Editorials 6 April 2010
April 6th, 2010 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarThe Herald calls for aligning of top tax rates:
It will lower the top rate of income tax from 38 per cent to perhaps 33 per cent, which would leave it still significantly higher than the company rate of 30 per cent.
Aligning those rates should be a primary aim of tax reform. The top income and company rates should be the same for reasons of social equity and economic efficiency.
It is neither fair nor useful to the economy that taxpayers on the same incomes should pay different rates because one puts some costs through a company and the other does not.
Arguably it is more important to align the trust rate and the personal rate.
I think we should aim to align all three, but a 3% difference between company and personal is not huge, considering company tax is inputted.
The rates were aligned for a long time after the 1980s reforms when incentives for tax avoidance were taken out of the system.
The incentives were restored by Helen Clark’s Government as a byproduct of its determination to “tax the rich”.
It introduced a new top income rate of 39 per cent in its first year of office, 2000, and tax-avoidance opportunities returned.
Chief among them are the use of trust funds and personal investment entities that carry a lower tax rate, 33 per cent.
Yeah, that unnecessary tax increase has been a boon for the avoidance industry. Remember 50 of the 100 richest NZers do not even pay it.
The Government expects to be borrowing $240 million a week for the next four years. Tax cuts must be balanced by spending cuts if the red ink is not to get worse.
The economy would gain as much strength from a balanced Budget as it would from competitive company tax rates.
Whatever decision the Government makes on the alignment of income and company rates it should be guided by the implications for its revenue. But if it can afford to align those rates it should do so.
Alignment is tidy, simple and fairer for everybody.
Can’t disagree with that.
The Dom Post welcomes open justice:
Justice Warwick Gendall, presiding in the High Court at Whangarei, was upholding the concept of “open justice” in another way. He said talented Blues rugby player Rene Ranger had no more right to anonymity than anyone else charged with assault. The charge of injuring with intent to injure dates from October, when Ranger appeared in Warkworth District Court after an incident outside a Mangawhai pub. He was given name suppression at the time, after his counsel argued that naming him might end his contract with the New Zealand Rugby Union. Poor lamb.
Justice Gendall was having none of such nonsense and reversed the order.
It is cheering when judges remember that they work in public courts, on behalf of people who have not only entrusted them with dispensing justice fairly and impartially, but who also must fund much of what goes on within their courtrooms. Open justice needs to prevail as often as possible; the circumstances in which secrecy supplants it should be rare indeed. …
The shape of Mr Power’s bill, therefore, will be interesting. It will, this newspaper hopes, make it much harder for the wealthy, the well-known, and those who can engage a judge’s sympathy to hide from public scrutiny. It is a basic tenet of our justice system that everyone be equal before the law.
Again, I agree.
The Press focuses on rampaging crime:
New Zealanders will be disturbed that crime is continuing to grow at an alarming rate. They have become used to statistics that show increases, but not to the sort of large jump recorded in Wednesday’s figures.
That surprise will be the greater because of the tougher measures implemented by John Key’s Government and touted as a means of reducing wrongdoing.
The Government’s defence – that its measures have not been in effect long enough to impact on crime – is reasonable to a degree. But the trumpeting of its tough measures must have sunk into the awareness of most citizens, criminal and law-abiding, and should already be showing a beneficial result if it is the right approach.
The problem for the Government is that it will be able to use the excuse – that its measures need to be given time to work – only once. If the crime statistics continue to grow in the next 12 months, the Government will have to find a more convincing reason to account for the apparent failure of its policies.
Another increase of this magnitude for violent crime would be a problem.
The ODT discusses the case of the Norweians who hunted protected Kereu:
Most New Zealanders would have been horrified to learn of the incident involving Norwegian tourists who posted on the internet images of shooting at a fully protected native wood pigeon (kereru), the bird falling from a tree, and film of one of the tourists holding two dead birds.
Though heavily dependent on tourism, the country does not need or want visitors such as these, but there appears to be no existing mechanism within the prosecution regime whereby they can be banned from returning.
Yet if the perpetrators were to be charged and convicted under Norwegian law, the punishment would be far more in keeping with the crime – up to six years’ jail for having wilfully or through gross negligence reduced a natural population of protected wildlife in Norway or overseas.
It is ironic that they face greater punishment in Norway for what they did in NZ, than what they could face if they were still here.
April 6th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
On the weekend the boy and I were adding to the Co2 levels burnign some rubbish, and two kereru were watching us from a nearby tree. They were almost tame – We walked up to the tree (and it wasn’t a big tree) and could almost touch them. We have four mated pairs nesting in the trees around our house. They are the dumbest birds you have ever seen, but in a likeable way.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
It is ironic that they face greater punishment in Norway for what they did in NZ, than what they could face if they were still here.
Which would be a good argument for all overseas visitors crimes in NZ to be punished for that crime under the laws of and in their own country of origin.
Not in New Zealand having the most lenient punishments in the World.
It would be great if we could make all our own criminals citizens of another country.. just so they could be punished for their crimes the same way.. Norway would be a softer option.. i’m thinking China.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Aligning the top tax rates at 33% is not good enough. All the income tax rates should be cut by 2% or more as compensation for the rise in GST, and the “soak the rich pricks” rate abolished as compensation for the property depreciation loophole closing. That would mean the 33c rate being cut to 31c, and that becoming the top rate – but if you are going that far, you might as well align everything at the present company tax rate of 30%. Less would of course be better but the twin chains of fiscal responsibility and the desirability of National being re-elected (which would be jeorpardised by the spending cuts needed to cut deeper) limit things.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
RKBee: “Not in New Zealand having the most lenient punishments in the World.”
Press: “That surprise will be the greater because of the tougher measures implemented by John Key’s Government and touted as a means of reducing wrongdoing.”
And that’s after Labour had increased sentencing and the prison population substantially.
There’s a strong possibility that continually increasing sentences won’t reduce crime levels. What then?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
PG>> There’s a strong possibility that continually increasing sentences won’t reduce crime levels. What then?
A BULLET.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Where does that work RKBee?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Pete George 1:43 pm ,
I find it works best when applied to the head, Pete.
Vote:What’s your preference?
April 6th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
My personal view is that going ‘soft’ on punishment for crime is about as effective as Bradford’s anti-smacking bill is in reducing violence against children. No just ineffective, but actually cointerproductive; we will observe the continuing escalation of violence/crime in groups we go soft on. And let’s not forget that as a result of Bradford’s bill we will ALSO see increases in unruly and undisciplined/violent children – a quality they will carry into adulthood.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Kris,
Making prison as miserable as possible has had little luck in preventing recidivism in the past. If we’re to be serious about rehabilitation, we have to swallow our selfish desire to see criminals suffer and look to what is best for the community.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Not surprising from a fundamentalist christian stuck in the dark ages.
The solution to violence against children is BEAT THE CHILDREN.
And the only way to discipline children in your world is violence. Classic!
We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the western world, how is that soft on crime?
Vote:The problem of crime will not be solved by repeating your silly rhetoric and stupid, one-dimensional slogans.
April 6th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Yes…(Kris)… but I liked your other personal view better.. it was more personal and to the point.
Vote:I would add a bullett worked just fine in most counties before hanging was the ultimate punishment.
April 6th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
“The solution to violence against children is BEAT THE CHILDREN.”
Kris didn’t say that at all, you did.
Vote:And he is right, Bradford’s bollocks has done nothing to stop the physical abuse of children, and a hell of a lot to ensure a more violent society due to further erosion of legitimate authority.
April 6th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Ryan Sproull 2:13 pm,
We don’t have to go that far back in NZ history to see that one or two murders a year was BIG news. Now we’re confronted with minors murdering/raping (or both) on what seems like a weekly basis, and that’s ignoring similar repeat offender crimes committed by adults (Burton, Bell et al).
So what’s changed in our society during this time frame?
Answer: We’ve removed corporal punishment from first the schools and now the home; we give slap on the wrist sentences to repeat violent offenders – who go on, yet again, to repeat offend; and we remove most forms of absolute right and wrong concepts from our children’s ‘education’ (home & school) during their formative years; let alone having removed the death penalty for serious crime long ago.
The experiment’s failed, Ryan; we can’t continue to do the same things and expect a different result. By turning the clock back to a time when we had little, if any, civil unrest and violent crime, and applying the solutions that worked then will result in the same outcomes – pretty simple, really. We already know what to do; let’s just get on and do it.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
RKBee 2:22 pm,
[I was just winding Pete up and taking him out of context - although my view stands]
And if we were to bring back the death penalty (of which I’m an advocate) for violent repeat offenders, for instance, I would have no problem with either a bullet or the noose.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Oh I can’t wait for “Crusher” Collins, Garrett and Power to be called to account by the very same people they claim to be protecting – the victims.
To the people who read my comments on this issue as “progressive”, “wet bus ticket” etc (are you listening, Red?) it’d probably come as a surprise to find I agree with Kris K above, with three provisos.
One is that repeat offenders in the main wouldn’t be repeat offending if we got the rest of the formula right, so stuff like “three strikes” should be our last resort, not our first.
And the second is that Kris’s list needs to be augmented by measures to:
- address our failing education system;
- create jobs so that the only people left unemployed are those who don’t want to work (yes, even if that means Keynesian government-funded work schemes… like the cycleway for instance);
- properly fund prisoners’ rehabilitation while locked up;
- divert all non-violent offenders away from jail and into work that repays victims and the community;
- deal properly and humanely with the mentally ill;
- approach drug use intelligently, bargaining successful rehab against a prison term if not completed, for instance, while locking meth cooks and dealers (and dealer and makers of other drugs) away from their market.
The third proviso is, of course, that I’m against the death penalty. Not because some people don’t richly deserve it but because up-close observation of the “justice” system, informed by case histories from all over the world across many decades, means I know just how inept and often corrupt those inside it are, the mistakes they make and the innocent people sent to their deaths because of it. I wouldn’t want to live in a country where even one innocent person was murdered in my name by the state.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Kris, what Western democratic countries allow corporal punishment in schools, allow parents to punish their kids as they see fit, have capital punishment, have relatively harsh prison sentences and prison conditions, and have successfully kept reducing crime and incarceration due to those measures?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Eszett 2:17 pm,
So what’s your solution to the likes of Burton and Bell – violent repeat offenders – who are neither sorry nor repentant for their crimes, and are unlikely to change their views regarding the value of human life?
What exactly should we do with these guys? And what message should be sent to those that may consider following in their footsteps?
I take it you would agree it needs to be a STRONG message?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Kris K>> [I was just winding Pete up and taking him out of context..
I know.. keep winding.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Pete George 2:46 pm,
And you make the point perfectly, Pete.
The fact that most/all Western nations have removed CP from schools; severely frown upon parents physically disciplining children (if still legal); have ripped the guts out of, and largely disempowered the traditional nuclear family; have socialised the education system, etc., have all contributed to the status quo we now observe in these same nations – increasing violence in general, lack of respect and concern for others, and not forgetting rebellious and self centred youth in particular.
Change the formula for society and we change societal outcomes accordingly.
Vote:And conversely, reinstate a formula we know works and we will see a resultant shift back to a healthy and caring society.
As I said before; pretty simple really.
April 6th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Ah, I know Kris fairly well by now. Fortunately there is not much chance of his or your approaches being taken seriously by anyone in a position to make any changes. I might be a bit worried if there was, but can’t see the “more violence against kids, and more violent approach to criminals” brigade getting anywhere apart from spluttering at their keyboards.
Kris should try reading modern research instead of remaining stuck in a multi-millennial time warp.
Kris, are you suggesting we do away with modern communication, modern transport, modern weapons, modern healthcare? I suspect that there is more to societal changes than smacking kids and whacking wives.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Answer: Just about every fucking thing.
Kris, far more has changed in our society than the removal of corporal punishment from schools and homes, the removal of preaching in schools and the removal of the death penalty. Just because something comes after something, doesn’t mean it’s because of that something.
We know that harsh prison conditions do not stop recidivism.
And it is recidivism that I was talking about, not the causes of first-time offences.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Wow, so you can only legitimate your authority by violence.
Vote:Take away that and your children don’t respect you any more?
You certainly have a problem.
April 6th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Rex Widerstrom 2:45 pm,
But what about for cases such as Burton and Bell; where they have repeatedly violently murdered, and there is NO doubt?
Would you have a problem with these two men, specifically, receiving the death sentence?
And if we did this, would that not send the STRONGEST POSSIBLE message to those who may deign to follow in their footsteps – compared to the message which is sent to them now – and thus be a/the most effective deterent?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Kris,
Can you give me an example of a country that has the death penalty and therefore no one commits the crimes that warrant the death penalty?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Ryan Sproull 3:24 pm,
So removing the teaching of values and morals has nothing to do with our kids having few values and morals, for instance?
I know you’re not that naive, Ryan.
So, similarly, your implying there is no link between “first-time offences” and ‘recidivist’ offending?
Vote:I always thought one came before two – silly me.
April 6th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Ryan Sproull 3:32 pm,
The death penalty is only one of many solutions which need to work together in harmony to change society, Ryan.
Vote:But you know what I outlined earlier was more comprehensive than your reductio ad absurdum just stated. Good attempt to sidestep what I said, though – full marks.
April 6th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
So sensible comments from Kris K and as usual the usual reflex anti Christian deniers of even a problem.
For what its worth I just read a book by Adrian Pritchard who spoke at our church recently. In his book ‘Double Vision’ he recounts his life of crime until he was saved by the love of a few Christians who befriended him and helped him convert to christianity. By following Jesus he got off drugs and got married and is now a preacher and husband and father to 3 girls.
His website for those who are interested is http://www.doublevision.org.nz
Buit the other aspect of his story which struck me,apart from his awesome testimony,was how soft the criminal justice system was.
He was a fulltime dedicated criminal/ junkie who had no interest in reforming and was a one man crimewave. One loses count in his book of how many times he is caught by the police,released on bail,to go out and committ the same offences again. He was by his own admission a one man crime wave who was violent and ripped off hundreds of people through burglaries and theft of the most egrigious kind.
Some people just need to be locked up for a long time just to safeguard the community. And in Adrian’s case to get him off drugs.
So I see this move as a necessary step because if nothing else it protects the community from rampant lawlessness.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
There will be a connection, but…
a. Kids are taught values and morals in schools right now, including that murder and violence are wrong.
b. I am talking about recidivism – by the time the question is how someone should be treated in prison, the question of what they should be taught at school is moot.
There is a link between first-time offences and recidivist offending in the sense that one must offend once in order to have offended twice, but the question of how to prevent someone from committing their first crime is different from the question of how to prevent someone from committing their second crime.
And harsh prison conditions do not stop recidivism.
You said it would send “the strongest message possible” to people who were considering committing those crimes. You’re saying that it alone does not send the strongest message possible? Or you’re saying that sending the strongest message possible by itself is not enough to put people off committing those crimes?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
A strong message to whom? They weren’t exactly deterred by life imprisonment.
Do you honestly think someone out there thinks: “Oooh, I like what these guys did, I am going to do exactly the same.”
The problem is that you cannot see beyond the punishment and deterrence side of the justice system. Unfortunately this is also the populist’s side and where you can score cheap points, without actually doing much thinking.
Prevention and rehabilitation are equally important, but whenever you bring that up, you are ultimately labeled “soft on crime”. Preventing crime and thereby preventing victims.
Burton and Bell are way beyond rehabilitation. Now all you can do is lock them away
But wouldn’t you agree that if may have been a chance in preventing Burton and Bell from their life of crimes it would have yielded a better result.
I am not against stricter sentencing, but I am certainly against reducing a solution to crime to just that. And I am certainly against the stupidity of bring Sue Bradfards bill into every discussion about crime.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
I think you have a problem with comprehension. The legitimate authority of parents is currently being eroded by Marxist ideals. A key ideal is that children belong to the state, and it should be the state that instills values rather than parents (cf “The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother’s care, shall be in state institutions at state expense – Karl Marx”).
Limiting the scope of parental authority (Bradford et al) while ramping up state-controlled and state-funded ‘care’ programs for children (20 ‘free’ EC hours anyone?) are the cause of huge dysfunction and harm in our society IMO.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
It takes a Christian to utter the words “death penalty”and “harmony” in the same sentence.
Change indeed, change backwards into the dark ages.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Geez, that is probably the silliest argument I have ever heard. I am not quite sure if you are taking the piss or not.
Marxist ideals. Are you listening John Key? You are a Marxist!
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
2 tier prison system
A for 1st – 3rd time offenders – Borstals attached to the A stream with schooling/trade/college facilities.
B – for recidivists.
But as Brian and others have stated we need to get to the kids who are going off the rails and their families.
Without that it means the jail roll just gets bigger.
That said the Burtons etc who are clearly murderers and there is no chance of mistake should be executed.
Escett and others.
You can’t deny this is a major factor in societal degradation as KrazyKiwi states.
I think you have a problem with comprehension. The legitimate authority of parents is currently being eroded by Marxist ideals. A key ideal is that children belong to the state, and it should be the state that instills values rather than parents (cf “The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother’s care, shall be in state institutions at state expense – Karl Marx”).
Limiting the scope of parental authority (Bradford et al) while ramping up state-controlled and state-funded ‘care’ programs for children (20 ‘free’ EC hours anyone?) are the cause of huge dysfunction and harm in our society IMO.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
MikeNZ – yes yes. I’ve been advocating this for ages!
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Wow.. 1st.. lets see how the Maori Marae Justice works first.. if it works with good results lets expand it.. if it fails then we need to get tough.. no more pussy footing with crime.. Maori included.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
eszett – I’m absolutely serious. If you consider the long-term trend, Marxist ideals are gaining traction here in NZ.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
No RKbee I’d rather not lets see.
Lets get real about the issue and build the facilities for the 1st-3rd offenders as there will always be recidivists.
They can be properly sited for North and South island, built out of concrete modules and staffed properly with psychos and teachers/trade people.
You get a chance thereafter you’re fucked, no playing a round.
Vote:Youth offenders too in borstals.
It’s all about restorative justice whilst keeping society safe is my watchword.
For those who don’t care, neither do we, oh and there is NO TV.
April 6th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Kris,
You are correct that the questions of first-time offending and recidivist offending are related, and that no approach to rehabilitation in prisons can really be put forward without being part of an overall attitude towards crime and behaviour in society as a whole.
You believe that if we instituted certain things – preaching religion in schools, corporal punishment in homes and schools, execution for certain crimes, harsh prison treatment and long sentences – that people would commit crime less.
In this, I agree with the very heart of your position – that behaviour is caused by external factors. It’s interesting that you believe that if people were taught in school that they had what you call “free will”, this would cause them to act more sociably as adults. Being taught “external factors don’t determine your behaviour” would cause people to act differently.
So while you and I apparently agree that behaviour is caused by external factors, we disagree on what kind of external factors cause the kind of behaviour that we find desirable.
1. Preaching religion in schools – fine, but whose religion? You want yours to be preached in schools. I want mine to be preached in schools. Everyone who wants religion preached in schools wants their religion to be preached in schools, and claim that their religion is the one that will make everyone nice. It is impractical for the state to be pushing one religion on children at the exclusion of others, at least in a society that upholds the value of religious freedom.
2. Corporal punishment in schools and homes – you believe this causes better behaviour. Perhaps it does. I believe there are more effective ways to encourage social behaviour, but I could be wrong and you could be right.
3. Execution – you believe that this would be a strong disincentive to commit crimes. It would indeed be a strong disincentive, but the cost is too high for me – I don’t trust any state enough to be killing anyone, and valuing life and the possibility of metanoia are incompatible with a society simply giving up on people.
4. Harsh prison sentences – you believe that this provides a disincentive to reoffend. I think the facts speak for themselves, that prison is basically “an expensive way of making bad men worse”, and that the more emphasis we have on communal revenge and getting a kick out of the thought of a bad guy suffering, the less emphasis is left available for the pursuit of rehabilitative programmes that actually turn people’s lives around.
You and I agree that there is no free will, that behaviour is conditioned by external factors. We simply disagree on which factors give rise to the most desirable behaviours, and we also disagree on emphasis of values – I value life over communal vengeance (or what you might call justice), I value the possibility of people turning their lives around over the desire to give up on people and throw away the key (or their life, as the case may be).
The only thing I think you could change my mind about is corporal punishment. It clashes with my value of non-violence, but if the facts support it, I would have to at least admit its efficacy.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Ryan Sproull 3:58 pm,
I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into a long and protracted debate with you over this, Ryan. I have more than adequately put my case – you either agree or disagree with some or all of what I’ve said.
But I will restate; if we continue to do what we’re doing we will continue to get the same results – the experiment has failed; and has been failing for ther last 30+ years. To bring back a conservative value based society we need to teach conservative values to, especially, our kids. Values such as love, honour, submission to authority, and respect for others.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
You could also say that the experiment to lock more people up for longer is failing.
The US locks even more people up for even longer and is hardly solving the crime problem there.
The US also has a much higher proportion of conservative Christians than we do.
Love, honour and respect for others doesn’t sound exclusively conservative to me.
I loved and respected my kids, and didn’t hit them. And they don’t hit. My youngest daughter has just been visiting, you couldn’t get a more caring, helpful, respectful person than her.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Kris, read what MikeNZ says. I couldn’t give a toss whether he thinks he is conservative or not, it’s irrelevant, he is suggesting sensible, realistic, practical solutions.
I suspect he knows we can’t go back to the “good” old days. We need to aim at better new days.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Like what?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Ryan Sproull 4:29 pm,
Point fo clarification: Everyone has free-will – external factors (parents, teachers, moral teachings from Books, etc) may influence us, but we need to submit and obey these authorities for them to be effective – we still have to choose.
And harsh prison sentences/conditions; including the death sentence, are all ‘last resort’ applications. It is BEST to train and instill values into a child while they are receptive and able to be influenced.
If we did the following the need for police/courts/prison/the death penalty would largely disappear:
One doesn’t have to be a Christian to see the benefit to society if we applied this in the raising of our children.
Most non Christian families applied this basic principle in how they raised their kids in prior to, certainly, 1970 New Zealand.
Today, by comparison, we let our kids find their own way, and, as others have mentioned, we hand them over to the Marxist state to do the job for us.
To train up children correctly requires strong and stable families. And, of course, stable loving families are a rare thing in our modern enlightened, increasingly Marxist, society. This being the aim of the Marxist state; the destruction of the traditional family. And haven’t they done a good job!
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
eszett, I’ve already outlined one trend – the state’s disenfranchisement of parents in respect of the raising their children. Either that’s happening or it’s not. I contend that it is.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Boy, and you complain about a Marxist state.
Funny that, why does the bible mention the death penalty that often then? Hmmm?
Now you are just repeating your standard bullshit. To say that most families are not loving and not stable is complete bollocks.
Vote:Is our society enlightened? Yes, and proudly so!
Marxist? Certainly not. But you haven’t even got a clue what Marxism is. To you, it’s just a slogan.
April 6th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
# krazykiwi (4657) Says:
April 6th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
eszett, I’ve already outlined one trend – the state’s disenfranchisement of parents in respect of the raising their children. Either that’s happening or it’s not. I contend that it is.
How so? By not allowing them to beat the crap out of them?
And you mentioned the 20 free hour in the EU? Now how is that bad? Isn’t that something that encourages people to have children? Because they can get back to work earlier? How can that be bad?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
I not only deny this, this is complete and utter bollocks.
Nothing but ideological bullshit.
If you think that beating your children is a ‘scope of parental authority’ and without it you have no authority, you do have a serious problem.
How state funded care programs can cause dysfunction is beyond me. Where we are struggling with birth rates, we should do everything possible to encourage people to have children.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
eszett – who is best suited to raising a child: one of the childs’ biological parents or a state-funded daycare? and you demonstrate ignorance (idological blinkers?) by being unable to distingush between a beating and a smack. (sigh). I do however agree that we need a solution to the declining birthrate. let’s see if the state is happy to pay parents that 20 ‘free’ hours .. to commit their parental efforts to raising their own children. pre-schooling ‘vouchers’ as it were. not holding my breath.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
“Wow, so you can only legitimate your authority by violence.
Take away that and your children don’t respect you any more?
You certainly have a problem.”
No eszett, liars like you have the problem.
Vote:Do you believe in parental authority at all?
Didn’t think so.
April 6th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
I agree. Harsh prison conditions have failed to prevent recidivism for millennia. If we continue to treat prison as a tool for communal vengeance, we will continue to see people come out of prison hardened, not reformed.
And I am suggesting we treat prisoners lovingly, honourably, giving them a reason to respect authority rather simply fearing the pain it can inflict on them.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
It would be very interesting to see how the various people in this thread view authority.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Do you believe parental authority is primarily manifested in the right to beat children?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
“Do you believe parental authority is primarily manifested in the right to beat children?”
Duck and weave, duck and weave….
Answer the damned question.
And by the way, what is your definition of violence?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Authority operates at different levels, parental, school, community/country.
The best way for authority to work is with mutual respect between different parties – you don’t get that by hurting. My standard 3 and standard 4/form 1 teachers strapped a lot and I didn’t respect them for it. I can’t remember if my Form 2 teacher strapped at all, I respected him, respected his authority, and he didn’t need to belt kids.
Authority at the country level (laws) is what most people want but too many people want to overstep or ignore.
One factor Kris hasn’t mentioned for increasing problems is population density increases. The more crammed together people are the lest they seem to care about authority.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
And I didn’t respect the teachers that verbally berated pupils, they didn’t hit them, should we ban speech too?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
No, speech is an important part of communication, verbal violence is counterproductive.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
I do distinguish between a smack and beating!
As you well know a light smack (the one that you claim is necessary) is still possible if inconsequential.
Opponents of the Sue Bradfords bill claim that light smacks that the use will no longer be possible. Until now it as been shown that this is not the case.
So yes, you cans till use the light smack.
I consciously use the word “beating” because that’s what some people here advocate. Corporal punishment in schools. Sorry, but that is just child abuse. That is beating children, not a light smack!
And I do agree that raising a child should be done mostly by the biological parents. However, when both parents have to work to support a family that can be really tough. And it is mostly the woman who stays at home, since (generally speaking) men earn more than women.
I do think that the government can do more to help families raise children. Helping them with day care is one way. It doesn’t have to be
full time all the time, I do think families can make their choices. Why shouldn’t a mother be able to go back to work part time? Or a father?
Paid maternal leave (for either father or mother) is another. Most European countries have something like that.
Of course one can try to propagate the old misogynistic view that women should be happy to breed children and stay at home and raise them. I think we are a better society if we give women (and families) a choice.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Well, what is your definition of parental authority?
I am being mischievous here, but to satisfy your query, yes, I think parents authority is important (BoomTownPrat, take note next time you fly with your kids!)
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Is physical violence always bad between people?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Bad, yes, but sometimes unavoidable, and sometimes necessary. Alternatives are most often better to at least attempt.
Do you like being on the receiving end of violence? Do unto others isn’t a bad quotation.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Especially when one person is dependent the other.
Violence between consenting adults (say in sport like boxing, martial arts), I’d say probably not
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
“Violence between consenting adults (say in sport like boxing, martial arts), I’d say probably not”
So there is evidence then that physical violence is not always harmful, it depends on the context that it is administered in.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
So clarify the question.
Eszett, is non-consensual violence always bad between people?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Hmm, I smell a trick question here…..say, a police officer arresting a burglar would be considered non-consensual violence between adults, which I wouldn’t necessarily disapprove of.
It’s a bit of a widespread question, it’s impossible to give a general answer that would cover all scenarios.
I am not quite sure what Shunda barunda is trying to prove here, but maybe if I could get a clearer statement, I could give a clearer answer.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Boxing type physical violence is often harmful. That’s the aim of it – to mash an opponent – brain damage is “rewarded”.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
True, just look at Ali. You don’t have to approve of it. But it is amongst consenting adults and it is a sport ( there are rules, medical assistance, the aim is NOT to kill each other)
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
“It’s a bit of a widespread question, it’s impossible to give a general answer that would cover all scenarios.”
Yet we have a general law banning all scenarios for the purpose of correction.
Children understand the context, especially when you tell them “if you do this you will get a smacked bottom”
Likewise kids and adults know when the line has been crossed and the intention is to harm.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
“Boxing type physical violence is often harmful. That’s the aim of it – to mash an opponent – brain damage is “rewarded””
My kids play fighting and playing league delivers far more physical trauma than any smacked bum they have ever received, do you think these activities are harmful to their development?
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Pete George (4437) Says:
April 6th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
It is what we owe the next generation.
(oooh god I hate those phrases!)
We have to draw the line in the sand and bite the bullet
But as Brian said, we have to get to the kids at risk and their families too.
Celia Lashley is one they should be using.
The Burton’s et al, 9mm to the back of the head.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
But do they? Your light smack and the other person may be using a rod. Look at all the christian fanatics here who want to bring back corporal punishment.
Proverbs 23
13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.
14 Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.
Doesn’t sound like a light smack to me. Sounds very much like child abuse though.
Fact is, you can still use your “light smack” as long as it is inconsequential. Same way that you will not get prosecuted for doing 51km in a 50 zone.
None of the Sue Bradfords bill removes you as an authoritative parent.
If you think it does, then you are not talking about a light smack.
And if you authority as a parent depends on that, then you didn’t have authority in the first place.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Kris K asks:
Sorry for the delay Kris, have been out (ironically, visiting a prison!).
Personally I’d like to see both those men get their just desserts, but I wouldn’t support the death penalty. Because society is too lackadaisacal at protesting violations of its rights until each individual ia adversely affected. Thus if we had the death penalty on the books the inevitavble slipperly slope would begin, and within a few years we’d have executed our first innocent person.
I wish it weren’t so, because that would mean that those who deserved it would be truly rehabilitated while those who deserved it would pay the utlimate price for taking a life.
But don’t make the mistake of thinking society is even as engaged as the Kiwiblog audience… they’d shrug as people were led to the gallows and protests from the likes of me that we were hanging the innocent would be met with the same mindless “time to get tough” slogans I hear every day 8-/
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Ryan Sproull suggests:
If you’ve even skimmed my comments on this issue you’ll know I’m right behind you in that Ryan. But sadly my close-up experience of a variety of offenders in a lot of different jails also teaches me that there is a small portion for whom harsh punishment – and fear of even harsher punishment – are the only tools that work.
The trick is in identifying them (not actually that hard if observed over time) and separating them, then treating them appropriately. That would leave a small number of prisons for the few for whom it was a suitable punishment while the majority (non violent offenders) worked in the community to repay the community and their victims.
We’re not going to get anywhere in winning hearts and minds to a more humane approach to prisoners if we pretend that such treatment would not be thrown back in our faces by a small minority who take genuine, sadistic pleasure in the harm and fear they cause others.
Vote:April 6th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Does it work for those people, Rex? They don’t reoffend? Or have a low rate?
Vote: