removed children from various homes. They love this law as if has given them unbridled power, they have said so to my face. This isn’t about smacking, far from it. It’s about the state having power over our lives, no need to worry about warrants now, all one needs is allegations. Why do you think the government is not interested in rescinding this law, no government likes to lose their hold on power and once a law is established the government would be very reluctant to give it away.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Bit slow on it today… Recorded Q&A…. Just watching now….
Paul Holmes was a joke on this today…. Very very poor reporting…. he should be well ashamed of his performance…..
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
I’m well aware of that Alan – smacks for correction you are presumably meaning. But making all smacks not a crime would be at least as big a mistake. It has to be qualified somehow. Any reasonable parent agrees that smacks to the head should be avoided. Smacks with implements? Whips? Hunks of wood? Belts?
I don’t care whether the law stays (I would prefer a tweak) or reverts. But I do care about the dangers of legitimising all smacks. Why not call them “safe smacks” or something?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
“And not many here seem to get the problem. What sort of a smack?”
Cerium, before Comrade Bradfords crusade, only a handful of cases in 20 odd years ever even had to ask that question under the old law.
Vote:All those children survived to tell the tale.
Do you really think your concern is justified?
There is much more evidence for this issue being about radicals sticking it up conservative, no, common sense NZ, than it being about reducing child abuse.
Their ideology is deeply flawed and highly dangerous.
Vote NO for the sake of common sense.
July 26th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
It is a crock of shit. Once again the vast majority pay the price for a very small percentage of the population whom have no clue about bringing up children……. Gives me the screaming shits does this……..
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
“This isn’t about smacking, far from it. It’s about the state having power over our lives,”
I have already had to deal with this sh!t in my own home from a social worker (who thankfully was more benevolent than some) it is not pleasant and is very humiliating.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Cerium, juries decide “reasonable” all the time. There is no reason to believe they cannot do so over this matter.
A couple of court cases in which some people who had not heard all the evidence believed the jury made the wrong decision were a totally inadequate reason for moving discretion from courts to police.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
May I suggest smacks as part of good parental correction?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
nature invented pain for what reason…. humans are just becoming more un-natural.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
“CHERYL ….. often you’ll see a parent grabbing the child by the arm and whack whack whack whack and I don’t agree with
that I think that’s going too far. So I need to really clarify that.”
Someone else things some sorts of smacking aren’t ok. You did read what DPF posted?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Philu you’re comparison of children to slaves is so bizarre and confusing it makes my head hurt.
I’m tired of explaining to socialists why I don’t like this law, when the only response they can give is “we know better than you”. Because clearly a light smack to prevent bad behaviour by children (even when smacking is for their own good, i.e the kids are endangering themselves) deserves to have the same stigma as punching a kid, or putting them in the dryer for instance.
There is such a clear line between parenting and abuse- I can’t see how the left can be confused over this.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
EPIC WIN
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
nickb – you sum it up so well, trouble is this is one of many many things that the left are so confused over….
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
“There is such a clear line between parenting and abuse- I can’t see how the left can be confused over this.”
1. This isn’t a left v. right issue, there are far too many people who don’t like the law, and more who are imperfect parents.
2. There is not always a clear line. There have been a handful of cases that have proven this. And I’m fairly sure many parents will in retrospect realise that at times they crossed the line, but at the time thought they were doing what was best. And different people see the line differently.
Graeme, that phrase is too loaded to some, too vague and has potential flaws so it wouldn’t work as a legal term.
The problem with a couple of cases under the old law is that all it took was one jury member to think that bashing was part of being a good parent. Different line.
Can anyone define the line? That’s what law requires.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Don’t worry everyone, Robyn Malcolm will be able to tell us how to live our lives. We are safe with her!
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
“nickb – you sum it up so well, trouble is this is one of many many things that the left are so confused over….”
Except Nick and Whafe prove their confusion over the current law, the example he gives is NOT illegal.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Lets not forget the skills of the questionare, nothing like commitment
Had a wife and kids,oooooooooppppppppppppppsssssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!
Let her for a younger one,bugger the kids.
Left her and the kids atleast they wontbe assualted by the father as he aint there.
Discipline,what would he know as it takes reason and puttingoters ahead of personal desires.
KIDS,who would have them, us it seems,but atleast we try and have some sort of family life.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
the example he gives is NOT illegal.
It is if it is for the purpose of correction.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Are you serious?
So a good smack as part of good parental prevention is irrefutably unequivocal?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Because clearly a light smack to prevent bad behaviour by children (even when smacking is for their own good, i.e the kids are endangering themselves) deserves to have the same stigma as punching a kid, or putting them in the dryer for instance.
a: define light smack
b: why do you need to inflict pain to stop bad behaviour
c; if there is clearly alternatives to smacking why do u still want to do it?
d; As I never ever had to smack my kids could someone tell me what’s the age of kids do/did you stop smacking the kids and why?
e.Why do you think barnadoes unicef save the children plunket and women’s refuge to name a few all support the repeal of sect 59 ?
f,Should you be allowed to smack other people kids for the purpose of correction?
g Should you be able to hit a dog for the purpose of correction ?
i Have you ever read kahil Galbran?
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
Vote:as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let our bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.
July 26th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
“It is if it is for the purpose of correction.”
The example Nick described was not for correction, it was prevention which is dealt with differently and is not illegal.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
David, the approach you have taken to this law and referendum has made me question your political integrity. I was previously of the belief that you were a reponsible and humanitarian classic liberal. This follows through on your support of homosexual law reform etc, but here it is wrong to try and argue that the right to smack is some inalienable right or “freedom” which should be afforded to parents.
I would assume you also support imprisonment for adults – but not corporal punishment… hence your argument thate out = imprisonment is somewhat flawed. Those who are against smacking are pro-rights and not authoritarian. They believe in integirty of the person to be applied equally to ALL and that these rights attach at birth.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
# Shunda barunda (623) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 1 Says:
July 26th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
“This isn’t about smacking, far from it. It’s about the state having power over our lives,”
I have already had to deal with this sh!t in my own home from a social worker (who thankfully was more benevolent than some) it is not pleasant and is very humiliating.
This explains everything. I take it all back. You have my sympathies.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
The example Nick described was not for correction, it was prevention which is dealt with differently and is not illegal.
Yes it is. A corrective smack as part of prevention is illegal. And even if it was not a corrective smack is is still illegal. All smacks are illegal. Its just that prevention in certain circumstances still has a reasonable force defence.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Dave, smacks are not mentioned at all in the bill. But they are assumed in common examples – if you smack a child’s hand away from touching a hot stove I think most people would see that fitting within “using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of — (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person;”
Therefore a smack could easily be deemed legal.
Another common example – child running onto a busy road, a smack would not be a very sensible reaction anyway.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Thanks Whafe.
Yea I take back the assertion its a left v right issue, arguing with the brick wall that is philu can make you think like that.
I agree the line can have been blurred somewhat on a few occasions- re my earlier posts on cases such as the case where the woman used a pipe of some sort on her autistic son- while it clearly sounded like she was at her wits end, I don’t know if many on my side of this argument would go as far as supporting her using a weapon… this is where the ‘reasonableness’ test can get a bit blurred.
Hence this is why I would support Burrows’ amendment. As a question to people like philu, say your son was putting a fork in an electrical socket- clearly dangerous behaviour which could end in your child being seriously harmed.
In a sudden panic, you give your child a small smack on the backside, leaving no marks or bruises, but using an open palm, while clearly expressing your disapproval at your child that they would put themselves in harm’s way like that.
Then say, the neighbour from next door hear’s your voice and your child crying. She promptly calls the police, who knock on your door for questioning. They look at you sceptically while you explain the situation, take a few notes, and off they go…
Fantasy? I don’t know. This is the sort of thing that while not common, seems to be occuring occasionally… the law has given the police the power to do this. A direct state intrusion into good, caring parent’s lives.
Meanwhile the police are doing this and also ticketing people for going 60 in a 50km/hr area while real criminals punch and kick their children around.
Vote:Good one Sue Bradford!
July 26th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
No. It took 12 jurors to acquit. One juror was enough to have a mistrial declared and a new trial ordered. I really don’t remember a mistrial ever happening in one of the big child assault/child discipline cases. It was always all 12 one way or all 12 the other way.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
“The problem with a couple of cases under the old law is that all it took was one jury member to think that bashing was part of being a good parent.”
Now it takes two jury members. At least 83% of the population on average must believe it was unreasonable in order to convict. Seems reasonable.
But of course Graeme is quite right – the acquittals were unanimous.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
theodore steel – if, as you pretend, that you’re motivated by a belief in the “integrity of the person applies to ALL from birth”, then would you change a baby’s nappy ? How do you know the baby wants to be changed ? Is it not violating the integrity of the person ? Or maybe, just maybe, babies are not miniature adults and applying adult concepts to them is silly ?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Much of the debate is obviously about yes versus no. Can I just ask, those of you who plan to vote ‘no’:
Are you happy with the law returning to how it was pre-Bradford, or do you believe it should be amended to somewhere in between where it is now and how it was then? If so, how do you think it should be amended? As per the boscawen/borrows amendment Or something different?
Feel free to hurl abuse as usual. 100th post yay!
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Nick, I haven’t got a problem with the Burrows amendment either.
Socket example – smack on bum is probably not the best action to take, especially if fork is already in socket. But if you smacked his fork hand away that is not illegal if it was reasonable preventative force.
On the neighbour issue – kids cry often, whether smacked or not. But if they do hear something and call the police it could be:
- unjustified and unfair
- justified because abuse was happening
It has been reported in court cases where neighbours haven’t reported things that have eventuated in bad abuse and death of kids. So this sort of things works both ways. Impossible to get right all the time no matter what the law is.
And if someone travelling 60k down your street bowls over your kid because you didn’t use preventative force in time?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
It is normally wrong to question the judgement of the court but I do wonder how the ‘cases that got off’ did convince the judge not to convict….Bringing in Millie is wrong becuase you do not smack girls … at least as I understand it. But the way girls and women carry on these days perhaps that is old fashioned nonsense. I also wonder if Paul was simply being rather too much the devils advocate when faced by a pair of anti-smackers instead of moderating a debate between pro and con. At least the way it is permits you hear what people have to say rather than the usual talk-over each other rubbish.
Perhaps if we included corporal punishment in the prisoin system we would be able to release prisoners sooner and not need to build so many prisons. such as caning,flogging, waterboarding being part of the penalty as is done in ‘less civilised[?]‘ countries to this day. But likely the best argument against that is the extreme likelihood of victim not living to identify their abusers if the penalty for being caught included corporal punishment..
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
PAUL So why are you so passionate about the right to use physical violence against children?
“I”ll show you what violence is” (as I get up and launch my foot as hard as I can into his diminuitive old fella)!
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Therefore a smack could easily be deemed legal
If a smack for prevention is legal, why is there a legal defence specifically written onto the law for such actions should a defendant need to use in court? Actions that are within the law don’t requre a legal defence.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Cerium – “Can anyone define the line? That’s what law requires.”
No they can’t, same as with most laws, it isn’t a perfect science. Instead of being so concerned with trying to come up with a complete and exact (impossible) legal definition we need to focus on what is important.
Vote:There is no need to criminalise the actions of the majority of good parents. The old law was working 99.99% of the time. That is as good if not better than most other laws. If the handful of cases that used s59 were to be retried today you could put a lot of money on the outcome being different.
We have wasted a few years and 10′s of millions of dollars on this bullshit, all because of a stupid woman with a barrow full of agendas and no mandate. If that money and energy had been put into finding a solution to the real abuse in NZ there may be a few less dead kids in the country today.
Maybe I’m wrong but I think even the vocal minority know their whole campaign is bullshit, it can only be misguided ideology driving them. Either that or they really are that dumb.
July 26th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Cerium I’m not sure I understand you.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the position now is that all smacking is illegal. This is of course subject to the de minimis rule- i.e the police won’t get involved if it is so small or inconsequential as to not warrant there time. So any knind of smack is technically illegal now, whichever context it is done in.
And this is the crux of the argument- although it is the police’s discretion not to prosecute, THEY HAVE THE DISCRETION.
That, and the fact that every parent who smacks is technically committing a breach of our criminal laws, is what people are worried about
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Kaya, I agree mostly with what you are saying. We have all bought into the waste of time money and focus.
Bradford kicked it off as a private members bill and it went through the process.
Someone kicked off the petition (before the final version of the bill passed) and it went through the process which led to the referendum which is going through the process. Which may all achieve diddly squat.
I have wasted my time on this too. But at times I have tried to divert attention to things that will help improving parenting and may help lead to less child abuse. Hardly anyone seems interested in that line, they’d rather just keep arguing about things that really should affect very few people in reality. Ok, I can sort of understand the crimilalising thing but resolving that is not going to change anything except a lot of people may feel, well, I’m not sure what it will really change (even though I support changing it).
And yeah, plenty of people seem to think I’m dumb when I suggest that there are usually better alternatives to smacking, but I’m sticking to that one.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
“So any knind of smack is technically illegal now, whichever context it is done in.”
Depends on the smack and who is drawing the line I guess, I’ll repeat the full first part…
59 Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
I believe a smack could be reasonable in multiple instances there. This should cover a smack away from hot stove or power socket. Disruptive or offensive in a supermarket. etc etc
So a wee (reasonable) smack if a kid tries to grab some lollies at the checkout should be covered here. But if you go out of the supermarket and clip them round the ear and tell them that was for what they had done in the supermarket that is regarded as disipline and is currently frowned upon (legally).
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Cerium,
Vote:reasonable smacks are illegal until they are deemed reasonable by a court if such a smacker is allowed to raise that defence. Geddit. It really is that basic and if you dont understand that I`m so sorry…
July 26th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
DPF: I thought it reflected well on both subjects that they never resorted to the cheap shot about Millie, despite Holmes insistence on bringing up their parenting and discipline records
Hear, hear!!!
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
WTF is a failed parent like Holmes doing preaching on child raring?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
DPF: I thought it reflected well on both subjects that they never resorted to the cheap shot about Millie, despite Holmes insistence on bringing up their parenting and discipline records
Yes. One swallow doth not a summer make.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
The law is worded in a retarded fashion IMO. Anyone care to enlighten me how smacking in relation to “normal daily tasks incidental to good care and parenting” is ok, but then
(2)
Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
So WTF does this mean?
Do normal parental tasks “incidental to good care and parenting” not include correction? You would think this would be one of the “normal daily tasks” referred to.
This seems bizarre. Anyone else think so, or am I reading this wrong?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Of course, no civilised society would ever condone the use of violence against a child and neither does a civilised society need laws enshrined in legislation to prevent it. Mothers and fathers have slapped their children since the dawn of evolution and they will continue to do so, albeit now under NZ law, they are ‘criminals’. This matter is more about the intrusion of the Government into our lives, and John Key and co will be best advised to heed the message, regardless of whether he thinks the law is working, or not.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Oh ok- seems to mean reasonable force such as necessary to get the child out of harms way, stopping offensive behaviour quickly etc, and once the immediate threat is over, then no further force or “correction”, i.e to stop future behaviour, is permitted by the section
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Yep, that’s about it I think Nick, immediate reasonable physical action is allowed, punishment later isn’t. A lot of people are against the ‘criminal unless the cops decide I’m not” thing. Some are adamant they should have the right to physically punish their kids how they see fit.
Oh, and some don’t like being told what they can’t do by government.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
kaya said:
“We have wasted a few years and 10’s of millions of dollars on this bullshit, all because of a stupid woman with a barrow full of agendas and no mandate. If that money and energy had been put into finding a solution to the real abuse in NZ there may be a few less dead kids in the country today.
Maybe I’m wrong but I think even the vocal minority know their whole campaign is bullshit, it can only be misguided ideology driving them. Either that or they really are that dumb.”
Well said.
Vote:But the effort to oppose this ideology is not wasted time or money, it is as essential as getting the mud out of a house after a flood.
Let the clean up begin.
Vote NO in August.
July 26th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Let the clean up begin
Oh purleeeease.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Even so, I still don’t like the powers this gives the police, CYPFS etc. Even if a smack is done after bad behaviour, i.e not done to stop the immediate action, IMO this still should be up to the parents, and 99.9% of parents would know the line. It’s not something I would necessarily do were I a parent, I would try and avoid the use of physical discipline where possible.
I still don’t want to tell other people they can’t however. Especially not pompous arrogant egomaniacs like Paul Holmes. Thanks for the clarification there Cerium. As a law student I’ll embarrasingly admit I had not even read that section of the Crimes Act. From what I had read, and stupidly believed, in the media, I thought the entire section had been repealed (i.e no defence at all for any kind of force towards children whatsoever). Just read it now though. Even so, I stand by my previous comments, even though I was probably wrong re the power socket example.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
“Let the clean up begin
Oh purleeeease.”
I’m starting to think you don’t like me very much hubris
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
It’s just that you sound like a right wing version of Rick (spelt, as I recall, with a silent ‘P’) out of The Young Ones. It’s quite amusing.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
“how do you think it should be amended? As per the boscawen/borrows amendment Or something different?”
Just imagine, all of this crap and bitching could have been avoided with the smallest, tiniest smidgin of common sense all those months ago.
Vote:The Borrows amendment (or something similar) would have worked just fine.
July 26th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
“It’s just that you sound like a right wing version of Rick (spelt, as I recall, with a silent ‘P’) out of The Young Ones. It’s quite amusing.”
ummmmmm…
Vote:No never mind
July 26th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Hmmm…just a random question DPF.
You won’t comment on the National party board selection and potential president because you wrote the software that will count the votes but you seem very vociferous in commenting on Paul Holmes attacking your customers. Is there a reason for this?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I think the point about Paul Holmes is that he postures as a professional and objective broadcaster when (in my humble opinion), he is a primarily a politically narrow advocate for social liberalism and mainly Progressive causes, while broadcasting comes second.
This interview is a prime example of Holme’s poor ability as a broadcaster and his desperate need to push his Progressive views on his audience. If non Sky viewers in this country had any real choices in respect of mainstream channels, the insufferablly arrogant Holmes wouldn’t ever be watched. As he wasn’t when he shifted to Prime.
Its a joke he now bemoans the drug culture when for decades he has pushed so many of the ideas that underpin NZ’s collapse into the social morass of leftism, that shift of political sentiment that is most behind the increasing use of mind altering substances.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Kapital
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let our bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.
Very pretty but
My children are from me
and I am the son of my father
and I am the son of my mother
and I am the grandson of my grandparents
and I am from the blood and thoughts of my ancester
and I am the connection from my ancesters to my children
from the past to the future
only a person with a username of kapital would seek to take the past from my children
slaves have no past
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I would not take the past from your or anybodies else’s children. thankyou very much
Vote:Unless of course you hit them too much
July 26th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
HMMMMMMMM………..WhAlE OiL you cant comment on comments to DPF .Because you block comments on your comments site.DPF has a right to comment to comment.Not like you who block peoples comments on your comet/asteroid webplanetsite…even though i agree with most you say…..
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Why is smacking bad Kapital?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
“And not many here seem to get the problem. What sort of a smack?”
Theres a point Philu. would you be trying to ban the other form of smack ?
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Trolling through the 150 odd comments I find it surprising that only one whalehunter refers to the uncomfortable elephant sitting in the corner of whatever world view room you may care to hold. I.E natural order 101. If Darwin to Dawkins are correct, then we follow some very observable repeatable patterns and rules – common to the higher species. Rearing of the young always involves correction, coercion and pain, fright and flight are fundemental to quick learning and survival. You dont seriously think Sue Bradford and her clapping seals are going to sidestep or improve on the natural order we are condemed to submit to? A quick look at the measurable indicators would suggest that the human species is not going to be saved by the perverse social engineering attempted over the last decade. Sure there are other ways for parents to correct children – if they have the skills, time, family support, mental health and resilience to consistently apply them. On the otherhand a smack used as part of good parental correction will also acheive the results of raising good kids and this model has served society well so far. And NO, banning smacking will not stop mammals occasionally eating their own young. Go find some other piece of legislation to stop the human equivalent of this from happening.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 12:52 am
It seems to me to use the infliction of pain on another human being as a means of correction is just plain wrong.
Vote:Its not like there aren’t alternatives
I would acknowledge that positive parenting takes time. and that is in short supply in this day and age. However we would all agree that kids are our most precious asset and inflicting pain on them unnecessarily just does not seem right on ANY level.
I just am really glad that i am not defending the right to smack it really as its morally indefensible
The repeal of sect 59 is just the most recent of a long line of progressive legislation which can only make our society better .
There is always a time lag between enacting and acceptance of more progressive thinking . there are lots of examples The homosexual reform bill would be one that springs to mind
I am sure you can think of others
There is a reason that Barnadoes et al support the repeal of sect 59 . and it is not because they are pinko lefties who want to run your lives, despite what the more voluble critics here might think. It would be good if the critics could reflect on this, They won’t though
” Bloody nanny state no one is going to tell me I can’t hit my child”
Shit I am so glad I am on this side of the debate and i can say with some degree of honesty, my kids are too
July 27th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Kapital is a progressive leech who believes in the Blank Slate theory (they love that shit) and believes that humanity is innately perfectable with the right conditioning. That’s why.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 6:45 am
And Hurf believes that you can beat anyone into shape. It’s been working for thousands of years. That’s why we nw have successfully achieved having a non-violent society. Right?
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Shunda barunda (628) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 2 Says:
July 26th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
“how do you think it should be amended? As per the boscawen/borrows amendment Or something different?”
Just imagine, all of this crap and bitching could have been avoided with the smallest, tiniest smidgin of common sense all those months ago.
No, People’s Poet, you would have simply wasted the same amount of oxygen accusing everyone of being ‘of the left’ for a different reason.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 6:58 am
Nick, I have thought of a possible example of “(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.”
My grandson wanted to go into the kitchen. I didn’t want him in there on his own. I told him “No” firmly and he started throwing a minor tantrum in the doorway. Using “force” I picked him up and put him down a meter from the doorway, closed the door and went to the other side of the room “ignoring” him. Realising he wasn’t getting the attention he wanted he gave up quickly and came to join in with the us.
Some had claimed that any type of force, holding, picking up etc could be potentially be deemed illegal. I think (d) allows for what I did, as does common sense.
Smacking him would have probably made him cry more. Then what? It can be sad to see parents that smack kids to stop them crying, knowing that it is going to make them cry more. It may not be doing any physical harm but it is ineffective, in fact it can be the opposite – giving in and giving them attention when they are demanding it.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 6:58 am
Kapital,
Vote:Is any form of parental dicipline ‘morally defensible’?
July 27th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Rogerb: “Sure there are other ways for parents to correct children – if they have the skills, time, family support, mental health and resilience to consistently apply them. On the otherhand a smack”…..
is a cop out. An easier less effective way of doing it. We are not wild animals anymore, well, most of us aren’t. And most have become more intelligent. Most parents want to learn better skills to do the best for their kids.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 7:21 am
GNZ: “Is any form of parental dicipline ‘morally defensible’?”
Start with self discipline. Then use effective discipline with your kids, it can be very rewarding learning ways other than by force and by hurting.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Kapital,
You ask “why do you need to inflict pain to stop bad behaviour”? I suggest you ask that question to police who accept that it’s OK to taser adults who misbehave. Why tasering is OK but a light smack is not OK is unclear. Please explain.
You also ask “if there is (sic) clearly alternatives to smacking why do u still want to do it?”. You presuppose that parents have not tried other alternatives. For arguments sake, assume that parents have tried every alternative known to them but they haven’t worked. What should those parents do?
“Why do you think barnadoes unicef save the children plunket and women’s refuge to name a few all support the repeal of sect 59 ?”
Why do you think? Because all of those organisations are lobby groups with an axe to grind.
Have you read Chris Beckett’s research into smacking? If so, what conclusions did you draw?
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Chris Beckett released a paper in 2005 called “The Swedish Myth: The Corporal Punishment Ban and Child Death Statistics”. He makes a compelling case that the rosy picture which has been painted of Sweden is false. Despite its ban on smacking and corporal punishement, children still die each year in Sweden from physical abuse. Interestingly, Sweden only ranks 7th or 9th (depending on the measure used) on an international table of child maltreatment deaths. Several countries that have NOT banned corporal punishment have lower rates of child deaths from maltreatment.
Beckett (2005) quotes from a 2001 UNICEF report which says that the likelihood of child deaths – either accidental or deliberate – “rises steeply with poverty”. Other factors associated with such deaths are: “single parenthood, low maternal education, low maternal age at birth, poor housing, large family size, and parental drug or alcohol abuse”. Noticeably absent from this list was whether the child is smacked or not.
The suggestion, often made by child advocates, that you can reduce child abuse by banning smacking has no scientific validity. However, if we address the risk factors for child abuse that UNICEF have highlighted, we may make some progress in reducing our incidence of child maltreatment.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 8:34 am
And those that think that smacking is likely to damage kids might like to read this.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 10:17 am
” Why is smacking bad Kapital?
It seems to me to use the infliction of pain on another human being as a means of correction is just plain wrong.”
So your argument is based on it “seems” to you?
Vote:That is not good enough!!
You need to explain why physical force is ALWAYS harmful when used against another human being.
That’s what’s wrong with this country, we create laws on a personal whim or religious devotion to radical human rights ideology, with out the slightest bit of real evidence.
If it seems to you that smacking is bad then good for you, but there is no evidence for your position and it should most certainly not be enshrined in law.
Show me how smacking is bad.
July 27th, 2009 at 11:21 am
I agree with the law as stands, and believe it is being applied correctly, I will change my mind if I see a guilty conviction which convinces me otherwise. I do wish to see one minor amendment (discussed below).
I would like acts which are undertaken to preserve the health of a child, i.e. a light smack on the hand if a 3yo is playing with a power socket, distinguished from ones which are instilling behaviour expectations – i.e. being rude, manners etc. With physical force being used in the former being seen as acceptable by law and the later not.,
I have sympathy for some who disagree with my view point, but I just disagree completely with using violence to train what is and is not acceptable in our culture. I know most of you disagree with me, and nothing I will say will change that so will just have to agree to disagree on this.
As mentioned I do favour one amendment, which should actually be covered by the current defence of others but to make it more clear, and that is force used in protecting a child should not be seen as a crime – not that I think this would ever be prosecuted. My examples of this are things like roads, power points, things which can actually hurt / kill a child, actions to prevent children getting harmed by these sorts of things I think should be clearly exempted from ‘assault’. In cases of very young kids who may be fiddling with something like a power socket this would be something which a hit on the hand should be completely acceptable, as the potential alternative is their potential death. However a light smack shouldn’t been seen as acceptable in my opinion in instilling things like our morals / beliefs into children as this should be done through other means I believe – i.e. swearing.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 11:29 am
“I know most of you disagree with me, and nothing I will say will change that so will just have to agree to disagree on this.”
Yeah, that would be great, except your position is enshrined in law!!!
Vote:I have had the humiliation of having a social worker in my home over this issue, I wasn’t prosecuted but it is still the most outrageous intrusion into my life by the state I have experienced so far.
The law is an ass, it is pushing guilt and shame on to people just trying to raise their kids as best they can.
It is a disgrace and it needs to be amended.
July 27th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I managed to get on with Paul this morning. As tempting as it was I did not mention Millie as it would be counter productive to the cause of getting a law change.
Consequently, he gave me a pretty fair go.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Jeff83, since you think it should be a criminal offence, what punishment should be given to a parent who smacks a child for throwing a glass across the room and smashing it?
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
# Alan Wilkinson (401) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 27th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Jeff83, since you think it should be a criminal offence, what punishment should be given to a parent who smacks a child for throwing a glass across the room and smashing it?
Sit them down in front of a computer and make them read this thread from end to end.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“what punishment should be given to a parent who smacks a child for throwing a glass across the room and smashing it?”
…this suggests that previous smacking may not have been effective in teaching good behaviour.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Neither more nor less than any other incident requiring any kind of parental discipline, Cerium.
Now how about answering the question which is central to the issue?
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
OK, “what punishment should be given to a parent who smacks a child for throwing a glass across the room and smashing it?”
Depends on too many things to answer, and I’m not just trying to avoid the question.
Child – was it a deliberate throw? Was it at someone? Was it out of character? Was it out of anger, frustration, nastiness? How old?
Parent – what sort of smack? A smack on the hand, bum, ear, a smack on the jaw, a smack with a piece of 4×2? Was the child injured? Did the child die? Was it trying to prevent the throw? Immediately after the throw? A week later?
Answer – from nothing to life imprisonment.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Ok, Cerium, let’s take the not entirely hypothetical case where the 4-year-old child was told, “Don’t do that” immediately beforehand but went ahead and deliberately did it being rewarded with one open-handed slap on the bottom and commanded “Don’t you ever do that again”.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Assuming average cause and effect with that case – nothing.
I would also suggest a more effective punishment. And that depends on things too, especially age of child.
Example – first, if the child is old enough to do it safely they should clean up the mess. And then something related to remind them eg no coke (or whatever their favourite treat drink is) for a set period of time, say, a week. If you wanted to make the point more when drinks are poured show them the glass stub and tell them their glass can’t be filled for obvious reasons.
A smack like you describe would most likely be forgotten in seconds.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Cerium, obviously a four-year-old is not going to clean up broken glass even if he was in the mood to be cooperative rather than defiant. Neither is the smack going to be forgotten in seconds.
So this should not be a criminal offence but currently it is.
Agreed hubris, Jeff83 and and the rest of the self-righteous “criminalize the beaters” brigade?
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
“Neither is the smack going to be forgotten in seconds.”
They often are forgotten quickly, if they get smacks often. If it was a rare smack it could be remembered more. The punishments that I remember as a kid, significant punishments that got my attention, were never physical punishment.
I don’t see this example as a criminal offence, neither do I see it as the best course of action.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I certainly don’t want parents “giving smacks often” either. But the remedy for that is not creating a bad law which is what has been done – albeit under the lie that it is going to make a difference to serious child abuse.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
“It’s been working for thousands of years. That’s why we nw have successfully achieved having a non-violent society. Right?”
Maybe there’s no such thing as a non-violent society and that humanity is not perfectable, perhaps? Perhaps there is no utopia, no light at the end of the tunnel?
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Agreed Hurf, never utopia. But it is possible to become less violent, if we want to, and if we try. It has generally become less violent over the centuries and millenia. Slowly.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Hurf Durf, those who profess themselves most keen on a “non-violent society” are generally actually the most keen to have someone else provide the violence necessary to keep them safe from every conceivable or imaginary threat.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
# Alan Wilkinson (404) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 27th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Agreed hubris, Jeff83 and and the rest of the self-righteous “criminalize the beaters” brigade?
Not wishing to let the facts get in the way of your excellent post, but can you actually point out where I said criminalise the beaters? I’ve read through my comments several times and can’t spot it.
My view is that smacking is violence, and that violence is stupid, thuggish, repugnant and something to be avoided at all costs, no exceptions. That doesn’t equate to ‘criminalise the beaters’. If your view is that smacking isn’t violence, or that there are exceptions, fine. Smack away.
If you think I want to stop you doing whatever you want to your children, you’re wrong, simply because I don’t care about you or your children.
As for ‘self-righteous’, I am merely a product of my blogging environment.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
“But it is possible to become less violent, if we want to, and if we try. It has generally become less violent over the centuries and millenia. Slowly.”
Why the hell do you think smacking has anything to do with this?
Vote:By your logic time out will lead to higher imprisonment rates in the near future.
Violence and physical force is not evil in itself, its the way that it is used that can become a problem.
Does play fighting lead towards a more violent society?
July 27th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
“My view is that smacking is violence, and that violence is stupid, thuggish, repugnant and something to be avoided at all costs, no exceptions.”
That is ridiculous logic.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
That is ridiculous logic.
It’s a view, different from yours, but not ridiculous.
Anyways, how about we celebrate our differences by not communicating? Ever.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Sorry for maligning you, hubris. I misinterpreted your sniping as ideology rather than disdain.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I don’t think you have given a single straight answer hubris, and you have the cheek to call me a troll.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
“It’s a view, clearly different from yours. How about we celebrate our differences by not communicating?”
I have no issue with that logic, now all we have to do is get the law back to a fair playing field.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
# Shunda barunda (642) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 27th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I don’t think you have given a single straight answer hubris, and you have the cheek to call me a troll.
Yes, go back under your bridge.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
If violence is always bad, should the state ban play fighting among children? The use of violence for fun is clearly dangerous if “violence is always bad” so this is possibly a far more pressing issue than smacking.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
hubris [I won't capitalise in accordance with your wishes],
having read through the comments on this topic, and viewing the number of thumbsdown you have received, I am going to make an observational statement:
Many here not only think you are wrong in your assertions, but can see as evidenced by your tone and your personal attacks that you are a nasty, small minded individual.
I will quote something you said the other day on another thread that highlights both your contempt for others and your ignorance:
“I believe most people are basically self-obsessed idiots, and not deserving of most of the freedoms that they are provided.”
All I can respond to comments like that is I’m glad that individuals such as yourself are in the minority. The day your ilk make up the majority of society is the day we find ourselves living in the likes of Nazi Germany. The sad thing is people with your kind of ideologies are gaining increasing sway as highlighted by the blight that is the ‘Bradford Abomination’. That is, laws made by, and enforced by individuals that neither represent nor have any mandate from the majority of decent society.
Vote:Sadly I believe we will see many more similar ‘laws’ being passed which both violate and remove our personal freedoms. Things we have neither asked for nor want.
July 27th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
“those who profess themselves most keen on a “non-violent society” are generally actually the most keen to have someone else provide the violence necessary to keep them safe from every conceivable or imaginary threat.”
What do you base that on?
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
“What do you base that on?”
What do you base your belief that violence is always harmful to people?
Vote:Is play fighting harmful or not?
July 27th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Kris K
All this is clearly getting everyone’s blood pressure up, isn’t it, me included.
I have disengaged from it now. It’s not worth the cardiac arrest.
In all sincerity, I suggest you do the same.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
“I have disengaged from it now. It’s not worth the cardiac arrest.”
Yup, if you can’t handle the heat get out of the kitchen.
No one of the anti smacking brigade have EVER responded to questions on the evidence for or against violence in the context that it is delivered in.
Vote:In other words, when you factor human intelligence into the equation of physical force between two individuals, the ideologues go bye bye.