Yesterday’s Dominion Post Editorial calls for some honesty over the anti-smacking bill [(c) Sue Bradford]. Some extracts:
Ms Bradford continues to be disingenuous over her legislation.
She denies her legislation is an anti-smacking bill [see other post for how she has been caught out lying on this – dpf] , but says she is opposed to any definition of an acceptable level of force, or anything which legitimises any use of force.
However, opponents of her legislation are entitled to take at face value the provision that states nothing in the exemptions of the legislation “justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction”. That, however, much she may deny it, is a ban on what most people would regard as smacking.
If Parliament wants to vote to ban all smacking – and there are many who would see that as a laudable position – that is what it should do, but Ms Bradford and her supporters should have the courage of their convictions, and not pretend that her law says otherwise. If it is her intention that parents who give their children the odd light smack should not be considered criminals, then that is what the law should say.
The other key thing to remember is this is not just about whether the Police will prosecute for smacking. It is about how CYFS will use this law against families. Whale Oil tells a story of how CYFS, even before the law is changed, is already threatening parents who smack their children. Go read the full story and consider what the outcome might be once the law changes.