Parents and smacking
April 2nd, 2012 at 9:00 am by David FarrarMartin Johnston at NZ Herald reports:
A survey indicates there has been an increase in the number of parents who choose not to smack their children, in line with the controversial “anti-smacking law” implemented in 2007.
The survey was commissioned by conservative lobby group Family First from Curia Market Research, a firm headed by centre-right blogger David Farrar.
It is based on responses from 500 parents of children aged less than 12. It found that 44 per cent reported never smacking their children since the 2007 legislative change to remove the Crimes Act defence of “reasonable … force” for parents who hit their children to correct them.
Twenty-nine per cent told Curia they had smacked rarely since the change, 21 per cent said occasionally, 1 per cent said frequently and 5 per cent were unsure or refused to answer.
The full results are on the Family First website.
The never-smacked figure was higher than found in a 2009 Herald-DigiPoll survey of parents of 4-year-olds.
That poll found that 39 per cent of mothers and 33 per cent of fathers never smacked – and that was more than three-fold higher than the rate during the four decades to 1997.
I’d be a bit careful comparing a poll of parents of four year olds and a poll of parents of children aged from zero to 11 years old. I would suspect that the older the children the less likely parents are to smack.
This is not to say that the “never smacked” figure may not be increasing. It may or may not be. But one would want to compare data of parents of same aged children to be able to say if there is a trend.
Survey findings
66 per centof parents would “smack to correct in future”
44 per centhad not smacked their children since the 2007 law change
49 per cent think law change “caused decline in discipline”
81 per cent would not report someone for smacking
63 per cent think law should be changed to allow hand smacks
75 per cent say 2007 law change has not changed New Zealand’s level of child abuse
One interesting aspect was the views of parents on whether the law change has caused a decline in disciple. Only 42% of parents living in areas in the top three (least deprived) deciles said it had, but 59% of those in the bottom three deciles (most deprived) said it had caused a decline discipline.
Related posts:
- Two Thirds of parents are criminals
- A reader e-mails on the anti-smacking law
- Herald on anti-smacking law
- Honesty over Smacking
April 2nd, 2012 at 9:25 am
I have personally challenged people hitting their children in public since the law changed. So have several of my friends. People don’t like it, but they also don’t want the police showing up in the mall or the supermarket so they stop. The anxiety of prosecution is definitely leading to better outcomes for our children.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 9:39 am
While I did not like the way in which the legislation was passed, particularly the misrepresentation relating to the law from Sue Bradford, the legislation may help with a paradigm shift in the approach to disciplining children. It may create a focus on a different way. Clearly, it is not going to change the lives of some children. Somebody who beats a child senseless is not put off by the risk of prosecution for manslaughter or murder and so it is hardly likely to be put off by threats of prosecution for smacking.
It is going to take a considerable time for the notion to be assimilated but it is a start. It is a bit like the government’s change to the name of the DPB. The change embraces the notion that the benefit is a stepping stone back to work rather than a career option. The government however has to sell its approach by coming up with specific actions, albeit incrementally. It has taken us 40 years to descend to this level of dependency and sense of entitlement. It is going to take just as long to try and turn the boat around.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 9:56 am
Talk about flogging a dead horse. Family First just can’t move on, can they?
Well, at least they keep you in employment, David.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 9:57 am
Yeh – not sure about surveys like this.
Question: Do you [insert something illegal here].
What do they expect most people to answer?
I still say that people know the difference between child abuse and genuine discipline. The amount of abuse against children that still goes on is testament to the fact that this law hasn’t done anything to curb actual violence, and in fact will make things worse. No discipline as a child makes for no discipline in adult life.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:02 am
“I have personally challenged people hitting their children in public since the law changed.”
Let me guess. When you read/saw George Orwell’s 1984 you thought Big Brother was the hero of the story.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:02 am
I still say that people know the difference between child abuse and genuine discipline.
Most people do. But too many people don’t, that’s why we have such high levels of child abuse.
Some aren’t aware enough of the potential dangers, especially when escalated by drug and alcohol use. And some simply don’t care about the wellbeing of children.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:05 am
“The amount of abuse against children that still goes on is testament to the fact that this law hasn’t done anything to curb actual violence, and in fact will make things worse. No discipline as a child makes for no discipline in adult life.”
Exactly right. The law was never about dealing with child abuse. It was about a small minority of far left idiots using the power of the state to enforce their facile and provably false notions of child rearing on the rest of us.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:08 am
Talk about flogging a dead horse. Family First just can’t move on, can they?
Just as well Sue Bradford didn’t include flogging horses in her bill, then they’d really be grizzly.
Family First would be better putting more resources into teaching better methods of discipline than smacking, rather than continued obsessing about parental hitting rights.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:11 am
No discipline as a child makes for no discipline in adult life.
Better discipline has a better chance of making better childreb, and better adults.
If children learn that things are resolved by hitting they are more likely to try the same thing themselves. And for some, when they get older the hitting can become more violent and more damaging.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:12 am
It seems evident Lee was smacked quite heavily as a child…
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:17 am
This legislation is much like having to where helmets when riding bikes. People complained and whinged for a while but then it became a non issue and people just move on.
Fletch discipline does not necessitate hitting children. There are plenty of other effective options.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:18 am
“Family First would be better putting more resources into teaching better methods of discipline than smacking, rather than continued obsessing about parental hitting rights.”
Smacking is a useful form of discipline. In some cases, it is the “better” form.
FF is right to continue holding the state to account for criminalising otherwise good parents.
“If children learn that things are resolved by hitting they are more likely to try the same thing themselves.”
Some of the most violent and unmanageable children I have met were kids brought up by hippies who were never smacked.
The reality is that violence in adults does not result from being smacked as a child, but from real abuse and/or a lack of love and traditional values.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:24 am
The problem with the smacking law is that it makes it flat out illegal to smack, rather than what was really needed, which was that smacking should be rare, but is still a valid discipline option in some circumstances.
We now have a problem where some people have no idea how to apply any other discipline (remember, no test required before having children). So they go with no discipline at all, either leading to children who don’t understand right from wrong, or leading to things building until they snap and then abuse their child.
Either way, it’s fringe kind of stuff – yet another intrusion of govt into our lives, what’s new. To me it’s a typical example of crimanalising the many and having no impact on the few who were actually a problem. I’m pretty sure there are other ways to address people who abuse their children than removing a discipline option from those who do not.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:31 am
Couldn’t agree more with Lee01. Smacking has been an acceptable form of punishment for millennia and of course the Bible says it is okay. If God says its okay then it’s good enough me.
Sadly our children are running wild and this is another example of the state telling us what to do. Parents have lost confidence in disciplining their own children. Parents have no confidence disciplining children at all. So our kids are running wild.
I would call on John Key and the National government to get some courage in their convictions. Maybe they should get some conviction. All of the incredibly terrible policies of the labour government are still in place – anti-smacking, prostitution is good and homosexuality is better. So smacking is bad, prostitution is okay and homosexuality is good? Who knew?
John Key could start by getting rid of this terrible anti-smacking law and restoring authority to parents to discipline their own children. Obviously if parents go too far then the courts will have their say. But to get criminalised for smacking your own children is terrible and the legislation should be overturned forthwith.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:34 am
“…Let me guess. When you read/saw George Orwell’s 1984 you thought Big Brother was the hero of the story…”
Far from it. I think individuals have responsibility for their actions – and in-actions. If you see something you think wrong going on, you should have the courage of your convictions to say so. I would have thought such self-empowerment and activist thinking would find an approving audience amongst the kiwiblog commentariat. Assuming they are intellectually honest, rather than just a bunch of violent authoritarians, group that is.
“…Smacking is a useful form of discipline. In some cases, it is the “better” form…”
Hmmm, you advocate beating children to instill obedience. Now, can anyone find a better definition of a violent authoritarian than an adult who beats discipline into children..?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:35 am
Fletch discipline does not necessitate hitting children. There are plenty of other effective options.
Mark, you betray your ideology when you use the word “hitting”. It’s a term Bradford used and abused as well to frame the narrative. Hitting is not smacking. Period. Most good parents know the difference. In the referendum, 88% of New Zealanders voted that a smack should not be a criminal offence. Mark, do you really believe that 88% of the country wants the right to “hit” (as per your definition) their children? Really? You believe that of most of your fellow Kiwis? And if not, then you have to ask yourself if you might have it wrong as to what is meant by smacking. Every other poll taken on the subject has had similar results.
To me, I think there was something wrong with Bradford. Perhaps she felt guilty about the way she’d raised her own children and she was projecting that guilt onto the rest of the country.
As for smacking itself – I do not think it is needed all the time: in fact, it may hardly ever be needed, but there are times when all the so-called “positive parenting” in the world won’t make any difference, and the child may need a smack.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:37 am
Smacking is a useful form of discipline. In some cases, it is the “better” form.
Depends on how you define “smacking”. I’d separate it into non-hurt smacking and smacking that hurts. Smacking that hurts is potentially damaging and should mostly be avoided.
A quick whack may have an immediate effect of stopping bad behaviour, but so does knocking someone out. There are nearly always disciplinary alternatives to smacking, and if done right they are usually more effective, especially in the longer term.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:39 am
ps, I know a young lady who is a teacher of young children, and she says that kids can’t even be sent out of the class for “time out” any more, because that would mean they are unsupervised. The best they can do is send them over to a corner of the classroom where they can be kept an eye on.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:40 am
“If you see something you think wrong going on, you should have the courage of your convictions to say so.”
The problem may be with your definition of wrong. Parents giving a child a light smack are not doing anything morally wrong.
Now if the parent in question was genuinely abusing the child, sure. But scaring people with the police for just a smack is just plain stupid, and it does reek of Big Brother.
“I would have thought such self-empowerment and activist thinking”
You mean liberals being a pain in the ass?
“would find an approving audience amongst the kiwiblog commentariat.”
I speak for myself alone. I do not represent the “kiwiblog commentariat”, especially as most of them would not recognise real Conservatism.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:42 am
Hitting is not smacking.
That highlights a major point of confusion.
Define “smacking” and define “hitting”.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:43 am
But scaring people with the police for just a smack is just plain stupid, and it does reek of Big Brother.
Or, in New Zealand’s case, Big Bradford…
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:44 am
“Define “smacking” and define “hitting”.”
Smacking is using an open hand with minimal force. Hitting is using a fist with maximum force.
Or to put it another way. Use commonsense.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:48 am
That highlights a major point of confusion.
Define “smacking” and define “hitting”.
Chester Borrows used the phrase in his amendment, “transitory and trifling” in regards to smacking, which is really what we are talking about.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:52 am
Based on what? Your life experience? It’s a shame the survey wasn’t constructed in in such a way to give a definitive answer to your speculation, but perhaps the clients weren’t interested in that aspect of the truth….
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 11:02 am
Pete, this is an area I didn’t think you and I were eye to eye. But I see in your comment something that approximates my position.
What I see you saying is that:
– Non-hurt smacking is OK, and smacking that hurts should be _mostly_ avoided
– There are _nearly always_ alternatives, they are _usually_ more effective
So I think that means that a smack is OK as part of good discipline, if other options have been exhausted. It shouldn’t be relied upon for all discipline, and it should (again to borrow Chester’s phrasing) be “transitory and trifling.”
In my opinion most people on here, and most people in NZ, would absolutely agree with that definition.
Yet I think I see you arguing with people who seem to want exactly that same thing.
I fully agree that smacking should be a last resort. But I also think that in some circumstances, and with some children, it’s needed. They simply don’t respond well to other measures, and it’s unwise for one person to judge another person’s parenting when it’s within the bounds of normal. In my opinion the law we have has criminalised parents who I think aren’t doing anything wrong without any likely impact on those who abuse their children.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 11:05 am
all i know is that i have two children..one now an adult..one nearly there..
..neither have ever been smacked/hit…
..so..y’know..!..
..any ‘i am only hitting you because i love you’ actions..
..seem just more likely to set them up for interesting sex lives when adults..
..and more likely to put up with domestic abuse from their adult partners..
..(that could be an interesting survey-question:..
..are (say women) who faced heavy discipline as children..
..more likely to be in abusive adult relationships also…)
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 11:07 am
The family unit was once the place where love, care, wisdom and correction where centred. The state’s gradual annexation parental rights, started by liberal/marxist feminists of the 70′s has disrupted this. It is a key cause of the increasing delinquency we see today.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 11:13 am
The principle that the law (the government) should coerce and de-limit parental decisions across-the-board is unacceptable to me. The Government makes a hit-and-run-raid into every home telling New Zealand parents that they must stop doing what their own parents did (and every other parent in all times and places did) – then it disappears, leaving the parents accountable for the children’s upbringing.
The law is now a nonsense. When you pick up your child without his/her consent you commit an assault. You rely on the grace and favour of the police deciding the public interest wouldn’t be served by a prosecution. How come the rest of the world decided not to follow us into this lunacy?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 11:15 am
Wow, I am still not sure if this is a joke or not. Poe strikes again!
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 11:18 am
PaulL – I don’t argue against all smacking, as you have pointed out, it can come down to wide definitions and widely varying circumstances.
Most parents don’t oversmack to hurt. Even children that are smacked to hurt can grow up ok.
A big problem that I argue is that some parents (and adults that aren’t parents) take the “smacking is ok” messages that are promoted by some as approval for their sort of smacking, which can be frequent, damaging, and potentially very dangerous.
Another problem is that mostly good parents who make a habit of smacking their kids are far more likely to lose their temper and instinctively and smack (hurt)/hit/beat/kill children. Especially when alcohol and drugs are concerned.
So I argue against “smacking is ok”, but accept that a lot of smacking is minor, inconsequential and done by good parents.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 11:38 am
I have personally told people who have challenged me when I’ve smacked my kids in public, which hasn’t been often even before the law change, to mind their own f’n business. It’s busybodies like you that need the attitude adjustment before someone less reasonable than myself knocks your block off.
If anything, I smack even more….and never lightly. A light smack is an utter waste of time, you’ve got to produce pain that produces tears of contrition otherwise they just treat it as a big joke.
All this utopian numbskullness only results in smart arse, know-all kids with bad attitudes towards adults. I see it at work all the time, they’re worse and worse….the outcomes are terrible. We’re creating an ever increasing generation of trash.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 11:43 am
It’s not flogging a dead horse – its just proving to the 85%(?) of people that didn’t want the law change, that the law is an ass.
I can’t see that working out well, when parents who think they are reasonable are now being told by the State that they are acting like criminals – blurs the lines a bit.
Still, I’m glad Nookin (at 9:39) thinks it will all work out for the best.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 11:45 am
A light smack is an utter waste of time, you’ve got to produce pain that produces tears of contrition otherwise they just treat it as a big joke.
And what happens when they don’t cry and don’t show enough “contrition”? How far up the hurt scale would you go?
Are you able to control the degree of hurt as well when you’re sober as when you are really pissed off or pissed?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 11:45 am
“I see it at work all the time, they’re worse and worse”
Over twenty years in the workforce and I saw the same thing. It has got to the point that you almost cannot employ anyone under 25 anymore, because the sad reality is that most young people I have worked with are next to useless. They are arrogant, lazy, totally dismissive of, and abusive towards authority in any form, and belive that the world owes them wealth and glory for nothing.
Liberalism is a cancer. It slowly but surely eats away at anything it infects.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 11:49 am
“And what happens when they don’t cry and don’t show enough “contrition”? How far up the hurt scale would you go? ”
Thats a remarkably stupid question. Children show contrition very quickly. The scenario Pete is using here seems divorced from reality.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:00 pm
What kind of person confuses tears caused by physical pain with contrition?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Oh, sorry, was that supposed to be “tears of contusion”?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:05 pm
“What kind of person confuses tears caused by physical pain with contrition?”
Normal people. You know, people who are not liberals.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Lee01 – that’s a remarkably naive response.
Have you never seen kids turn the tears on knowing it will minimise the potential damage?
Have you never seen defiant kids refusing to show contrition, daring a greater response?
Have you never heard a parent demanding contrition or they will up the ante?
Have you never heard a parent say “stop crying or I’ll really give you something to cry about”?
Don’t you know that there can be a lot more ongoing hurt than the physical pain?
And remember that unconcious and dead kids tend not to show contrition.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:07 pm
How exactly would you define “contrition”?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:12 pm
You know, the people Lee01 says there are hardly any of any more.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:13 pm
“How exactly would you define “contrition”?”
Being sorry.
“Have you never seen…blah,blah,blah.” Good parents can tell when their children are acting.
“Don’t you know that there can be a lot more ongoing hurt than the physical pain?”
No. There is no “ongoing” hurt from a smack.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:15 pm
“You know, the people Lee01 says there are hardly any of any more.”
In fact most people are not liberals (regardless of how they vote). Liberals constitute a small minority of upper middle class urbanites.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:34 pm
I come across too many children who are not held responsible, for their actions or their inactions. The sullen grunts, shrug of shoulders and gangsta speak which appears to be the trademark of too many of todays youth, is considered an expression of their generation and out of touch mothers and nanas like myself, apparently need to…chill…
Well guess what? I won’t be chillin’ in the near future and my own offspring and moko know to behave accordingly. As a result, a spank is a rare occurence, at home or in public. And if another adult interferes when I punish my son in public best be prepared to offer a viable alternative other than…”it’s against the law”… So is child neglect and what I described above us child neglect in my eyes.
No responsible and sane parent believes beating a child is healthy, neither for the child or for the parents well being. However I would my son learn pain delivered from my hand to his bum for endangering his life, as opposed to being hit from a car.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Nah, liberals aren’t necessarily affluent urbanites, but most are well educated, well read and well informed.
Y’see Lee, it’s about finding out why stuff happens as opposed to meekly accepting given or apparent “truths”.
Let me ask you this: Is it better to learn how to think or what to think?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Assaults on teachers. Now theres an indicator
Vote:But the left will continue prattling on with the same lack of consequences.
April 2nd, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Northland Wahine,
Well said. Good to hear some old fashioned commonsense on kb.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Scott,
“but most are well educated, well read and well informed.”
They think they are, and are often very loud in proclaiming so, but most are in fact poorly educated, poorly read, and “informed” by a narrow diet of liberal left propaganda. Think BBC and National Radio.
“it’s about finding out why stuff happens as opposed to meekly accepting given or apparent “truths”.”
I became a Traditionalist by finding out why “stuff happens” instead of meekly accepting the given “truths” about “progress” and the supposed superiority of modernism and secularism.
To be a Traditionalist in the West today is to a truly independent thinker and a true radical.
Meekly accepting the ideology of secular liberalism and modernist “progress” is to be no better than a sheep.
“Is it better to learn how to think or what to think?”
It is better to do both.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:47 pm
There is a worrying amount of quite extreme Christian right ethic in the comments on this post. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against religion in its place. It’s not for me, but I have no problem with people practising it in their own homes, or in churches. As long as you don’t expect special treatment, because you have a particular belief, all is good. I fully support an individual’s right to practise whatever religion they should choose, from Wiccan to Hinduism. All is fine, as long as you don’t expect to have your personal beliefs enshrined in public law.
This country is a secular state; it would do some of the commenters here good to remember that. Religion is one sphere, and public law is another. They do not overlap. Also, scripture from 2000 years ago is hardly a good model to follow for ethics/morality in the 21st century. Nobody wants to see raped women stoned to death do they? Selling your daughter into prostitution has been depicted as virtuous in that ancient tomb, which of course, it isn’t!
Scott writes (sorry to pick you out Scott):
“Couldn’t agree more with Lee01. Smacking has been an acceptable form of punishment for millennia and of course the Bible says it is okay. If God says its okay then it’s good enough me.
Sadly our children are running wild and this is another example of the state telling us what to do. Parents have lost confidence in disciplining their own children. Parents have no confidence disciplining children at all. So our kids are running wild.”
There is no evidence to support the notion that because ‘smacking’ children is against the law, “kids are running wild”. Cause and effect is not proven. There are many other reasons why the rare cases of childhood delinquency we see, happen. There are many, MANY other ways of disciplining children than simply striking them when they do something wrong. I had respect for my parents, probably because they showed me a good example in their general behaviour. Because of that, I was VERY rarely smacked as a child. I simply didn’t need to be. My parents instilled good values in me, and as a result, I behaved myself quite well. If striking your child is something you are regularly doing, I would suggest it is because they haven’t been shown effective boundaries, or have been exposed to bad influences in their upbringing. Children ape what they see in their environment, ANY parent will tell you this. Look to the child’s environment if it is ‘acting out’ and ‘running wild’. Physical discipline should only ever happen in the rarest of situations, and even then its effectiveness is highly dubious. Monkey see, monkey do. If you want violent children, strike them, and then wait a few years for the violent offending to begin.
As for it being ‘Good enough for God, and therefore good enough for us’, please refer to my comments about ethics depicted in the bible above. You CANNOT take your ethical position from that book. There are many, MANY areas that any right minded person would think of as unconscionable in the bible (Old testament AND New). You cannot cherry pick the bits you like, and ignore the bits you don’t. Maybe just try being nice, and fair to all those around you, including your children, rather than referring to a list of antiquated rules for guidance?
“I would call on John Key and the National government to get some courage in their convictions. Maybe they should get some conviction. All of the incredibly terrible policies of the labour government are still in place – anti-smacking, prostitution is good and homosexuality is better. So smacking is bad, prostitution is okay and homosexuality is good? Who knew?”
Smacking is quite plainly misguided Scott. And the idea that it is a primary method for guidance is an outrageous position to hold. Your children should love you, and you should love them in return. If a child is genuinely cared for, within sensibly chosen boundaries, in a caring and loving environment, then there’s absolutely no reason why you should have to strike them. These laws aren’t going to see good parents prosecuted for picking their children up. The idea is ridiculous, and nothing like that has happened in the time the anti-smacking laws have been in place. Not one example of the sort of sensationalist convictions pro-smacking types claim will happen, has happened. Not one. We have on the other hand, begun prosecuting violent abusive parents a wee bit more, which any caring parent would see as a good thing.
If there has been a recent increase in youth delinquency (which I have yet to see real proof of) rather than simply an increase in the reporting, and outrage surrounding what I would suggest is a stable amount of these incidents, then I would look to the environments that these children are raised in as the cause. There are some real black holes in low income areas, where parenting skills are lacking greatly. Poverty is breeding alcoholism, drug abuse, and domestic violence. Children born into these environments are set back from the offset. We need to root out the causes of these extreme cases, and fix the problem at the root, rather than worry about whether or not middle class NZ is going to be imprisoned for squeezing their children’s hands a little too tightly. To think that the middle classes are potentially under attack here is to entirely miss the point. There are gaps in today’s society, that these problems are being produced in. We must avoid people falling into these gaps.
That topic aside for a second, you seem to have veered off wildly, over to the topic of prostitution and homosexuality. I have no idea how on earth you feel that these issues are related, but as you’ve brought them up, I’ll respond.
Is prostitution good or bad? I would say that it’s certainly not a desirable choice for a young woman entering the work market, but if it’s criminalised, then it simply goes underground into black markets, and becomes even more dangerous and scary, for us all. Many countries around the world criminalise prostitution, and not one of them has stopped it happening. All that happens is that the women (or men in some cases) involved become subjected to a dangerous sub-culture, managed by criminals, and exposed to drugs & violence much more frequently. Often they end up being controlled through drug dependence, rationed out to them by their pimps. This creates a much more dangerous environment, which spills out onto our city streets, affecting us all. Legalising it is simply a way of dealing with the world’s oldest profession. You cannot legislate problems away. Sometimes, a society has to admit that something exists, and attempt to fix it/manage it rather than sweeping it under the carpet. NZ’s position on prostitution is remarkably forward thinking, and results in less crime on our streets.
Your comment on homosexuality being good? “Who knew?” is a very passive aggressive way of airing your homophobia/hate. I wish you had the courage of your convictions and could be honest about your view here. It is clearly distain for homosexuality, but you are coy about saying it plainly. At least if you were honest I could respond to you on a more open platform. However, you have decided to hide behind sarcasm, thus making it a little more difficult to address your complaint. This doesn’t stop me from stating that homosexuality is neither good, nor bad. It simply IS. Just like trees aren’t bad or good, they just ARE. It’s a natural and unavoidable reality of life that some people are gay. I suggest that you get over it, and focus on your own life rather than worrying harmless behvaour that some people engage in. You may as well try pushing forward an argument that midwives are witches, and should be dunked in duck ponds upside down as a test. Your position is an anachronism. These out of place views are dying, they have been tapering off for the last 100 years and soon they will be extinct. Much like the dinosaurs that you probably rationalise as a test of our faith, rather than proof the ‘good book’ shouldn’t be taken literally. I suggest that you prepare yourself for acceptance, because this is not a trend that will reverse. And neither should it.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:47 pm
That comment was WAY too long. Apologies everyone!
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Incidentally, Lee01, you are entirely out of touch with reality. I don’t expect a rational discussion with you however. So please feel free to vent your spleen with whatever unprovable extreme right wing rhetoric that comforts you. Your stance, much like the religious ideas of “Scott” are undeniably on the way out. Good riddance.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:01 pm
“There is a worrying amount of quite extreme Christian right ethic in the comments on this post.”
I’m not worried.
“I have nothing against religion in its place.”
Who are you to say what its place is?
“As long as you don’t expect special treatment, because you have a particular belief, all is good.”
You mean like Maori or homosexuals, or liberals in general?
“This country is a secular state; it would do some of the commenters here good to remember that.”
I do. I also do not have to accept it.
“Religion is one sphere, and public law is another. They do not overlap.”
Yes they do. All politics and ALL law make moral assumptions and value assumptions. Therefore politics and law cannot be sperated from the deeply hald values of all people, religious or otherwise.
“Smacking is quite plainly misguided Scott. And the idea that it is a primary method for guidance is an outrageous position to hold.”
Except it is the opinion of most people. Your in a small minority. Over 80% percent of the country disagreed with the law change. Thus to most Kiwis, it is not “plainly musguided”.
“Your comment on homosexuality being good? “Who knew?” is a very passive aggressive way of airing your homophobia/hate.”
Being opposed to the normalisation of homosexuality is an opinion, not a phobia. It is fascinating how many people who claim to be “rational” and “scientific” use the word “phobia” in a way that is completely irrational and unscientific.
“Also, scripture from 2000 years ago is hardly a good model to follow for ethics/morality in the 21st century.”
Rightly understood (and clearly you don’t), it is the ONLY good model for ethics and morality. Regardless of what century it is.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:02 pm
“Incidentally, Lee01, you are entirely out of touch with reality. I don’t expect a rational discussion with you however.”
I’m more than happy to have a rational discussion, and more than capable of doing so. Are you?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Being sorry… But the child being hit hard enough to cause tears isn’t sorry about doing something wrong. He’s sorry for himself that he’s getting hit, or regrets getting caught. But you could hardly say he’s therefore contrite about the actual deed, surely.
Who’s more contrite? The child who hurts his sister and then cries because he feels bad about causing his sister pain, or the child who doesn’t feel bad about causing his sister pain but cries about being hit as a result?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:15 pm
This confuses two things.
Over 80% responded one way to a vague and confusing referendum question. One thing it certainly didn’t ask was if smacking was a primary method for guidance.
Most parents would prefer not to smack at all, but many want to reserve the right to do it if they think it’s justified. That’s much different from using it as a primary method.
And it should be pointed out that non-dangerous smacking as justified intervention is not illegal. Smacking as a punishment is.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:16 pm
@Lee01 10:44 am
So you wouldn’t mind if I gave you a “smack in the head” or “smacked you over” then?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:23 pm
My understanding of scripture is neither here nor there Lee. To make the point again, your beliefs are not part of government law, they are just that, YOUR beliefs. A just and fair society like ours allows you to have them, but they remain what they are; beliefs, not laws for us all. Also, I used the term ‘homophobia’ correctly. In its modern usage, it refers to any form of anti-homosexual stance, not exclusively a ‘fear’ of homosexuality. What rational or scientific stance on gay people do you have Lee? Anything?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:24 pm
“So you wouldn’t mind if I gave you a “smack in the head” or “smacked you over” then?”
You would be more than welcome to try.
But as A: I’m not a minor, and B: You are not my father or mother, your attempt at a moral equivalency argument does not hold.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:27 pm
“But the child being hit hard enough to cause tears isn’t sorry about doing something wrong. He’s sorry for himself that he’s getting hit, or regrets getting caught. But you could hardly say he’s therefore contrite about the actual deed, surely.”
I think thats an assumption with little evidence.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:28 pm
toad, that question smacks of futility, no one wants to actually define “smack”.
Doesn’t sound anything like a tap on the hand or nappied bum. One problem is that “smack” is not an international term.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:28 pm
GConnell said “Smacking is quite plainly misguided Scott. And the idea that it is a primary method for guidance is an outrageous position to hold.”
Does this guy have any contact with normal parents at all? Must be a nice bubble he’s floating in.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:32 pm
I don’t see the evidence for your assertion that physical pain – coincidentally the amount of pain required to cause tears due to pain – suddenly makes a child genuinely remorseful for their actions.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:32 pm
“My understanding of scripture is neither here nor there Lee.”
It is if your going to critique its use.
“To make the point again, your beliefs are not part of government law, they are just that, YOUR beliefs.”
Incorrect. I happen to belive that murder is wrong. That belief is part of the law.
“A just and fair society like ours allows you to have them, but they remain what they are; beliefs, not laws for us all.”
All laws start with a person, or group of people’s beliefs about right and wrong. Thus beliefs are the foundation of law. What you really mean, but are not saying, is that YOUR beliefs should be law, but not mine.
“Also, I used the term ‘homophobia’ correctly. In its modern usage, it refers to any form of anti-homosexual stance, not exclusively a ‘fear’ of homosexuality.”
It’s “modern usage” is a propaganda tool, not a rational description of a particular worldview. Thus it may be fashionable, but is still dishonest.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:34 pm
“I don’t see the evidence for your assertion that physical pain – coincidentally the amount of pain required to cause tears due to pain – suddenly makes a child genuinely remorseful for their actions.”
I never made that assertion. The physical pain must also be accompanied by an explanation as to why a particular action was wrong, so that the child understands why they need to be contrite, and why they are being punished.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Another thing that’s often confused is a claim that no smacking equates to no discipline.
It’s possible to exercise very good discipline without needing to smack (especially smack to hurt).
It’s also possible to not smack and exercise poor discipline.
It’s also possible (and not uncommon) to smack and have pooerly disciplined children. I’ve seen kids who have been smacked soon afterwards get away with doing what the punishment was for.
Kids that are smacked a lot get a lot more cunning at not being caught.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:42 pm
The physical pain must also be accompanied by an explanation as to why a particular action was wrong, so that the child understands why they need to be contrite, and why they are being punished.
Do they get a lecture about not being a liberal at the same time?
I don’t understand why any parent would want to deliberately hurt their children. I tried it once with my eldest daughter, did it ineffectively and felt bad for having tried, and never tried it again with any of my children. And people often commented how well behaved they were.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 1:50 pm
“Do they get a lecture about not being a liberal at the same time?”
They wouldn’t need one.
“I don’t understand why any parent would want to deliberately hurt their children.”
To prevent greater harm and hurt.
“And people often commented how well behaved they were.”
Smacking or not smacking in and of itself does not make for good or bad parenting. I think it can and should be used, but rarely, and carefully. There are a lot of other things that go into being a good parent.
What I object to is being told how to raise my kids by a small minority of far left liberal-lefties, and thousands of otherwise good Kiwi Mums and Dads being turned into criminals because of an unnecessary law changed pushed by a terrorist supporting communist retard.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Then they’re not necessarily “tears of contrition” at all – and I’m aware that you weren’t the person who used the phrase. They’re tears of pain that, hopefully, are accompanied by genuine remorse. The question is, why are tears of pain necessary to bring about genuine remorse for the deed itself, rather than simply regretting being caught and regretting being hit?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 2:16 pm
I was lucky not to be smacked/hit/belted at home, but I was strapped and caned at school quite a bit to the point of it being a joke. The only tally kept was twelve times in the first term of Form 1. Yes, teachers tried to inflict pain. The headmaster (Conk) tried to inflict more pain, he used a thin strap and made you hold your hand/arm out in front of you so he could hit up your arm.
But it never stopped the continuation of strapping and caning so it can’t have been effective.
I remember two punishements well, one at home and one at school. Both deprived me of doing something I wanted to not miss out on doing (going to the pictures and going skating). Far more effective than belting me.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 2:43 pm
“The question is, why are tears of pain necessary to bring about genuine remorse”
That is how life works.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 2:55 pm
You don’t think that children can become genuinely remorseful of their actions without suffering physical pain?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 3:30 pm
“You don’t think that children can become genuinely remorseful of their actions without suffering physical pain?”
Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. It’s not an absolute either-or. Sometimes a spank is useful, sometimes not.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Also, I used the term ‘homophobia’ correctly. In its modern usage, it refers to any form of anti-homosexual stance, not exclusively a ‘fear’ of homosexuality.
GConnell, yes, unfortunately, it has come to mean that – you are correct. It’s used by gays as a smear toward anyone who disagrees with any part of their homosexual conduct, and gays want to use the word to associate anyone who disagrees with them with genuine homophobics, like the killers of Matthew Sheppard. It’s a hateful tactic.
I know and work with a couple of gays. I do not hate or fear (or even dislike) them, but does that mean I have to agree with everything they do? Is it “homophobic” to disagree with some of their conduct? Utter rubbish. It is even dishonest to suggest so-called ‘homophobia’ in disagreeing with someone’s actions.
If you were a vegetarian, you would probably not like my eating meat, and think it immoral of me to do so, but I am sure you would not hate me for doing so, and I would not call you ‘meat-o-phobic’. The same with someone who smokes – I do not agree with them doing it, or like them doing it near me, but is it “smoke-o-phobic” of me?
The whole argument is frankly ridiculous…
I call out such bulls!t.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Child rearing by its very nature is a matter of pick and mix, fail and learn. It requires a complex and genuinely diverse range of approaches.
A person who advocates smacking alone is just as wrong as a person advocating no smacking ever, and they are both wrong for the same reason.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Lee01:
Just out of curiosity, Lee, your proof is…?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 3:41 pm
@ Pete George – you never smacked your kids (but for one regretted attempt) and your kids grew up well-behaved. My boys often got smacks when they were little, and people often comment on how well-behaved they are.
Show me the evidence that says ‘no smacking is good’ before you muck with generations of family-rearing. And I do mean evidence, not the crap that passes for it these days.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 3:44 pm
“Just out of curiosity, Lee, your proof is…?”
Evidence 1: Comrade Sue Bradford.
Evidence 2: The Green Party.
Nuff said.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 3:46 pm
I have a friend who was smacked a couple of times when he was a kid, and he thanks his folks now. He says he would have grown up to be a right little so-and-so if he hadn’t been smacked. It’s true that some kids won’t need it – but some definitely will. It all comes down to temperament.
It is actually child abuse NOT to smack a child if they need it. You are failing as a parent to prepare them for later life.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 3:51 pm
garrett boasts how he ‘smacked’ his 15 yr old son..’to keep him in line’…
..i guess that is how bullies roll..
(and fletch..!..you and yr anecdotals..eh..?
..one for every situaton..eh..?
..and always someone you ‘know’..
..you must know a lot of people..eh..?..
..people who all have experiences/tales to tell..that fit yr agenda..
..eh..?)
..phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Phil,
Keep listening for that knock at the door. Your time is up mate.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 4:10 pm
thas: Show me the evidence that says ‘no smacking is good’ before you muck with generations of family-rearing.
That’s probably impossible to do, as is providing evidence that ‘smacking is good’. How can you tell which of non-smacking discipline or smacking discipline was the most effective? It’s known that some kids turn out ok despite significant abuse, and it wasn’t the abuse that made them good adults.
The simple principle of behaviour training for anything (kids, animals, but maybe not bloggers) is positive reinforcement works best, that teaches them to do the right things. Negative reaction (ie punishment) tends to teach avoidance behaviour – more often than not avoidance of being caught rather than avoidance of doing something wrong.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Shouldn’t be hard to do a survey of violent criminals and people who have never committed any violent crime, and see how many violent criminals were physically disciplined growing up, and how many of the others weren’t. Has that been done before?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 4:17 pm
The simple principle of behaviour training for anything (kids, animals, but maybe not bloggers) is positive reinforcement works best, that teaches them to do the right things.
You’ve obviously never had to potty-train a puppy…
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Ryan
Vote:I could be wrong, but I believe that quite a few scientific studies have shown negative effects from physical punishment of children.
April 2nd, 2012 at 4:26 pm
mikenmild – “scientific studies” vs generations of actual experience…
I know which I’d choose.
Vote:As I said, I know people who were smacked as kids and it never did them any harm physically or psychologically and now they are glad they got it.
April 2nd, 2012 at 4:31 pm
I know people who have used P as a useful tool in getting a lot of work done during an all-nighter, and never became addicted or abused it.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 4:34 pm
“I could be wrong, but I believe that quite a few scientific studies”
You are wrong. Any such study might be accurate, or it might not, but it would not be “scientific” even if it was accurate. The reason is that it would have to deal with a great many unquantifiable elements, subjective interpretations of psychological experience, assumptions (without hard proof) regrding cause and effect, and many other issues which defy a strictly “scientific” approach.
The term “scientific” is used by liberals in very dishonest ways, and in ways that render it meaningless. Much like the term “homophobia”.
He who controls the language…..
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 4:47 pm
That’s great Lee – your dismissal of science in its entirety is very impressive. Does it simply boil down to any reasoned conclusion that is contrary to your beliefs must be wrong?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 4:48 pm
@ Pete George – but the anti-smacking lobby’s stance is ‘always give positive reinforcement, never give negative reactions’. No way does this coincide with my experience of life and kids, where both tools are useful to bring up well-adjusted kids. That ability has now been denied us by idealogues.
You’re probably right about bloggers, though.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 5:00 pm
MM,
“That’s great Lee – your dismissal of science in its entirety is very impressive.”
If you read my post again you will see that I was not dismissing science at all, I was in fact defending it from your dishonest use of the term to cover studies which could not in themselves claim to be science.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 5:03 pm
What you were saying was that it would be impossible to make a scientific study of the effects of corporal punishment because it would be too complicated. You then equated science with liberalism, probably only in cases where you disagree with the science though.
Here is an example of one study:
OBJECTIVE: The goal was to examine the association between the use of corporal punishment (CP) against 3-year-old children and subsequent aggressive behavior among those children.
METHODS: Respondents (N = 2461) participated in the Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study (1998–2005), a population-based, birth cohort study of children born in 20 large US cities. Maternal reports of CP, children’s aggressive behaviors at 3 and 5 years of age, and a host of key demographic features and potential confounding factors, including maternal child physical maltreatment, psychological maltreatment, and neglect, intimate partner aggression victimization, stress, depression, substance use, and consideration of abortion, were assessed.
RESULTS: Frequent use of CP (ie, mother’s use of spanking more than twice in the previous month) when the child was 3 years of age was associated with increased risk for higher levels of child aggression when the child was 5 years of age (adjusted odds ratio: 1.49 [95% confidence interval: 1.2–1.8]; P < .0001), even with controlling for the child's level of aggression at age 3 and the aforementioned potential confounding factors and key demographic features.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations to the contrary, most parents in the United States approve of and have used CP as a form of child discipline. The current findings suggest that even minor forms of CP, such as spanking, increase risk for increased child aggressive behavior. Importantly, these findings cannot be attributed to possible confounding effects of a host of other maternal parenting risk factors.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Lee01:
That doesn’t even rate as an attempt.
Try again.
What is the proof you refer to in your 10:05am comment: “[the law] was about a small minority of far left idiots using the power of the state to enforce their facile and provably false notions of child rearing on the rest of us”?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 5:08 pm
“What you were saying was that it would be impossible to make a scientific study of the effects of corporal punishment because it would be too complicated.”
No, it would be impossible because the very nature of psychological effects makes them very, very difficult to quantify scientifically. That does not mean a study could not be done, or that it would be useleless. But it would not be “scientific”.
“You then equated science with liberalism”
No, I said the opposite, that science and liberalism are not the same thing, though Liberals are clearly confused on that point, and that liberals wrongly and dishonestly use the label of “science” when they are in fact talking abouy subjective theory and propaganda.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 5:16 pm
“What is your proof that “[the law] was about a small minority of far left idiots using the power of the state to enforce”
The law was promoted by Bradford and the Greens, who represent a far left minority opinion. Every poll conducted on the issue showed over 80% of the population was against it. Yet, it was forced on the country regardless of that. They had no democratic mandate.
Point one proven.
“their facile and provably false notions of child rearing on the rest of us”
The liberal approach to child rearing is based on the lie that the world owes everybody a living, that there are no winners or losers, that nobody is personally responsible for their problems or for criminal behaviour because they are vicitims of the evil/capitalist/patriarchal system, and that discipline, tradition and respect for authority must be opposed.
Point two proven.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Lee01:
I did a bit of a word switcheroo: I changed “What is your proof that…” to “What is the proof you refer to in your 10:05am comment” because they mean different things, and I want to focus on your words “provably false”.
Now, your proof seems to be:
“The liberal approach to child rearing is based on the lie that the world owes everybody a living, that there are no winners or losers, that nobody is personally responsible for their problems or for criminal behaviour because they are vicitims of the evil/capitalist/patriarchal system, and that discipline, tradition and respect for authority must be opposed.”
I still think you can do better than these vague generalisations.
I think you need to cite something more authoritative than your own opinion, surely?
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 5:31 pm
I don’t think he proved point one either, given that the law change was passed by an overwhelming parliamentary majority.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 5:53 pm
mikenmild, I see your study, and raise you one –
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 5:55 pm
I know people who have used P as a useful tool in getting a lot of work done during an all-nighter, and never became addicted or abused it.
Ryan, you’re comparing smacking a child to taking P? Really? You think parents get addicted to smacking? I very much doubt it.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Fletch
Vote:I wasn’t intending to get into a war of competing papers! I was just trying to show Lee that it might just be possible to study the effect of corporal punishment in a scientific way.
April 2nd, 2012 at 6:02 pm
So, after the ban on smacking in Sweden (as it says above), parents were beating their children twice as often… I think that can be seen here in NZ already. We’ve had a lot of these child abuse cases since the ban came in.
http://familyintegrity.org.nz/2010/pro-spanking-smacking-studies-may-have-global-effect/
Thanks Sue, for f*cking our country up.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 7:16 pm
We’ve had a lot of these child abuse cases since the ban came in.
We have had a lot before the “ban” too, for a long time before. Many are only coming to light now from historic cases.
Crime rates are down 4.9%, although sex crimes have increased due to higher reporting rates because more people are prepared to deal with it now, becasue it’s easier to do so (although still very demanding).
Family violence is generational, so a minor tweak to a minor aspect of the laws is not going to have a dramatic immediate difference.
One small law change for New Zealand, a giant opportunity for any opportunist wanting to quote it as a reason for or against whatever they want to campaign on.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 8:03 pm
I’m comparing anecdotal evidence of someone who wasn’t harmed by something to anecdotal evidence of someone who wasn’t harmed by something.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Lee 01
If you’re still out there ,good on ya. This thread has brought out the lefty tossers as usual,wankers the lot of them. Your 1002 was a good one,te hehe.
Bradfords law was a disgusting piece of anti family legislation. It did National no honour seeing it through.
A few sensible folk have commented on the lack of discipline and respect around.
Vote:As the Good Book says ,we reap as we sow.
April 2nd, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Groundbreaking New Zealand research has refuted thousands of international studies which claim that smacking children makes them more likely to become aggressive and antisocial.
Children who are smacked lightly with an open hand on the bottom, hand or leg do much the same in later life as those who are not smacked, found the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study, which has tracked 1000 children since they were born in the city in 1972-73.
The finding, based on interviews in the past two years when the children were 32-year-olds, will be published this year.
//
Preliminary analysis showed that those who were merely smacked had “similar or even slightly better outcomes” than those who were not smacked in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement.
“Study members in the ‘smacking only’ category of punishment appeared to be particularly high-functioning and achieving members of society,” she said.
“I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids,” she said.
“I know that is not a popular thing to say, but it is certainly the case.
“The more honest researchers have said, let’s be honest, we all wish we could say it’s all very clear and that no parent should ever lift a finger on a child – although I think that is totally unrealistic as a single parent myself – but the big problem is that a lot of the studies have lumped a whole lot of forms of physical punishment together.”
Dr Millichamp said the Dunedin study so far found no evidence of the “slippery slope” theory – that parents who started off smacking often progressed to abusive punishments.
“We couldn’t find any,” she said.
The findings undermine Green MP Sue Bradford’s bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows parents to use “reasonable force” to discipline children.
Dr Millichamp said there was no doubt that abusive punishments had long-lasting negative consequences, but the research did not support banning mild smacks.
“It’s unethical to make out that there is a lot of evidence that mild smacking is harmful,” she said.
She and colleague Judy Martin have made a written submission to Parliament suggesting that section 59 should be retained but amended to allow smacking with an open hand, but not hitting with a closed fist or certain objects.
Vote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
April 2nd, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Good find, hj.
As always, it seems the powers-that-be ignore studies that don’t conform to their ideology.
Vote:I suppose that is human nature though.
April 2nd, 2012 at 9:42 pm
hj – that research fails to address what I think is an important aspect. Most parents who lightly smack are unlikely to be more risk than most parents who don’t smack, but I don’t think that’s the key issue.
Smacking is an awful term to use because it can mean many different things.
Promoting “smacking” as being fine, and even as advisable, runs a real risk of giving tacit approval to those parents and partners of parents of far more dangerous “smacking”/thrashing/beating.
I think we need a non-emotive term for acceptable momentary discipline, also for planned punishment designed to hurt, and harmfu, and call potentially harmful adult versus child thuggery what it actually is.
These things need to be clearly differentiated. Then we won’t have incessant arguments over the trivial end of the issue and properly address what is really the greatest problem.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Mike said…
I don’t think he proved point one either, given that the law change was passed by an overwhelming parliamentary majority.
A large portion of the population didn’t like Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law. Yet you simply worship the state by saying that the law was passed by an overwhelming parliamentary majority? Do you see anything wrong with the system here? Is the majority dictating to the minority (in a so-called representative democracy as we have now – which is ridiculous since rights of minorities can be over-ruled by majority) as you seem to support or you mean the minority with power (politicians) dictating to the majority? If it is the later then it is dictatorship (which you seem to have no problem with). If it is the former, then again, such system is setup to violate the rights of the majority (look no further than Muslim countries).
Whichever direction you weasel on Mike, you have encountered a logical contradiction. You should examine your political philosophies if you have contradictions. See, Pete George loves the rule of the majority, however he (including you) simply jumps to support the side of overwhelming parliamentary majority support, which is a contradiction to his belief of implementing the wishes of the majority.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Falafulu
Vote:I can accept your points, in the main. We live in a representative democracy. That means that on occasions, our representatives will make decision that the majority of citizens would not. The key test is then whether those decision are overturned through subsequent political action.
The repeal of the parental defence against assault has not be reversed, and I would suggest that it is highly unlikely that it will be.
I would suggest that there have been many occasions that parliaments, or government, have made unpopular decisions – ignoring referendum outcomes, etc.
April 2nd, 2012 at 9:52 pm
Falafulu Fisi: See, Pete George loves the rule of the majority
You either don’t listen (read) or you don’t understand. We have a representative democracy decided by sort of proportional majority vote. Many executive decisions are made and need to be made. We have a mixed system and need to keep trying to find a reasonable balance with that.
I mostly support the system we have as being better than just about any alternative. We could increase referenda slightly but shouldn’t go overboard.
What I promote is making the majority voice stronger in this mix, establishing a better way of enabling people to be properly heard when it’s important. But acknowledging that we still need to have majority parliamentary decisions on most things.
That’s quite different to what you’ve claimed.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:08 pm
mikenmild, but apart from the referendum, many polls have shown again and again that most of the country wanted smacking left as it has always been. Anti-smacking laws haven’t worked in Sweden but, as always, NZ seems to hop on the bandwagon long after these things have proved not to work – totally ignoring research and actual physical outcomes and lessons that other countries have learned the hard way.
Why do we do that? We seem to have blinders on when it comes to learning from history.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Fletch
Vote:I don’t really have a dog in this particular fight – although I would say that the law change had a positive effect on me personally. I should think though that as time goes by this will seem less of an issue.
April 2nd, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Pete George, in the case of the smacking law change though, it had nothing to do with “representative majority” (as idealistic as that sounds). At the time it was all about Labour scratching the Greens back to get support from them, so Helen supported this whacky bill of Bradford’s that never would have seen the light of day under normal circumstances.
Don’t forget that Helen was asked on Radio Rhema in 2005 by Bob McCroskie if she wanted to see smacking banned and she said “Absolutely not. Well, I think you’re trying to defy human nature”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t she whip all her party into line to vote for this law change? How is this representative of the NZ public? No way is it. The whole thing ended up being about political favours.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:20 pm
many polls have shown again and again that most of the country wanted smacking left as it has always been.
I haven’t seen all those.
I know most people don’t want to be told what they can and can’t do as parents, but I’d bet that most people don’t want it to be legal to abuse, bash and harm children. The old law wasn’t clear (neither is the new one slightly slanted the other way).
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:28 pm
I haven’t seen all those.
This site lists pretty much all the polls had on the subject (between 2005 and 2009), from TVNZ and TV3, to Stuff, to Colmar Brunton and Curia.
The results show in the 80% region for opposing the law change.
I think this is New Zealand speaking loud and clear.
http://www.voteno.org.nz/polls.htm
However, they (and the referendum) were ignored.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Yeah right, that’s why National voted for it as well.
In fact, it is a very clear example of representative democracy, where politicians don’t vote to feed the populists and polemicist, but to vote on what they think is the best for the country. And so they did, with overwhelming majority of the parliament.
And Labour did not require actually support from the Greens.
In fact Sue Bradford did an amazing job for a politician, namely convince other parties what she believed in and to vote for her bill without having the power to twist any arms.
Nobody had to go along with the vote, especially not National. They did it because it was the right thing to do.
It’s just the fringe minority who keeps on whinging and whining and trying to stir up things, rather than moving forward.
Vote:April 2nd, 2012 at 10:41 pm
In fact, it is a very clear example of representative democracy, where politicians don’t vote to feed the populists and polemicist, but to vote on what they think is the best for the country.
Oh rubbish! They did what was best for them. They didn’t give two hoots for what the country wanted, and cared even less about “what was best”. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t the National MPs all vote agasint this law until Key and Clark had their little meeting and afterward all the National MPs voted for the law change (conscience vote be damned). There was some kind of deal struck between Clark and Key there.
It had nothing to do with the wants of the country but was all about politics.
Vote:April 3rd, 2012 at 3:03 am Vote:
April 3rd, 2012 at 4:45 am
There’s a natural bias to the question. I’m certain parents smack older children less than younger ones, so, if they’re being asked how often they smack their children compared to five years ago, the frequency is very likely to have declined.
Vote:April 3rd, 2012 at 8:42 am
Let’s be clear about this. Every parent who smacks their child is guilty of commiting a crime. Period. Any current inclination for the police not to prosecute can be re-directed by future governments at will. This creeping element of discretionary enforcement should be a real concern for all NZers.
Vote:April 3rd, 2012 at 9:01 am
Every parent who smacks their child is guilty of commiting a crime.
By what definition of “smack”?
Vote:April 3rd, 2012 at 10:44 am
“In fact, it is a very clear example of representative democracy, where politicians don’t vote to feed the populists and polemicist, but to vote on what they think is the best for the country. And so they did, with overwhelming majority of the parliament.”
Er…no. It was a very clear example of the failure of democracy. It was not “populists and polemicists” that were opposed, but over 80% of the population. You cannot write that off as “populism”, or Labour and the Green’s approach of calling most kiwis “rabid fundamentalists”.
Politicians should not vote “to feed” populists (the majority), but to serve them. That, and only that, is real democracy.
Politicians are not there to do what they think is best, they are there to serve the will of the people. If they fail in that, they no longer have any moral legitimacy.
Also, the 80% does not refer just to the referendum (which only a brainless liberal would have been confused by). Several polls were taken prior to that and every one showed the same result. Close to 90% were opposed.
Democracy under Liberal rule (right or left) is much the same as democracy under Communism. A dishonest facade. In this case, a dishonest facade to hide the soft facism of effete urban liberals.
Vote:April 3rd, 2012 at 10:54 am
Pete, I think your question has just proven my point.
Vote:April 3rd, 2012 at 10:58 am
“By what definition of “smack”?”
Thats the problem. The law is an ass because it is so subjective and open to a wide variety of interpretations. Highly subjective and vague law leads to injustice..
Vote:April 3rd, 2012 at 11:17 am
No, Fletch, as much as you disagree, this was representative parliament at work, they way it’s meant to be, not to give in to the demagogues but to research and debate and think about the issues and do what’s right and not what is easy.
Eszett, then who was representing me? And who was representing the will of close to 90% of the New Zealand public? How is that “representative parliament”? Unless they were representing the U.N, which is probably closer to the truth.
As I said above, click the link to see polls between 2005 and 2009 on the subject – http://www.voteno.org.nz/polls.htm
I count 37 different polls there (not counting the referendum) over 5 years taken by at least 20 different organisations, and the result is a surprisingly consistent 80% – 85% in favour of parents having the right to discipline their children using smacking. So how can you argue that parliament is “representative” of the people? You simply can’t.
In short, the people spoke very loudly and were ignored.
Vote:If you want to consider parliament the arbiter of all that is good and moral, that is your decision, but I do not believe they are – history proves that.
April 3rd, 2012 at 5:30 pm
Promoting “smacking” as being fine, and even as advisable, runs a real risk of giving tacit approval to those parents and partners of parents of far more dangerous “smacking”/thrashing/beating.
Vote:………………………………
that’s a slippery slope argument. While the physical differences between a light smack and a beating are the degree of physical force the differences are the intent, state of mind etc. The mythical being who is always referred to by those opposed to light smacking is a poorly programmed robot.