The other day my oldest daughter came home and told me I wasn’t aloud to smack her. I sat down with her and told her I had no need to smack her, but I also took her to the Family First website and took her through the cases listed there,which we discussed at length. This state directed intervention in loving family relationships frightened her much more than I ever could.

And that’s the scary thing; while kids may know their ‘rights’, very few of them are aware of the possible outcome if they complained to authorities that their parents abused (smacked) them. As you did with your daughter, parents should likewise explain to their kids these possible consequences.

Good on you for doing so.

More importantly polling before it was enacted and a referendum after the election clearly showed that more than 80% of the electorate thought so too.
That the politicians ignored this shows their ciontempt for the social contract and makes them not fit for purpose.

This is the crux of the matter now, not child abuse or smacking.
One of the reasons people voted for National was they expected them to undo this legislation and the nanny state per se, that is not happening.

If you don’t understand this then you need to go and live in a dictatorship and experience what it is to understand how precious a democracy is.
It is so precious, wherever it is in the world, lives have to be given to get it and very often to maintain it.
All other arguments are fluff.

The major fault of this legislation is that it gives ALL the rights to the children, yet dumps ALL the responsibilities on the parents. Fair legislation balances the rights and the responsabilities of all parties concerned.

As a Parent, I have the responsibility to ensure my children are raised correctly. I have not had to physically discipline my children for many years now, but there was a time when that is precisely what I had to do, as an option of last resort obviously. It worked though.

The other day my oldest daughter came home and told me I wasn’t aloud to smack her. I sat down with her and told her I had no need to smack her, but I also took her to the Family First website and took her through the cases listed there,which we discussed at length. This state directed intervention in loving family relationships frightened her much more than I ever could.

Much tougher one to quantify though. Tracking abuse statistics is really hard work, totally fraught with statistical difficulties. Given that there is ongoing change in what is even considered abuse, apples of the past are not apples of the future.

Society has made HUGE leaps in technology and some other things but morality has taken a giant leap backward. Even going back a few years if two guys got into a fight in a bar or someone’s house, well, they might beat the snot out of each other and end up putting a pack of frozen peas on the bruises: nowadays if two people get into a fight it’s more likely that one will knife the other to death, or one will end up getting in his car and running down the other.

Killing someone doesn’t seem to be such a big deal these days. People have no self control.

Rufus

Where’s his mum?

K road….

Where’s his mum?

I was relating MY experience.

You’re relating YOUR experience.

Since we’re talking about EXPERIENCES there’s bound to be some variance.

My claim was that the countryside I grew up in is no longer safe.

My other claim was that I felt safer as a pedestrian at night in London than I do here in the large NZ cities.

My little sisters can’t do that safely these days. Even our friendly countryside has become dangerous with murder, abuse, rape etc becoming a frequent occurrence.

And let’s not even mention town on a Fri night.

I felt safer walking the streets of London at night than I did back in Auckland or Welligton..”

absolute horseshit..!

auckland in the 80′s was a very violent city..

i came here after a time in new york..

and was amazed at the overt violence on the streets of auckland on a fri nite..

and how about that bullshit about women/children not being beaten 40 yrs ago..?

it was almost considered a mans’ right 40 yrs ago..to belt the missus..

selective-memories..eh..?

fantasy-material..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

I remember being a kid 20 odd years ago, and we could walk home from the bus stop or cycle home from town in the evening. The countryside used to be safe.

My little sisters can’t do that safely these days. Even our friendly countryside has become dangerous with murder, abuse, rape etc becoming a frequent occurrence.

And let’s not even mention town on a Fri night.

I felt safer walking the streets of London at night than I did back in Auckland or Welligton.

But I digress…

Why marriage over some other sort of arrangement?

Because marriage is legally binding, and a
PUBLIC vow. It (should) carry more clout than other relationships.

Yes you can vow your undying love to your partner without getting married, but tomorrow you (or your partner) could change your mind. Marriage is a more stable and more secure state for both partners, as well as their kids.

Now that doesn’t mean the relationship RRM is in isn’t meaningful or won’t work (man, have you got a chip on your shoulder, buddy) – I wish him all the best, seriously. It’s great to hear that he’s filling a gap left by some loser. Good on you!

No-one is talking RRM down – we’re just saying that marriage is a more stable and secure state of being.

Rufus

We can’t go back to 1969. For a start, what was the population then? 2.5 million?

We have to find a way to try and improve things moving forward, that’s the only direction time goes in.

Christ would have been classified and vilified a leftie by many on this blog. But I guess as time has moved forward you can be whatever sort of Christian you choose to be.

Do you condemn all leftie Christians?

In my opinion, Pete, “leftie Christians” is a contradiction in terms.

“simply turn the clock back to a time when we had a sound, moral, and pure society”

Back to when exactly, where, and how? It’s mpossible to go back the the impossible, if you don’t realise that then I misjudged your intellect.

If you don’t/can’t/won’t see the contrast between society today and that of 40+ years ago then it is I that has “misjudged your intellect”. Only someone with their head where the sun don’t shine refuses to acknowledge the obvious decline of western society, and the systematic removal of the morals that were foundational to it in the past.

I have to agree with PhilU – there’s no evidence to suggest he is a bad parent. People with different opinions can be good parents too.

I too question when we had a “sound, moral and pure society”. From what I have heard from my parents and grand parents ‘we’ used to just pretend a lot didn’t happen, ignore the obvious, belittle, deride and abuse. The difference now is that some of that is a little more open, and sometimes accepted. Acceptance and honesty isn’t always a bad thing.

I know that I personally have produced a good old-fashioned nuclear family BUT my children have four Grandads, two grandmas, and all the rest of my interesting family situation. I truly have come to see that love, care and honesty in our relationships as a wider family actually contribute to us being a successful family, more than if we were just Mum, Dad and two kids. Experience of difference can be useful in giving one some perspective.

I too agree that it would be preferable for us to all be two parent families. I also know a number of single parent families that do work, but it is hard work. Saying that, the research does say that coming from a single parent family is a significant factor in likelihood of crime, etc. I suspect ensuring our boys and girls are responsible for their actions, allowing for more adoptions, reducing drug and alcohol abuse, etc etc will have a greater effect on the outcomes of those from single parent families than just marrying the woman off.