Smacking in Epsom

July 20th, 2009 at 9:00 pm by David Farrar

For those in or near Epsom, is having a public forum at 5.30 pm on Friday 24 July. The guest speaker is on why you should vote No in the .

It is at the Mecca Cafe, corner of Nuffield Street and Remuera Road, Newmarket. A cash bar will operate.

Tags: , , , ,

68 Responses to “Smacking in Epsom”

  1. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    NO! because its not binding..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. goonix (140 comments) says:

    I don’t think I’ll bother with this referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Alan Wilkinson (1,871 comments) says:

    This is what we have come to, total insanity:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2610937/Trial-over-hitting-nephew-with-pillow

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I don’t think I’ll bother with this referendum.”

    Thanks for that uninteresting piece of information.

    Nothing worthwhile to contribute I take it.

    Bradford lover.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Hey Alan, its disgraceful alright, but you should read this to see where we are heading-

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5858902/Evil-destruction-of-a-happy-family.html

    Hat tip Crusader Rabbit.

    The Greatest Blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Alan Wilkinson (1,871 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, sickening. The Times has run similar stories. Our only hope is this country is too small to keep evil secret however much the bureaucrats try.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Thanks for the link Red, the last paragraph is possibly the most important, while this is an extreme case it’s actually just the tip of the iceberg, the family court system looks after those within the family court system, and those within that system look for excuses to fuck over families just for ego trips, and if you fight the system that’s when the bastards really get to have their fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    As I sit here in England.

    I can only muse that the Socialist Cult has grown stronger.

    Don’t forget that Klark, Cullen, and Bradford only had but 9 short years to continue with ‘Human Experimentation’

    Blair, Brown, Mandelson, have had 12 years in office.

    You can now imagine what would have happened had Labour got in for a Fourth Term of Office.

    ZanuLabour promised us a better future. What we got was control from above, the breakdown of the Nuclear Family, and the persecution of the ‘Productive Sector’

    The true’ Politics of Envy’

    The Referendum is important, if only as a conduit of sentiment. They work for us. We should not have to work for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. jarbury (464 comments) says:

    Geez a whole cafe full of child-beaters. I can hear the teeth gnashing from here.

    [DPF: And that comment says so much more on you than anyone else]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. James (1,338 comments) says:

    “Geez a whole cafe full of child-beaters. I can hear the teeth gnashing from here.”

    Geez, a real child abuser speaks his tiny mind.

    Oh…what did I mean by that? Simple….you and your mates who want children on a level par with adults and not taught bounderies,responsibilities or consequences for actions are setting these kids up for a big shock when they get out in the real world.And thanks to reality evading fools like you many of them will get hurt, and hurt others because of the silly pap you are advocating.

    Its not all bubble gum rivers and chocolate dreams out there you dopey cock.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Ruby (105 comments) says:

    Fuck James, a generation of unsmacked kids is going to be the downfall of our civilization?

    From the anger and hatred in this thread it’s not hard to see why such people would be the kind to want to hit their kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Cerium (23,476 comments) says:

    Why does this have to be so polarising? Surely there is some middle ground that is reasonable for most parents and kids.

    The current law isn’t perfect but it isn’t anywhere near as bad as many make out. It allows for some types of smacking in some situations. Surely it allows for most of the smacking that most parents do, or should do.

    There are different parenting methods that are as effective or more effective than smacking.

    Many unsmacked kids are good, well disciplined kids who turn into good adults.

    Some kids aren’t disciplined enough, that can cause problems.
    Some kids are disciplined too much, that can cause problems.

    We have to have laws that will deal with violence against children. As with any laws, sometimes people will be charged where it seems unreasonable, and occasionally may be convicted. And some people will get off where it seems they deserve to be convicted. Justice never can be perfect, and won’t please everyone all the time.

    Humans have lived violently for a long time. Surely we have the intelligence now to understand that less violence is generally better, although sometimes unavoidable. Getting angry about a largely inconsequential law isn’t good for anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Inventory2 (10,299 comments) says:

    jarbury said “Geez a whole cafe full of child-beaters. I can hear the teeth gnashing from here.”

    And you wonder why the Greens and Bradford are held in such contempt jarbury. It’s little wonder when you make such sweeping and emotive statements as the one above. There’s a huge difference between parents who give their children a rare smack, and those who beat or abuse their children, and you know it. But it doesn’t stop you and your ilk tarring all with the one brush, so as to muddy the waters. So much for the Greens being the party of principle eh!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    DPF said: A cash bar will operate.

    jarbury said: Geez a whole cafe full of child-beaters.

    Getting tanked up and rarked up, and then to go home to the kids. Scary!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Grant Michael McKenna (1,159 comments) says:

    The Obamessiah calls for a return to “the day when parents saw somebody foolin’ around – it wasn’t your child, but… they’ll whoop you anyway… Or at least they’ll tell your parents… well, you know…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. MeneerCronje (43 comments) says:

    I know that John Key has already done a Helen Clark on the anti-smacking issue, but it will be interesting to see if there is any reaction when the majority has had their say. The last time I saw a minority ruling a majority it was called apartheid and we all know how New Zealand felt about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    James said: …you and your mates who want children on a level par with adults and not taught bounderies,responsibilities or consequences for actions…

    Not at all James. I want children to have the same protection against violence in law as adults do – not put on a level par with adults in every regard. That would plainly be silly.

    And I do want them taught boundaries, responsibilities and consequences for their actions. But you don’t have to hit them to do that – they actually respond much better if they know WHY they should or should not do something, rather than being coerced into dong it or not doing it by the fear of getting the bash without developing any understanding of the reasons society expects them to behave in a certain manner.

    Inventory2 said: There’s a huge difference between parents who give their children a rare smack, and those who beat or abuse their children…

    I would dispute that. Most parents who “smack” do so not as a calculated exercise having taken the time to rationally determine that is the best response give all the circumstances, but on the spur of the moment out of anger and frustration with the child’s behaviour. And when a “light smack” doesn’t work, what next?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. bearhunter (853 comments) says:

    “Getting tanked up and rarked up, and then to go home to the kids. Scary!”

    Just because you can’t handle your piss isn’t a reason to assume others can’t either, Toad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. GNZ (228 comments) says:

    Toad,
    Just stopping people from smacking (whoever will actually stop as a result of the law) won’t suddenly make them use dicipline in a rational considered manner. They will just start using other methods in anger and frustration. And if that doesn’t work….

    How do you think denying desperate frustrated people options works in other situations?

    Of course there is a line where smacking becomes child abuse, but that is true for time outs or any other form of dicipline too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    bearhunter: Drunk or sober, I have never lost control and hit a child.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. big bruv (13,721 comments) says:

    It could be worse; Imagine “Getting tanked up and rarked up, and then to go home to Bradford or Delahunty. Scary!”

    No wonder Toad is a drunk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Cerium (23,476 comments) says:

    Why is Rodney Hide stoking this along? Is it for the good of children?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Cerium: “The current law isn’t perfect but it isn’t anywhere near as bad as many make out. It allows for some types of smacking in some situations.”

    No it doesn’t, it allows you to use force on a child to prevent harm or damage, but any smack is going to happen after such an event, so must surely be a form of correction – and under this law using force for correction is assault.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    big bruv said: …and then to go home to Bradford or Delahunty.

    You seem rather obsessed with them bruv. Got sticky pix of them under your bed perchance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > Fuck James, a generation of unsmacked kids is going to be the downfall of our civilization?

    I don’t think so and nor will a generation of smacked kids be the downfall of our civilization either. Have you got any more straw man arguments, Ruby, or do you want to debate the issue like a mature adult?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Cerium (23,476 comments) says:

    “The biggest flaw of the human race is its refusal to learn from the mistakes of others.”

    Like, from people who lose their temper and smack too much/hard and seriously damage their kids?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. jcuknz (704 comments) says:

    Getting a smack becuase you have made your care giver angry is a valuable lesson that every child needs to learn … ie. do not agrivate people bigger than you. The intolerance of the anti-smacking lobby is insufferable and typical of the extremists/terrorists mentality … the self right attitude of the religious fanatic ad infinitum …. which paints the situation in terms of black and white … when it is a grey subject which, unless it becomes abuse, should not be controlled by law. As I read the law it seems to not permit any physical discipline. Any caregiver is at risk of their charges talking directly or indirectly to the police …. something the Nazi and Communist States made a practice of. Obama has it right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. MeneerCronje (43 comments) says:

    “The biggest flaw of the human race is its refusal to learn from the mistakes of others.”
    “Like, from people who lose their temper and smack too much/hard and seriously damage their kids?”

    The minority who do smack too much/hard would do well to learn from parents who don’t. And people like you would do well to make the distinction between them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Ruby (105 comments) says:

    I don’t think so and nor will a generation of smacked kids be the downfall of our civilization either. Have you got any more straw man arguments, Ruby, or do you want to debate the issue like a mature adult?

    You mean like the strawman argument I was responding to here?

    You and your mates who want children on a level par with adults and not taught bounderies, responsibilities or consequences for actions are setting these kids up for a big shock when they get out in the real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Chuck Bird (4,847 comments) says:

    bearhunter: Drunk or sober, I have never lost control and hit a child.

    Good for you Toad. Neither have I but I have smacked my kids on a very few occasions when they were young. Those who hit their kids should be charged with assault.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    jarbury said: I can hear the teeth gnashing from here.

    And the leather belts, jug cords, and riding crops cracking!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. bearhunter (853 comments) says:

    “bearhunter: Drunk or sober, I have never lost control and hit a child.”

    Good for you. I am sure your children are thankful for that.
    What I was getting at was your implication that the very existence of a cash bar implies that everyone will get roaring drunk and start fights. Despite the propaganda to the contrary, this doesn’t always happen at functions where drink is involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. starboard (2,523 comments) says:

    by the fear of getting the bash ..

    ..you may discipline kids with ” the bash “toad but why tar Joe average with your brush ? I give my kids a smack when needed and then explain to them why it was necessary… no do gooding lefty idealist bastard is going to tell me how to bring up my children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Of course it doesn’t, bearhunter. I was just taking the piss (so to speak).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Cerium (23,476 comments) says:

    “Despite the propaganda to the contrary, this doesn’t always happen at functions where drink is involved.”

    No doubt about that.

    But it is well known that alcohol is a major factor in domestic violence (alcohol+anger+a natural reaction to smack is a dangerous mix), so the open connection of alcohol with a pro-smacking meeting could seem a bit stupid. Surely they don’t see a need to attract people by having alcohol available? They could still have had the bar open to fundraise (presumably) without advertising it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. bearhunter (853 comments) says:

    Sorry Toad I didn’t recognise the sarcasm; it’s just that – like too many Greens – you usually come across as an earnest, self-righteous, priggish, po-faced wowser and I thought you were simply behaving according to type. Sorry about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    starboard said: …I give my kids a smack when needed and then explain to them why it was necessary…

    Why is it necessary, starboard? And shouldn’t the explanation of why their behaviour was unacceptable be the first thing you do – before any punishment. If they accept that their behaviour was unacceptable and undertake to rectify it, then there is no need for any punishment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. jarbury (464 comments) says:

    Geez….. some people are rather sensitive about things aren’t they? LOL.

    So, once again someone please remind me how the current law isn’t working?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. jarbury (464 comments) says:

    I just think the post title is quite funny: “Smacking in Epsom”.

    Sounds like a bondage group meet-up or something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    Oh…what did I mean by that? Simple….you and your mates who want children on a level par with adults and not taught bounderies,responsibilities or consequences for actions are setting these kids up for a big shock when they get out in the real world.

    Parents teach children boundaries, responsibilities and consequences for actions all the time without hitting them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. starboard (2,523 comments) says:

    idealist…how many children have you got ? Sometimes you cannot reason with a 5 year old..once the boundary has been breached and they are not responding to verbal instruction , a lite smack on the arse is required. The boundary has been re-set. Simple really…and not a clothes dryer in sight….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    starboard,

    If your children are old enough to understand an explanation of why you smacking them was necessary, aren’t they old enough to understand things like loss of privileges and other non-violent punishments?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    jarbury said: “Smacking in Epsom”. Sounds like a bondage group meet-up or something.

    Don’t forget that Richard Worth used to be the local MP before the Nats did the deal with Rodney, jarbury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. jarbury (464 comments) says:

    Don’t forget that Richard Worth used to be the local MP before the Nats did the deal with Rodney, jarbury.

    Very true toad…. I wonder if people will be invited to bring along their whips?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. starboard (2,523 comments) says:

    I take it you you have no children either RS

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Brian Smaller (4,013 comments) says:

    Smacking in Epsom? I thought that the Labour party, flush with Mt Albert electoral success and hearing Matt Macarten going on about Helen Clark’s black boots, had decided to give DBP a shot there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. jarbury (464 comments) says:

    Bad mental picture of the day: DBP and Richard Worth at a “Smacking in Epsom” gathering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    We can commission Cthoniid for a terrifyingly close-up photo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Cerium (23,476 comments) says:

    Starboard, I have three children, two step children, two grandchildren with three more on the way. None have been in trouble with the law.

    I don’t remember being smacked as a kid at home. I’m grateful to my parents for that.

    I got the strap and cane plenty of times at school, 12 times one term (the group I was in kept a tally), and I thought it was stupid, a bit of a joke. I remember effective punishments that didn’t involve violence. And the teachers I respected the most didn’t need to strap.

    I am sure I gave my kids the occasional backside or hand pat.
    I “spanked” once after the other parent had run out of patience and called me home. Afterwards I felt embarrassed, and I don’t think it helped with anything.

    I have also learnt and successfully tried horse “whispering”, which is really just understanding and using psychology and positive reinforcement. Same principles apply to kids.

    You can “reason” with kids as long as you understand what their level of reasoning and learning is.

    I understand the stresses, frustrations and fears of being a parent. I know that we are all imperfect parents, learning as we go, and learning to be a good parent never stops. I know that some physical intervention is necessary. I also understand the dangers of anger – when common sense and restraint can disappear in an instant.

    I can choose to treat my kids and grandkids however I like. I also choose to live here under our laws, and I know that if I am found to have (or thought to have) broken any of those laws I could be charged. Usually the law works. Sometimes shit happens. Too often to kids. And very occasionally to innocent parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. peteremcc (342 comments) says:

    Toad: “Don’t forget that Richard Worth used to be the local MP before the Nats did the deal with Rodney, jarbury.”

    What deal would that be Toad? The one where National tried as hard as they could to beat Rodney and refused to ignore him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Cerium 6:32 am,
    “Why does this have to be so polarising? Surely there is some middle ground that is reasonable for most parents and kids.
    The current law isn’t perfect but it isn’t anywhere near as bad as many make out. It allows for some types of smacking in some situations. Surely it allows for most of the smacking that most parents do, or should do.”

    This is exactly the problem: the law as it stands makes any parent that smacks, grabs, restrains, etc., for WHATEVER reason, a CRIMINAL.
    Bottom line: legally there is no ‘reasonable’ ‘middle ground’ full stop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    This is exactly the problem: the law as it stands makes any parent that smacks, grabs, restrains, etc., for WHATEVER reason, a CRIMINAL.

    Except that’s not so – there are circumstances where it a parent can “smack”, 4 of them apparently. WHat’s being debated is the right to smack for correctional purposes.

    Although I’ve yet to see a definition of “correction”, and I wonder if that means “punishment”, as in “Eat your greens or bend over for 6 of the best.”.

    Can anyone clarify?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Llew 3:40 pm,
    “Although I’ve yet to see a definition of “correction”, and I wonder if that means “punishment”, as in “Eat your greens or bend over for 6 of the best.”.

    Exactly!
    When is a ‘smack’ not for the purpose of correction?

    This could also extend, theoretically, to any physical interaction between parent and child which could be argued to be in the domain of ‘correction’, and therefore ‘assault’.
    Even in the extreme case of, say, a child throwing a fit, and the parent picking up the child and hugging them to both show their love and to stop the child hurting themselves or others. Or of grabbing a child to stop them running onto the road.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Even in the extreme case of, say, a child throwing a fit, and the parent picking up the child and hugging them to both show their love and to stop the child hurting themselves or others. Or of grabbing a child to stop them running onto the road.

    I think those fall within the 4 hypothetical situations that are still OK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    MeneerCronje 8:33 am,
    “The biggest flaw of the human race is its refusal to learn from the mistakes of others.”
    http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_consultation_paper.htm

    NZ goes even further in that we seem to specialise in implementing what has already failed in other countries.
    As the article above highlights, we, too, are likely to head down the same road as Sweden if we do not repeal the ‘Anti-smacking Bill’.

    I STRONGLy ENCOURAGE everyone to read this article.
    We can’t say we haven’t been warned!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    llew 4:31 pm,
    “I think those fall within the 4 hypothetical situations that are still OK.”

    I would agree, but the point could still be argued from a legal point of view. That’s the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Youth Against Child Abuse (4 comments) says:

    Whats so stupid with this whole debate is that the supporters of this law believe that a smack is the same as abuse.

    http://yaca.org.nz/?p=19 from YACA press release on 14th of July.

    “YACA believes that there is a great difference between child discipline that is carried out in a loving, controlled way in order to train a child, and child abuse which is the uncontrolled and unacceptable behaviour of angry parents.”

    “The horrific rate of child abuse in New Zealand has nothing to do with good parental discipline, because the motive for both actions are completely opposite to each other,” Says Mr. Smith. “Child abuse happens when parents lash out at their children in anger, while a smack given for the purpose of correction is given out of love, for the training of the child.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Youth Against Child Abuse 5:07 pm,

    … out of the mouths of babes …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Cerium (23,476 comments) says:

    “the law as it stands makes any parent that smacks, grabs, restrains, etc., for WHATEVER reason, a CRIMINAL.”

    Bollocks as anyone who has read the law knows.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Cerium (23,476 comments) says:

    “Whats so stupid with this whole debate is that the supporters of this law believe that a smack is the same as abuse. ”

    Are unsupported sweeping generalisations stupid?

    I sort of accept the current law, with some reservations.
    I accept some smacking with some reservations.

    A smack can be abuse, but often isn’t. Depends on what sort of smack for what sort of purpose. Most people would agree that a smack in the head is abuse. A smack with a bit of 4×2 is abuse. A smack on a nappied bum would rarely be abuse.

    If I was walking down the street and smacked a young women, or someone else’s child, on the bum it would reasonably be regarded as some sort of abuse, whether it hurt or not.

    Trying to defend a “smack” as categorically ok when it can be so many different things is, well indefensible.

    Try defining the line between ok smacks and not ok smacks in legal terms. There is a reason that hasn’t been done.

    This is much more complex than pro-smackers versus law supporters. Most people in both categories are reasonably justified in their views. Except those who believe or paint extremes. That is why a Yes/No decision is not very useful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Alan Wilkinson (1,871 comments) says:

    Cerium, a criminal charge IS extreme. That is why people are angry at being labelled as criminals even if they may not be charged. And that is the point of the referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Cerium (23,476 comments) says:

    Changing the law back will label how many less parents? I think the outrage is way out of proportion to the degree of law change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    It’s not about ‘how less’, it is now about why the f*ck did we put this stupid legislation in in the first place.

    Oh yeah, to make some liberal vote winning media coverage leading up to the last election, not to prevent any damage to kids.

    Decades of Labour UNION Teacher Commie PC policy has damaged NZ beyond the comprehension of many who haven’t left the country for a wee looksie at how the rest of the world lives in the 21C.

    Kia kaha.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Cerium (23,476 comments) says:

    “The horrific rate of child abuse in New Zealand has nothing to do with good parental discipline, because the motive for both actions are completely opposite to each other,” Says Mr. Smith. “Child abuse happens when parents lash out at their children in anger, while a smack given for the purpose of correction is given out of love, for the training of the child.”

    This sounds ok in theory, except that I suggest that there are more loving and more effective ways of disciplining children than smacking.

    But, two big BUTS:
    – any parents, good and bad, get tired, angry, frustrated. Decisions and actions are not always made with calm logic, more often they are not. Any parent is capable of lashing out, no matter how loving they usually are.
    – promoting “smacking for purposes of correction” can mean different things to different parents, there is the danger that bad parents take it as approval for disciplining however they like as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    This stupid legislation will not stop anyone lashing out in tired anger.

    All it does is make the already indefensible indefensible – aka no benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Chuck Bird (4,847 comments) says:

    A smack can be abuse, but often isn’t. Depends on what sort of smack for what sort of purpose. Most people would agree that a smack in the head is abuse. A smack with a bit of 4×2 is abuse. A smack on a nappied bum would rarely be abuse.

    Cerium, I suggest you look at the law change that the NO lobby is promoting.

    http://section59.blogspot.com/2009/05/john-boscawens-private-members-bill.html

    Use of an implement is prohibited. You of a 4×2 would have bee considered abuse or assault under the unmodified section 59. Someone got off who used a flexible piece of wood. This YES lobby soon made that a 4×2. That is all history now. The new legislation makes it clear that anything more than a smack can find you charged and convicted. Please try sticking to the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Cerium (23,476 comments) says:

    The point being made was not on the law, but on the frequent claim that a “smack” is ok and not not abuse, and that anyone can tell the difference. I suggest that it is a fact that it is very difficult to clearly differentiate “good” smacks and abuse. Extremes are easy, but there are a lot of different scenarios in the middle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.