Child beaters, round two

[RantyDave]

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

With any luck the government will look at the overwhelmingly strong "no" in the light of the question that was actually asked and it's complete irrelevance to the repeal of section 59 when telling the pitchfork carriers that they can't have their legal right to beat children back. Perhaps "should children be afforded the same legal protections as adults?" was a little too factually correct for the proposing parties. Or maybe even "since the repeal of section 59, has the sky actually fallen in?". Or "since the repeal of section 59 are the prisons crowded with middle class parents?". Or maybe even "Is it OK to hit a child with a riding crop?".

And if s59 comes back in, where do we draw the line? I smacked her? I smacked her with a paddle? I smacked her with the pipe off the vacuum cleaner? I smacked her for an hour and a half? I smacked her and sold the video to someone on the Internet? I smacked her and she fell down the stairs? All legal, you want your name on that?

The good news is that we have a new canonical example of a contradiction in terms: "smack" and "good parental correction".

So bring it on, child beaters. Register your ongoing interest in raising another generation of violent criminals with a red rep, just as before. It's the one with the, like, justice scales thing in the corner. Y.. Yeah ... that one.

Dave

[98tls]

Funny this comes up,yesterday i was listening once again to our new next door neighbours kid (12 or 13 at a guess) telling his old man to " fuck" off."dont speak to me like that" just doesnt seem to be working next door so cant imagine it does anywhere else in the country.A thick ear would sort it but i guess A the fathers to lazy or B hes to scared to do it,either way the lack of thick ears in my opinion is only going to do the kid more harm than good.Sad really.

[JimO]

all my kids got a smack none of them were beaten to death

[JimO]

Funny this comes up,yesterday i was listening once again to our new next door neighbours kid (12 or 13 at a guess) telling his old man to " fuck" off."dont speak to me like that" just doesnt seem to be working next door so cant imagine it does anywhere else in the country.A thick ear would sort it but i guess A the fathers to lazy or B hes to scared to do it,either way the lack of thick ears in my opinion is only going to do the kid more harm than good.Sad really.

you should be a good neighbour and go and give the little turd a thick ear

[98tls]

you should be a good neighbour and go and give the little turd a thick ear As much as he needs one its not my place to do it eh.I really feel for the bloke to be honest,hes only a wee fella and his 2 boys are as big if not slightly bigger than him and on more than one occasion they have been asked to do something and all hes got back is a load of abuse,the conversation always ending with "get fucked" seems he just gives up.As i said earlier personally i believe its doing them more harm than good and once out in the real world some big falls are coming for both of them.At what expense to others though before it does eh?

[Duke girl]

you should be a good neighbour and go and give the little turd a thick ear

He would only end up getting 1 back and then be put in the slammer for doing so seen that the kids of today seem to have more rights than parents these days which sucks BIG TIME.
Any wonder why todays generation dont have any respect for their elders as well as there parent with the way the Law is towards them.
Sad world we live in today.

[Drew]

It sounds to me Dave, that you are forgetting something.

The people who did beat their children excesively before all smacking was made illegal, knew they were breaking the fuckin law anyway.

"I smacked her and she fell down the stairs", a direct quote of yours trying to illustrate something, yet to me, that would be neglagent (and even then at a stretch), NOT abuse. She fell, it was an accident, but likely deserved a belt on the arse to begin with.

Fuck the whole thing, I still smack my kids when they step too far out of line, (thinking back I may not have since the law change), but I wont hesitate to do it if I see fit.

[Brownstoo]

The government needs to fuck off really. It is quite rediculous to take away a basic means of discipline that's instilled a healthy "respect your elders" attitude in younger generations pretty much forever. It's an intrusion into peoples lives, which is too far already, it also doesn't solve the original problem of beating kids to death, coz that was pretty much illegal in the first place, and the lack of good smackings probably contributes to all these little fuckers with no respect running round stabbing people and robbing dairies.
Fuck I sound like an old fart there lol.

[Hitcher]

Sophistry. Repealing s59 of The Crimes Act withdrew "smacking" as a legal defense for assault or worse, if my memory serves me correctly.

Anybody who thought that this was going to stop children getting abused or killed by brain-dead/over-zealous "care givers" was sadly dellusional. So too was anybody who thought that the Police would be out to prosecute any care-giver who gave a child a "loving tap".

Apart from millions of column cm devoted to this issue, can anybody tell me what has actually changed?

[Duke girl]

There's a huge difference in slapping your kids with an open hand and hitting them with a clinched fist. I can't see any harm in giving them a slap when they have done wrong as long as the force doesn't knock them to the ground.
Back in my day when we did wrong we got slapped accross the back of the legs which usually left who ever hit us, their hand print on our skin but we sure did learn not to do what we got slapped for again.

[allycatz]

Theres smacking as in quick slap on the bum or hand with an open hand (discipline) and 'smacking' with an object or hitting in the face, stomach etc....ie abuse. My kids got the forma if they put themselves in danger. As I got cleverer and wiser as a parent, they didn't really get that in the end as I became more deviant, with what was to the kids, crueller unecessary punishment...groundings, no tv etc.

[Winston001]

Apart from millions of column cm devoted to this issue, can anybody tell me what has actually changed?

Yes. Parents cannot now argue that physical blows are the acceptable norm for discipline within their household.

The defence arguments for asaulting a child have been reduced.

[Finn]

Apart from millions of column cm devoted to this issue, can anybody tell me what has actually changed?

Yes. The Government.

[saltydog]

Any wonder why todays generation dont have any respect for their elders as well as there parent with the way the Law is towards them.
Sad world we live in today.

Having problems with my rude, disrespectful, answer back, LAZY good for nothing stepson and he automatically says "you cant hit me"
Drives me mad. espicially when my old man laid into me and it never did me any harm.
A good well timed wack is all it would take.

[Swoop]

Apart from millions of column cm devoted to this issue, can anybody tell me what has actually changed?
The amount of bureaucracy that the previous gubbinment introduced to "save us from ourselves".

The police always have had the ability to prosecute child abusers under a multitude of laws. Something that the OP has ignored.

[Genestho]

Anyone else get the info on the Citizens Initiated Referendum?
The question: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ?

Voting papers are to be sent out in August, have your say.

[RantyDave]

Having problems with my rude, disrespectful, answer back, LAZY good for nothing stepson and he automatically says "you cant hit me"
Right, so do something else. Does he get an allowance? Stop it. Likes his Playstation? Hide it. Wants steak for dinner? Vegetarian food for a month. Enforce a surreally nasty bed time. Remove his net access. Take his cellphone and cut it in half with a chainsaw. Throw all his shit on the street and if he does it again, burn it. Whatever it is you promise to do, make sure you're actually in a position to be able to do it.

You can hit him, but you shouldn't. You should maintain control some other way but you should definitely maintain control.

Drives me mad. espicially when my old man laid into me and it never did me any harm.
It robbed you of ideas for how to impose control without resorting to violence.

[RantyDave]

The people who did beat their children excesively before all smacking was made illegal, knew they were breaking the fuckin law anyway.
Y'see, smacking was not made illegal. All that happened was that the avenue of using "Parental Correction" as a defence was removed. People had been hitting kids with riding crops, being hauled up to court by CYFS and the rozzers then saying "but it was Parental Correction, as per section 59, and I'm allowed to". And they were right, they were allowed to, that's what the law said and they were getting off scott free.

"I smacked her and she fell down the stairs", a direct quote of yours trying to illustrate something, yet to me, that would be neglagent (and even then at a stretch), NOT abuse.
You have to remember that because s59 was the removal of a defence it only affects cases that go to court and the police, CYFS etc can only truly be arsed taking something to court if they really really have to. The repeal of section 59 has been law for, what, a year now? How many people do you know that have been locked up because of it? Have people come into work with a long face saying they're going down for smacking their kids? No. The sky has not fallen. We are not all in prison. But the people who were going to be hauled off to court anyway now don't have a piece of legislature they can quote to make it all OK.

Dave

[slofox]

Sophistry. Repealing s59 of The Crimes Act withdrew "smacking" as a legal defense for assault or worse, if my memory serves me correctly.

Anybody who thought that this was going to stop children getting abused or killed by brain-dead/over-zealous "care givers" was sadly dellusional. So too was anybody who thought that the Police would be out to prosecute any care-giver who gave a child a "loving tap".

Apart from millions of column cm devoted to this issue, can anybody tell me what has actually changed?

Please check your spelling in future Mr Hitcher...:whistle:

I do, however, agree that the law change will not stop child abuse.

[Drew]

You have to remember that because s59 was the removal of a defence it only affects cases that go to court and the police, CYFS etc can only truly be arsed taking something to court if they really really have to. The repeal of section 59 has been law for, what, a year now? How many people do you know that have been locked up because of it? Have people come into work with a long face saying they're going down for smacking their kids? No. The sky has not fallen. We are not all in prison. But the people who were going to be hauled off to court anyway now don't have a piece of legislature they can quote to make it all OK.

Dave



There is now a chance that a meddling, know it all, interfering friggin tree hugger, could make a complaint to the police saying that I was hitting my kids. They come see me, take an immediate dislike to me, (as so many people seem to do for some reason), and off to court I go. When I get there I find myself without defence, because some MINORITY group think they have the answer to people being let off with a crime.

Riddle me this, why the fuck are so few "real offenders" being charged still? the answer is simple, chidren and whatever the fuck they call themselves services, are doing little more than they were before, other than trying to defend this whole thing.

[98tls]

Riddle me this, why the fuck are so few "real offenders" being charged still? the answer is simple, chidren and whatever the fuck they call themselves services, are doing little more than they were before, other than trying to defend this whole thing. "children and whatever the fuck they call themselves services" are on par with Winz or whatever the fuck they call themselves,another Govt dept employing those that would stand no chance of employment anywhere else on earth.

[davereid]

Y'see, smacking was not made illegal. All that happened was that the avenue of using "Parental Correction" as a defence was removed. People had been hitting kids with riding crops, being hauled up to court by CYFS and the rozzers then saying "but it was Parental Correction, as per section 59, and I'm allowed to". And they were right, they were allowed to, that's what the law said and they were getting off scott free.

No, the law allowed reasonable force.

Pretty clearly using a riding crop was considered entirely reasonable in Dickensian England.

The fact it was considered reasonable force in modern New Zealand possible tells us more about the calibre of our judges than it does about what is reasonable force.

[Mom]

I have given all of my kids the odd, good, hard whack. When deserved and not in anger it is simply the most effective way to make your point known/felt when you have exhausted all other options.

I was raised in a very violent home, mother hospitalised a couple of times with broken bones on top of all the black eyes etc, myself with split lips/ears, fabulous shiners, cut cheeks, blah, blah blah. I was not about to do the same thing to my kids.

I fostered kids too for many years, and you can never lay a finger on them. I never actually had to with my foster kids, though the temptation was strong at times.

I had one family stay with me, 3 little girls. Too horrible a case to discuss here but lets say beyond anything that you might imagine goes on in some homes. I had 3 of my own kids as well. I actually had to pay a woman to come to the house everyday and help me deal with the 5 loads minimum of washing, 2 of my foster kids wet beds everynight, I had the other in nappies, though she was 5, and to keep the house sanitary, otherwise I simply could not have coped. These were amazingly damaged little kids. One used to make a noise resembling a chainsaw at full noise if she was growled at, or one of her siblings thumped her, or if she wanted to. That noise was something I could not deal with.

I had a little pink plastic chair. My naughty chair if you life :D It lived under my clothesline, and that is where you went to cool off. Poor Jane (not her real name) used to spend a bit of time out there. I was a bit concerned about the neighbours reporting me for abuse because she used to be out there quite a bit making this unholey sound. I talked to the Social worker from CYPS about it. She actually said if she ever got a complaint like that she would ignore it.

Kids are precious future citizens of this world and deserve to be allowed to grow up to enjoy it undamaged. They need to be loved and cherished and encouraged and... They also deserve to be discliplined and educated about what sort of thing is acceptable and what is not. They need firm, reasonable boundaries. All the PC babble around annoys the bejaysus out of me. Kids are kids. Sometimes they need a short sharp lesson.

Lock me up! I have smacked my kids!

[Skyryder]

10 mill down the tube. Key won't change anything............he says the law is working. Bout the only thing he's got right to date.


Skyryder

[98tls]

Best way to stop child abuse is to stop retards having children,simple really.:done:Then again probably way to simple for NZ,retards it seems have more rights than anyone.

[rainman]

Funny this comes up,yesterday i was listening once again to our new next door neighbours kid (12 or 13 at a guess) telling his old man to " fuck" off."dont speak to me like that" just doesnt seem to be working next door so cant imagine it does anywhere else in the country.A thick ear would sort it but i guess A the fathers to lazy or B hes to scared to do it,either way the lack of thick ears in my opinion is only going to do the kid more harm than good.Sad really.

You have to wonder how it gets to this, though. I was infrequently smacked as a kid (and I'm a moderately old bugger) but I would never have dared even think about telling my dad to fuck off. Or to rob a dairy, for that matter. My 14 yo is occasionally a bit cheeky but it's just growing up, never crossing the line. He might when he gets older, but I don't think so. It's mostly in the parenting, methinks.

[MisterD]

Y'see, smacking was not made illegal. All that happened was that the avenue of using "Parental Correction" as a defence was removed.

Er, wrong. Smacking for the purposes of correction is specifically outlawed under Bradford's bill.



People had been hitting kids with riding crops, being hauled up to court by CYFS and the rozzers then saying "but it was Parental Correction, as per section 59, and I'm allowed to". And they were right, they were allowed to, that's what the law said and they were getting off scott free.

Legislating on the basis of a couple of crap jury decisions is and was a stupid idea. The problem wasn't the law it was crap juries and that's whole other kettle of fish.


10 mill down the tube. Key won't change anything............he says the law is working. Bout the only thing he's got right to date.

Bollocks, smacking is now outlawed, but people are ignoring that fact. Not exactly the mark of a good law is it? Kids are still dying at the hands of their "care-givers"...

MasterD at 3 yrs old gets a smack on his bum when required...anyone who has a problem with that can come around and I'll demonstrate the difference between a parental smack and a punch in the teeth.

This has been a public service announcement for the benefit of meddling nanny-staters everywhere.

[PrincessBandit]

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

With any luck the government will look at the overwhelmingly strong "no" in the light of the question that was actually asked and it's complete irrelevance to the repeal of section 59 when telling the pitchfork carriers that they can't have their legal right to beat children back. Perhaps "should children be afforded the same legal protections as adults?" was a little too factually correct for the proposing parties. Or maybe even "since the repeal of section 59, has the sky actually fallen in?". Or "since the repeal of section 59 are the prisons crowded with middle class parents?". Or maybe even "Is it OK to hit a child with a riding crop?".

And if s59 comes back in, where do we draw the line? I smacked her? I smacked her with a paddle? I smacked her with the pipe off the vacuum cleaner? I smacked her for an hour and a half? I smacked her and sold the video to someone on the Internet? I smacked her and she fell down the stairs? All legal, you want your name on that?

The good news is that we have a new canonical example of a contradiction in terms: "smack" and "good parental correction".

So bring it on, child beaters. Register your ongoing interest in raising another generation of violent criminals with a red rep, just as before. It's the one with the, like, justice scales thing in the corner. Y.. Yeah ... that one.

Dave

So RantyDave, what actually was your point?

I smacked both my kids occasionally when they were little and they are both lovely well behaved thoughtful young adults today. I feel very say for parents who face ill disciplined selfish offspring; who are often scared of their kids; but I suspect that often the frustration comes from trying to instill the "discipline" too late in a child's development. Kids need loving guidance with firm boundaries from the time they are TINY, not once they've reached the age of 7, 8 10 12, whatever. The horse has long since bolted by then and reaction to trying to bring them in line with ANY form of discipline by then will only meet with resistance at best, outright hostility at worst.

[Winston001]

Just for clarity, here is the previous S. 59 Crimes Act 1961:

Part 3
Matters of justification or excuse

Section 59
Domestic discipline

(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.

[Winston001]

And simply to prove that smacking is not mentioned anywhere, nor is it outlawed, here is the new law:

Part 3 Matters of justification or excuse

59 Parental control

(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—


(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or


(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or


(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or


(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.


Section 59: substituted, on 21 June 2007, by section 5 of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (2007 No 18).

[davebullet]

Too often as parents we take for granted the good behaviour shown by our children. I've always made a fuss whenever my kids did something good / normal (positive reinforcement). Seems to have worked so far (teenage years coming so I'll get a serve of reality soon).

I think the no smack law is dumb. Any violent person who is going to beat someone (adult or child) has an anger management issue. Anger doesn't do a mental check against the law and consequences before committing to violence.

Laws are only practical when they can be enforced. Unless they install cameras in each home, an anti-smacking law has about as much chance as a law against picking your nose.

[NDORFN]

all my kids got a smack none of them were beaten to death

That is hands down the best response to the whole issue I've ever heard.

[Oakie]

Or maybe even "since the repeal of section 59, has the sky actually fallen in?". Or "since the repeal of section 59 are the prisons crowded with middle class parents?".

What about ... "Since the repeal of Section 59 have we stopped killing our kids" which is the issue that started this whole thing. Oh, the answer is "no". Making it illegal to smack your kid has not reduced the rate at which we kill our children.

[RantyDave]

You know, you're right. It's all much too complicated and besides, I'm sure I have better things to apply myself to. It's not like a referendum is going to actually matter, I was just offended at how the wording was implying that most people were idiots and would fall for this shit. Which they will. But it won't matter.

I wasn't allowed to (green) rep Mom, which was a shame. Full respect for anyone that fosters troubled kids.

Dave

[Mom]

Bollocks, smacking is now outlawed, but people are ignoring that fact. Not exactly the mark of a good law is it? Kids are still dying at the hands of their "care-givers"...


A smack is unlikely to kill your child after all...

*wanders off muttering about friggen do good PC wankers whose children are completely undisciplined little shits that are the bane of others lives*

[Skyryder]

Smacking or hitting a child for correctional purposes is a sign of parental failure for control of the child and inability to change behavour by other means.


Skyryder


PS And that includes their own too.

[EYNON13]

ok im not out for a sob story here but i was beatin as a child never a slap on the wrist it was always a jug cord a fist and once even a steel bar ive had a fractured skull when i was 6 months old i had my back fracterd when i was 12 by my father ive had brusses blacker than leather on my thigh,so this law is to make sure weapons and closed fists are not used,i tell my one year old off i know he thinks its funny but there is no way i will ever strike him,so i think the law is there to help the police clarify wat they have to deal with on a day to day basis sure this law neads fine tunnig but dont just abolish it ive had years of abuse and if this law was around when i was a kid who knows it may of helped the police to charge the old bastard with somthing thats my peice so open ya eyes people its not about takin away your rights as parents its there to save lives

[NDORFN]

ok im not out for a sob story here but i was beatin as a child never a slap on the wrist it was always a jug cord a fist and once even a steel bar ive had a fractured skull when i was 6 months old i had my back fracterd when i was 12 by my father ive had brusses blacker than leather on my thigh,so this law is to make sure weapons and closed fists are not used,i tell my one year old off i know he thinks its funny but there is no way i will ever strike him,so i think the law is there to help the police clarify wat they have to deal with on a day to day basis sure this law neads fine tunnig but dont just abolish it ive had years of abuse and if this law was around when i was a kid who knows it may of helped the police to charge the old bastard with somthing thats my peice so open ya eyes people its not about takin away your rights as parents its there to save lives

1: You'd have been ok if he was just smacking ya.
2: You could've charged him with... wait for it... ASSAULT!

[Mikkel]

*wanders off muttering about friggen do good PC wankers whose children are completely undisciplined little shits that are the bane of others lives*

I am a bit unsure, but I do hope you are being at least slightly sarcastic here. Statistics clearly show that if you are raised in a violent environment you are more likely to become violent yourself.


NZ is a great place, but there are things here that need to be improved upon - domestic violence is one of these. I am not saying that the law change is perfect, but if you look at the wording (as presented in this thread) the change is in fact minor and the whole point of the exercise is to raise awareness about the problem. Yes, you can turn a blind eye to the issue and just pretend that all is well and good - it won't change the reality though.

The fact that 10% of the voting population - 10% who are willing to take initiative to initiate a referendum - are campaigning for the "sacred" right to physically chastise their children in 2009 is, all things considered, disgraceful.

Anyone who feels that smacking is a natural everyday and necessary part of good parenting in anno 2009 is doing it wrong. Noone is disputing that it will happen every-now-and-again, but any time you have to get physical you have failed as a parent - and you bloody well know it too. You may not want to admit it, not even to yourself - but if there isn't something inside you that feels wrong as you hit someone you love, then you - and most likely your children too - are beyond help.

The few times I got hit by my parents it wasn't my pain I remembered - it wasn't painful as such, shocking yes, not painful - it was to much larger degree witnessing how much it hurt them to actually do it. If it had been an everyday occurance it would have lost it's impact and I have a strong feeling that I would have been in jail before I turned 25...

[Bullitt]

ok im not out for a sob story here but i was beatin as a child never a slap on the wrist it was always a jug cord a fist and once even a steel bar ive had a fractured skull when i was 6 months old i had my back fracterd when i was 12 by my father ive had brusses blacker than leather on my thigh,so this law is to make sure weapons and closed fists are not used,i tell my one year old off i know he thinks its funny but there is no way i will ever strike him,so i think the law is there to help the police clarify wat they have to deal with on a day to day basis sure this law neads fine tunnig but dont just abolish it ive had years of abuse and if this law was around when i was a kid who knows it may of helped the police to charge the old bastard with somthing thats my peice so open ya eyes people its not about takin away your rights as parents its there to save lives
If that happened to you a year ago before Bradford proved she was a better parent than anyone else it would have still been illegal. If it wasnt then that should have been changed.

However the current law is totally rediculous. If it wasnt for the EFA this would be the worst law the last Government brought in (and they brought in A LOT).

I havnt read this whole thread but I hope noone is complaining about the cost of the referendum. Theres only two people to blame for that, Bradford for bringing it in and Helen for refusing to put it in with the general election where it woudl have saved almost the entire cost.

Anyone claiming the question is biased just wants the answer to come back "yes" but they know it wont so theyre preparing it.

I shouldnt get a say in how some random person raises their kids and they shouldnt get a say in mine (provided Im not doing things that are harmful to them and smacking the way 99% of parents do it isnt).

[Winston001]

We need to agree on what we are talking about. The law does not say "a smack" is unlawful;


Smack:

"to slap with the hand," 1835, from noun in this sense (c.1746), perhaps influenced by Low Ger. smacken "to strike, throw," which is likely of imitative origin (cf. Swed. smak "slap," M.L.G. smacken, Fris. smakke, Du. smakken "to fling down," Lith. smagiu "to strike, knock down, whip").


So the etymology has strong roots but today most of us mean a light blow with an open hand applied to a child's hand or bottom.

If that's what we mean by a smack - where are all the convictions of decent parents?? :no:

[Drew]

Smacking or hitting a child for correctional purposes is a sign of parental failure for control of the child and inability to change behavour by other means.


Skyryder


PS And that includes their own too.

Bullshit. Smacking a child a few times throughout the early years, creates control.

[JimO]

Smacking or hitting a child for correctional purposes is a sign of parental failure for control of the child and inability to change behavour by other means.


Skyryder


PS And that includes their own too.

do you have children ?? what do you do for a living??

[crazyhorse]

Funny this comes up,yesterday i was listening once again to our new next door neighbours kid (12 or 13 at a guess) telling his old man to " fuck" off."dont speak to me like that" just doesnt seem to be working next door so cant imagine it does anywhere else in the country.A thick ear would sort it but i guess A the fathers to lazy or B hes to scared to do it,either way the lack of thick ears in my opinion is only going to do the kid more harm than good.Sad really.

Those who beat their kids are gonna keep doing it - those who discipline theirs, are sadly deprived of doing so. Kids of today are too wrapped up in cottonwool, they don't even know how to make their own fun - the days of no shops being open, no computers, no cellphones etc. We left the house and came back at dinner time - not like the kids of today - sadly!

[ManDownUnder]

Smacking or hitting a child for correctional purposes is a sign of parental failure for control of the child and inability to change behavour by other means.


Skyryder


PS And that includes their own too.

Are you equating smacking to hitting a child - it's unclear from the post above. My interpretation is that hitting would involve a weapon or closed fist - more of an injurious impact than a smack (i.e. you don't see people smacking each other when they fight, but the certainly hit each other)

I see it as one of the last resorts personally -but I do see it as a valid resort. Especially with the little ones where they have no concept of consequences.

"Don't touch the fire - it will burn you - it will hurt - you'll need to go to the hospital" etc for a 2 year old may not actually mean that much other than "Dad doesn't want me to touch it", but if they're in that mood... and they don't call 'em the "terrible two's" by accident... they'll keep going.

So a smack on the back of the hand is far far far better than the consequences of touching the fire. Anyone that's had a two year old will attest to the fact it is impossible to watch them 24x7 so the full time supervision (aka mollycoddling) isn't valid in my book.

Likewise building a fence around the fire, and every heater, and cotton wolling everything that might somehow end up injuring a little person. That's impossible too.

Best thing is pass the responsibility to the child in a form they can appreciate. It makes them autonomous, safe and respectful. My kids get a smack on the bum when they need it. Very rarely I hasten to add. But that's because they can rely on me to do what's right, and if there is a smack... it's always followed with quiet one on one time in their space, to explain what happened, and why, and make sure nothing is left unresolved.

[davebullet]

Smacks are useful to very young children (ie. toddlers) when they are having an out of control tantrum and they pose a danger to themselves. For example - they are pulling away from you next to a busy road. It's happened once to me as a parent and I smacked him (controlled - not angry). The shock of the smack (which I rarely administered - it's a last resort) turned his anger into tears which allowed a cuddle and calmed him down. This was next to a busy road.

[NDORFN]

Smacks are useful to very young children (ie. toddlers) when they are having an out of control tantrum and they pose a danger to themselves. For example - they are pulling away from you next to a busy road. It's happened once to me as a parent and I smacked him (controlled - not angry). The shock of the smack (which I rarely administered - it's a last resort) turned his anger into tears which allowed a cuddle and calmed him down. This was next to a busy road.

It's also good for smacking the arrogance out of them, which can pose a danger to themselves later in life ie. getting smart to a guy with a knife.

[discotex]

Smacks are useful to very young children (ie. toddlers) when they are having an out of control tantrum and they pose a danger to themselves. For example - they are pulling away from you next to a busy road. It's happened once to me as a parent and I smacked him (controlled - not angry). The shock of the smack (which I rarely administered - it's a last resort) turned his anger into tears which allowed a cuddle and calmed him down. This was next to a busy road.

Are you saying this is why the law change was bad or just a justification for smacking?

If it's the former you should read the law as quoted above. If it's the latter it may be one of the rare cases where a smack is justified.

It's pretty simple IMO. If you smack your child more than 10 times in their life you're probably doing it wrong. If you smack your child monthly you're doing it extremely wrong.

[RantyDave]

"Don't touch the fire - it will burn you - it will hurt - you'll need to go to the hospital" etc for a 2 year old may not actually mean that much other than "Dad doesn't want me to touch it", but if they're in that mood... and they don't call 'em the "terrible two's" by accident... they'll keep going.
My two year old, who's muuuuucccchhh slower than his sister ... we let him have little accidents so he can get the idea of what the bigger ones would be like. A marginally hot oven instead of a really hot one, a cup of tea instead of a kettle. We've also run the rule with both of them that if they can climb on it, they can fall off - a couple of solid clonks onto the (wooden) floor off the back of the sofa seems to teach them what altitude is all about.

Anyone that's had a two year old will attest to the fact it is impossible to watch them 24x7
Too right.

It's difficult because as much as I want to discourage violence, smacking is clearly vastly superior to no parenting at all, and it is also clear that there are good parents who do smack. But I'm convinced it's not the best way and the current campaign.... that there are 300,000 willing to campaign for children to have fewer legal protections than adults??? You're kidding me, right?

Dave

[Skyryder]

do you have children ?? what do you do for a living??

Yes two who have grown up and are now in the workforce, so you could say I'm an 'experianced' parent. What I do for a living is not relevant.

Skyryder

[puddytat]

Youre not allowed to smack your partner under existing law.....why then your kids?:scratch:

[Skyryder]

Are you equating smacking to hitting a child - it's unclear from the post above. My interpretation is that hitting would involve a weapon or closed fist - more of an injurious impact than a smack (i.e. you don't see people smacking each other when they fight, but the certainly hit each other)

I see it as one of the last resorts personally -but I do see it as a valid resort. Especially with the little ones where they have no concept of consequences.

"Don't touch the fire - it will burn you - it will hurt - you'll need to go to the hospital" etc for a 2 year old may not actually mean that much other than "Dad doesn't want me to touch it", but if they're in that mood... and they don't call 'em the "terrible two's" by accident... they'll keep going.



If someone was to walk up to you and say that they were going to give you a 'smack' around the head you would equate that as hitting.

The word smack is derived more from the sound of the blow.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary: Smack: a sharp slap or blow esp. with the palm of the hand or a flat object. Notice that a blow is used as one defination and also from an object.

A smack is allowed under the legislation where safety of the child becomes paramount as in the scenario that you have described.

There are better ways for a parent to 'correct' behavour than inflicting pain.

It's just that it takes more time but the outcomes for both are far better; no pain for the child and more satisfaction for the parent.


Skyryder

[EYNON13]

1: You'd have been ok if he was just smacking ya.
2: You could've charged him with... wait for it... ASSAULT! yeah posibly but when ya get ya cyps recored and and find they knew all along wat was happening but couldnt do anything about it until the law was changed for them 17 yrs ago i was well out of the system for them to help me all they could do was recomend that i go 2 these health camps over summer to get me out of that enviroment and for the other 1 saying that you grow up to be a abuser wat a crock my old man did drugs was a alky and beat all us kids and mum well guess wat i havent hit my wife i dont do drugs and i drink a few social ones with mates its up 2 the individual wat they do with there life so stop trying to tell me that i couldve charged him with assault there was a lot less laws back then for kids to receve the help they needed

[Skyryder]

The debate may turn out to be an expensive waste of effort for both sides, with Mr Key saying yesterday that he had no intention of changing the law regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
"I think it's important that governments listen to the public, but the test I've had is that if I don't think the law is working I will change it," he said. "To date I have not seen any evidence that it is not working."
The question being asked in the referendum was ambiguous as it did not directly call for the law to be changed or repealed. The issue was of significant public concern two years ago but had died away, he said.

From http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2502973/Smacking-poll-won-t-alter-law


Ten million down the tube from our Prime Minister and this in a recession.

Key did not hesitate to renege of his tax policy saying that now we can not afford tax cuts when before he was saying that tax cuts will improve the economy but now he's going with this referendum that is going to cost us ten million dollars................of importance

Skyryder

[Lissa]

My two year old, who's muuuuucccchhh slower than his sister ... we let him have little accidents so he can get the idea of what the bigger ones would be like. A marginally hot oven instead of a really hot one, a cup of tea instead of a kettle. We've also run the rule with both of them that if they can climb on it, they can fall off - a couple of solid clonks onto the (wooden) floor off the back of the sofa seems to teach them what altitude is all about.
Dave
Hmm I see where you are going but instead of letting my children know what the pain of touching a hot oven is like I smacked my childrens hands when they went near an oven, and said the word HOT so they got it... Pain if you touch the oven. (Useful for young toddlers)

As for letting him touch a cup of hot tea instead of a kettle, I dont think kids attach a cup with how hot a kettle can be , my nephew at the age of one pulled the Jug Cord which just happened to be attached to a freshly boiled jug and has serious burns to whole of his arm which he still lives with today 18 years later (lucky missed his face). A smack on the hand to save a life time of pain is well worth it. The same could be said for kids near open flames and wearing pj's, I am not going to let my kids get a little burnt to teach them a lesson.

So to me a smack on the hand to avoid accidents in young on the move curious toddlers is okay to me.

[MisterD]

Youre not allowed to smack your partner under existing law.....why then your kids?:scratch:

You're legally responsible for your partner then?

[puddytat]

importance[/U]

Skyryder

You know the answer to that as well as anyone....to keep people wound up & adgitated about a load of bullshit, which'll keep people occupied over a moral & emotive issue while they, can get on doing the bidding of thier masters....
Fuck we're guillable.

[MisterD]

Ten million down the tube from our Prime Minister and this in a recession.

Key did not hesitate to renege of his tax policy saying that now we can not afford tax cuts when before he was saying that tax cuts will improve the economy but now he's going with this referendum that is going to cost us ten million dollars................of importance


How is it JK's fault? The call for a referendum got the required signatures, it has to happen. It could have cost about 10% as much if it hadn't been for (y)our Dear ex-leader opting not to include the question with the general election...blame our UN trough-snuffler.

[puddytat]

You're legally responsible for your partner then?

So I understand....no more smackin' em upside da head when they get lippy.

There has been one or 2 other issues that got the required signatures,but we're still waitng on them.

[RantyDave]

Ten million down the tube from our Prime Minister and this in a recession.
It was a "Citizens Initiated Referendum" - the law says we have to have one if 10% of the electorate sign a petition saying they do. That's about 300,000 people so if each of those 300,000 dumbcunts would like to pony up $30/head then we'll go ahead and run this thing-that-is-like-a-facebook-poll-but-orange OK?

Dave

[MisterD]

It was a "Citizens Initiated Referendum" - the law says we have to have one if 10% of the electorate sign a petition saying they do. That's about 300,000 people so if each of those 300,000 dumbcunts would like to pony up $30/head then we'll go ahead and run this thing-that-is-like-a-facebook-poll-but-orange OK?


See my post above, I'll chip in my $3...go see the Liarbore and Watermelon parties about the balance.

[Hitcher]

Even if the outcome of the referendum was 100% in favour, no Government is going to put the Crimes Act back the way it was. And that's not what the referendum is seeking to do anyway. Indeed I am not sure what purpose this referendum serves at all, other than siphoning off some millions of taxpayers' money, providing a topic for inane discussion on talkback radio and aggravating RD's ulcer.

[MisterD]

I tend to agree Hitch - the referendum question should have been:

Should Helen Clark and Sue Bradford be dragged on a hurdle to Auckland airport and given a one-way ticket to North Korea for foisting this unwanted law change on us. Yes/No.

[Zuki lover]

Bring back the biff!

[puddytat]

I tend to agree Hitch - the referendum question should have been:

Should Helen Clark and Sue Bradford be dragged on a hurdle to Auckland airport and given a one-way ticket to North Korea for foisting this unwanted law change on us. Yes/No.

Hahaha...wouldve been alot easier for the "dumb fucks" to understand....:not:

[ManDownUnder]

If someone was to walk up to you and say that they were going to give you a 'smack' around the head you would equate that as hitting.

The word smack is derived more from the sound of the blow.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary: Smack: a sharp slap or blow esp. with the palm of the hand or a flat object. Notice that a blow is used as one defination and also from an object.

A smack is allowed under the legislation where safety of the child becomes paramount as in the scenario that you have described.

There are better ways for a parent to 'correct' behavour than inflicting pain.

It's just that it takes more time but the outcomes for both are far better; no pain for the child and more satisfaction for the parent.


Skyryder

What's the legal definition of "smack"... I expect that's relevant here as opposed to the dictionary definition.

And in the example I gave I'm open to suggestions - how do you keep that extremely curious 2 year old away from the fire? What's the best way?

I agree it's a last ditch measure in terms of choice of punishment, I'm simply requesting that it doesn't get taken away altogether, or at least make the guidelines of it's acceptable use very very very clear. The trouble I see is that raising children, rauising every child, presents situations where firm correction is needed, and correction that is allowed under the law.

My problem is understanding exactly when I can (and more importantly can NOT) smack legally. As mentioned before - the legal definition of what constitutes a smack is also open to confirmation.

[Hitcher]

Goff To Boycott Smacking Referendum

By Political Correspondent Marie McNicholas at 1:11 pm, 16 Jun 2009

Labour leader Phil Goff says he won't take part in the referendum on the two-year-old child discipline law and predicts others will boycott it too because the question is loaded.

The referendum asks people to cast a simple "yes" or "no" vote in response to the question: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

Mr Goff says it is a thoroughly bad question because it implies that people who answer "yes" support criminalising good parents who lightly smack their children and those who say "no" think the law isn't working.

No parents were being taken to court for lightly smacking their children which meant the law was working, he said today.

"I think that many New Zealanders including myself will probably look at that question and say there is no way we can answer that [in a way] that expresses our feelings, and probably won't vote at all on the referendum," he said.

"It's a loaded wording. I can neither answer "yes" nor "no" without feeling that I'm compromising what I actually think."

The question should be whether the law was working, and he believed it was.

Prime Minister John Key also believes the law is working.

Yesterday he expressed concern about the ambiguity of the referendum's wording, and indicated the outcome of the poll will not alter his thinking on the matter.

The citizens initiated referendum was forced by opponents of the so-called anti-smacking law after they collected the required 300,000 signatures. The law repealed Section 59 of the Crime Act, which provided a defence of reasonable force for someone charged with assaulting a child.

In 2007 Mr Key turned the near unanimous opposition of his caucus colleagues to the law change sponsored by Green MP Sue Bradford into support after forging a compromise amendment with then Prime Minister Helen Clark designed to protect parents dishing out "inconsequential" physical discipline from prosecution.

The postal ballot to be held over three weeks from July 31 will cost nearly $9 million.

Mr Goff said he would prefer the money was spent on child abuse prevention.

© Newsroom 2009

[Mschvs]

As if the point wasn't argued enough .. besides the fact that our bullshit government instead of asking NZ's opinion or to vote on whether or not this law should be passed in the first place, and just passed it, and is now asking us whether or not it should stay in place, is the other fact that this law has not from what I, or many others I have discussed this with, prevented ASSAULT on children ... which as far as I was aware was already AGINST THE LAW!

I personally have never 'smacked' my child, even on the bum, but I have nothing against it as was previousl stated, as a deterrent to hurting themselves, or to get them to snap out of a tantrum.

And as was stated earlier, a lot of kids including myself got smacked bums or hands throughout their childhood, but were never 'BEATEN' by their parents.

This problem is not quite as simple as this law wants it to be, unfortunately of course, if it was this black and white we wouldn't be talking about it, and maybe this law would actually work.

I think what is required, which again, is not a quick fix or easy solution, but is to educate children more about what is a smack and what is assault, as they are the only ones either way (unless you've got witnesses, which I would think most child assaulters would not) that can let someone know. And try to get them to establish someone in there life who is A - outside their immediate family (perhaps a school councillor) who they can talk to in regards to this and B - they feel comfortable approaching and talking to.

Again, I know it is not that simple ... but it's a start

[allycatz]

I dont see how john Keys can say its working. yet another child beaten to death in NZ a week ago. This law will never stop the parents that do this, and thats what it was intended to do. Some kiwi kids would be better taking their chances in the deserts of Dafur than the homes they get born into.

[idb]

Why can't these people write a sensible question for these referenda?
To go to all that effort and expense and come up with some pointless question like that is such a huge waste - of a rare opportunity as well as money.

I recall a similarly poorly worded from the Sensible Sentencing Trust a few years ago;
"Should there be a reform of the justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?"

[RantyDave]

See my post above, I'll chip in my $3..
No, THIRTY. As in: Three hundred K in fuel; One and a half cellphone top-ups; The cost of owning a MacBook Pro for two weeks; A dozen beers; One and a half hours work at average wage (or for Kerry Prendergast to sit on her arse for 24 minutes) etc. etc.

Each. From three hundred thousand people.

Personally I think we should turn all our democratic processes over to facebook. It would certainly be a lot cheaper; would probably be significantly more accurate and has only the slightest chance of making any less difference to the way the country is run.

Dave

[RantyDave]

ASSAULT on children ... which as far as I was aware was already AGINST THE LAW!
No, it wasn't. So it was made illegal. Now a bunch of people are upset because they want their legal right to assault children back again. In the process Sue Bradford went from "Who?" to household name - one of the finer backfires of recent times.

That's really all there is to it.

Dave

[Mikkel]

The whole issue is apparent in just the wording of the referendum...

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

It implies that if you don't smack you kids you aren't a good parent. And by extension, that the bill makes being a good parent a criminal offence. Insidious fact-twisting if I ever saw it.

Maybe there should be a pre-poll asking Should smacking be part of good parental correction in New Zealand? It would probably come back as a yes, and if nothing else that would more clearly illustrate where the real problem is hiding!
It's not the kids that are the problem. Raise them properly and you won't ever feel a need to smack them in the first place.

[MSTRS]

No, it wasn't. Oh yes it was.
The sticking point was that little word - reasonable. Too open to individual interpretation.



It's not the kids that are the problem. Raise them properly and you won't ever feel a need to smack them in the first place.

Yep. By giving the odd (parentally-concerned) smack/tap/clip when they are little to guide them in the ways of cause/effect. Done right, most will not need booster shots - at least not on a regular basis.

[devnull]

I've had a gutsful of socialist dogma parading this failed social experiment as the next wonderful step to an NZ utopia

They can kiss my arse

How well has the socialist dream worked?
http://www.socialistutopia.org

Very disturbing stuff.

Anyone who read the Otago Uni study by Millichamp in 2006 knows what bull the antismacking brigade are spouting - the rehtoric never stood up to investigation.

With the whole "nanny state knows best - the govt will seize your kids if you don't comply" attitude, it's amazing that there aren't a few dead CYFS workers yet.

The offender could always claim a defence under S.48 I suppose

If you don't want to enforce discipline (Bradford removed ALL force, not just smacking - e.g. time out too), then don't.

Your kids will learn all about it in prison.

But don't tell me how to raise my kids, or what a wonderful role model to parents Bradford is... I'm not buying it

[PrincessBandit]

It's not the kids that are the problem. Raise them properly and you won't ever feel a need to smack them in the first place.

An overly simplistic point of view I think. Anyone who has raised children know that no matter how idealistic you are, how awesome a parent you think you are being, things just don't always go according to plan when it involves teaching your children how to develop into responsible, self controlled, intelligent beings. There are children who learn the easy way ( I believe according to my mum I was one of those) and then some who just have to learn the hard way (another member of my family, ahem, who shall remain nameless but is known to many here, was one of those).

I applaud any parent who can state outright "I've never had to smack my children and I'm immensely proud of the way they have turned out" - that would be the ideal. But the reality is that being able to discuss and reason won't always work, and when it does it's usually because the bond between parent and child has been well founded from infanthood and carries over into the older-child stage.

So good on those who insist they will take that approach, never stray off the path, and never stoop to using physical discipline (and trust me, the temptation will be there from time to time at least). I just hope you have kids who enable to you to carry it through! It's easy to blame parents for everything, but some have extremely trying children to bring up!

[idb]

I would prefer a referendum that said;
"Should a smack, in the absence of proper parental correction, be permitted on other people's children?"

[jono035]

I thought the anti-smacking legislation was about making behaviour that was illegal anyway easier to prosecute by removing any ability to mount a defence, rather than making unacceptable behaviour illegal?

I get nervous when politicians say things like 'Oh no, we wouldn't prosecute a case like that'... I've seen too many times when someone with their own axe to grind makes a big noise and uses some law like this to get back at someone... Some woman in the supermarket who decides that you giving a disciplinary smack on the bottom to one your kids is against her own world view that kids are precious petals to be wrapped in cotton wool (if you're the parent, it should be your judgement within the legal definition of 'reasonable') and kicks up a big stink about it... Your only defence being 'well yes, it currently is technically illegal but you said you wouldn't prosecute me!'...

Also, all this means is the discipline will happen behind closed doors instead when it does happen, which does what exactly for child abuse?

I firmly believe that a smack or 2, delivered promptly and decisively, did a better job than any amount of 'go and sit on the naughty step' parenting would have, even if only to have as the final last-word in the situation where the marching orders to the naughty step are greeted with a 'no, fuck off...'

[jono035]

And 9 point something million? We have what, 4.5 million ish people, half of those paying taxes = $4 each we're paying for this.

I was against the original approach due to the proposed implementation, not the idea behind it, but even I think the question is massively biased towards an overwhelming 'yes' response...

[Winston001]

What's the legal definition of "smack"... I expect that's relevant here as opposed to the dictionary definition.

Good question Ned. There is no legal definition. Just as there is no legal definition of push, slap, kick, punch, or blow. These words all come under the term assault which is defined as an uninvited or unwanted touching of a person.

As pointed out above, there is no anti smacking law. It's a fiction. The term arose from a politician's quip and has been seized upon as shorthand for taking away parents rights. Utter nonsense. The mistaken passion of decent people here who misunderstand the law is so frustrating. None of us support bashing kids yet we've been misdirected into arguing that assault on children is good parenting. :doh:


My problem is understanding exactly when I can (and more importantly can NOT) smack legally. As mentioned before - the legal definition of what constitutes a smack is also open to confirmation.

This is the dichotomy parents face - will they be breaking the law if they give a short smack on the hand or bottom? No.


59. Parental control

(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—


(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or......

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.


Think of it this way - would you want your child to look at you with fear in their eyes? Not sullenness or guilt - fear. Smacking too hard and too often will produce that, closely followed by resentment and later on, contempt. You instinctively know this anyway and have nothing to worry about.

[Winston001]

Was sitting with a mate and his now-adult children the other day when this subject came up. My mate never smacked his children - ever. They are great adults today.

These kids grinned and reminded their dad how he didn't smack even when they tried hard to push all his buttons. What all three of them remembered was he'd look at them and quietly say "I'm just really disappointed with you....." Crushing. It worked.

Parental disapproval is the most powerful weapon we have. Children want to be loved and approved of.

[jono035]

Was sitting with a mate and his now-adult children the other day when this subject came up. My mate never smacked his children - ever. They are great adults today.

These kids grinned and reminded their dad how he didn't smack even when they tried hard to push all his buttons. What all three of them remembered was he'd look at them and quietly say "I'm just really disappointed with you....." Crushing. It worked.

Parental disapproval is the most powerful weapon we have. Children want to be loved and approved of.

I think it depends on where you sit in the nature vs nurture debate... I figure it is a mix (I really believe in black and white situations), so that worked well for him because his kids had the correct nature for that to be an appropriate approach... I don't know whether that would work in all cases though...

[JimO]

Yes two who have grown up and are now in the workforce, so you could say I'm an 'experianced' parent. What I do for a living is not relevant.

Skyryder

well it just that i thought you must be a limp wristed social worker or even a laibore politician from your posts on here, all my boys were smacked, they are all high achievers at school, one has been asked to put himself forward for head boy for next year, two of them have played rep hockey and soccer since they were 11 and one is going to Ireland to play in the Milk Cup representing NZ, so a smack didnt do them any harm eh!!

[Skyryder]

How is it JK's fault? The call for a referendum got the required signatures, it has to happen.

It was one of Keys election policies.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Parental disapproval is the most powerful weapon we have. Children want to be loved and approved of.


That is the key to good parenting. For those that do not understand this they resort to inflicting pain as a means of correcting bad behavour.

I personaly found rewarding my two girls simply for being themselves was fundamental in the respect and friendship that they now show to each other.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

I thought the anti-smacking legislation was about making behaviour that was illegal anyway easier to prosecute by removing any ability to mount a defence, rather than making unacceptable behaviour illegal?

The law was changed to remove reasonable force as a defence in child assault by a parent or caregiver.

It could be argued that society bought this on themselves due to the inabilty of juries to come to a common sense verdict of assault when an object was used to discipline a child.

I'm not going to argue that line of reasoning myself as this has been covered in earlier threads.

Most think that Bradford bought this up entirely on her lonesome but this was not the case. She had much support from many childhood agencies who were aware of this problem.

While I have never questioned the intent of those parents who believe that a smack is acceptable I also believe that the intent of Bradford's bill is something that many opponents have overlooked. That too me is the tradgedey of this current referrendum. It is not about parents rights it is Family First, a party that can not get seats into Parliment, useing children as a means of promoting themselves.

Skyryder

[ManDownUnder]

That is the key to good parenting. For those that do not understand this they resort to inflicting pain as a means of correcting bad behavour.

Skyryder


Don't get me wrong - I am 100% with you on that one. I di however add the caviat that reasonable force will be needed in some circumstances, especially if they are potentially harmful to the child, and the threat is immediate

[Deano]

What all three of them remembered was he'd look at them and quietly say "I'm just really disappointed with you....." Crushing. It worked.

Parental disapproval is the most powerful weapon we have. Children want to be loved and approved of.

Would that work on an 18 month old throwing a tanty ? Perhaps when they are a bit older and have more understanding but.

[MisterD]

It was one of Keys election policies.


A referrendum on MMP was one of Key's election policies, not the anti-smacking bill. This is purely a Family First driven exercise...I know we usually disagree about matters political Skyryder but you do usually engage your brain.

[Skyryder]

A referrendum on MMP was one of Key's election policies, not the anti-smacking bill. This is purely a Family First driven exercise...I know we usually disagree about matters political Skyryder but you do usually engage your brain.

The National Party will consider changing the anti-smacking laws if New Zealanders demand changes in a referendum, leader John Key says.
The law was hot on the agenda at the NZ Forum on the Family in South Auckland yesterday, with Mr Key saying a strong referendum result should give a National government the confidence to change the legislation.

Mr Key said he supported New Zealanders' right to a referendum. He criticised Labour's preference for a stand-alone ballot, rather than holding it with the upcoming election.
He said if National gained power it would consider reforming the anti-smacking law.

From
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-smacking-debate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10531208


It’s semantics to suggest that the Nats did not have an election policy on this.

One thing I did get wrong was saying Family First a political party. Mind you the difference between them and the Kiwi Party is indiscernible.

Brain fully engaged.:bash:............I think.:yes:


Skyryder

[MSTRS]

Despite the cost, this referendum was promised and it's good to see that National is delivering on their promise. After all, we know from bitter experience that pre-election promises are normally vote-buying throw-aways...
Anyway, the people of this country have shown overwhelmingly in polls that the way the law is now, is not the way they want it. Perhaps this time the pollies will actually listen, and rewrite the legislation to provide the clarity that is and has been asked for.
Stop with the 'reasonable force' and 'light and inconsequential' crap...JUST CLARIFY WHAT CONSTITUTES A SMACK AND WHERE IT CAN BE APPLIED.
Oh - and remove that bullshit about 'not for the purposes of correction'. If a child is out of line, a smack is just as relevant after the fact as going in...

[MisterD]

It’s semantics to suggest that the Nats did not have an election policy on this.


What would you lefties have said if he'd answered the question as "I dunno...". Was anything to do with the anti-smacking legislation in the National manifesto? I don't think so.

[Skyryder]

What would you lefties have said if he'd answered the question as "I dunno...". Was anything to do with the anti-smacking legislation in the National manifesto? I don't think so.

Key has led those that oppose the 'anti smacking' law to believe that he would change this if he got into Government.

While I agree this was not the official party policy
The National Party will consider changing the anti-smacking laws if New Zealanders demand changes in a referendum, leader John Key says.

his turn around on this is no less consistant on this as the Nationals tax policy which was part of National's manefesto.


This is one of the few areas that I agree with Key, but again he has led New Zealanders astray and broken his word. But then what else is new with Key.


Skyryder

[MSTRS]

Key has led those that oppose the 'anti smacking' law to believe that he would change this if he got into Government.

While I agree this was not the official party policy
The National Party will consider changing the anti-smacking laws if New Zealanders demand changes in a referendum, leader John Key says.

his turn around on this is no less consistant on this as the Nationals tax policy which was part of National's manefesto.


This is one of the few areas that I agree with Key, but again he has led New Zealanders astray and broken his word. But then what else is new with Key.


Skyryder

Come on. Show us the politician that never went back on a promise. Ever.
There is no such animal.
And besides, what Key said about 'it is working so will leave it alone' is just words. Wait till the referendum results come in and what his government does at that time will be what counts.

[Morcs]

I really hope the anti smacking bill gets revoked.

Then I can beat my sister. she needs it.

And then I can beat up kids in the street. yay!

[Skyryder]

Come on. Show us the politician that never went back on a promise. Ever.
There is no such animal.
And besides, what Key said about 'it is working so will leave it alone' is just words. Wait till the referendum results come in and what his government does at that time will be what counts.

He will probably change his mind......again. FlaKey as per usual.

Skyryder

[Winston001]

Despite the cost, this referendum was promised and it's good to see that National is delivering on their promise. After all, we know from bitter experience that pre-election promises are normally vote-buying throw-aways...
Anyway, the people of this country have shown overwhelmingly in polls that the way the law is now, is not the way they want it. Perhaps this time the pollies will actually listen, and rewrite the legislation to provide the clarity that is and has been asked for.
Stop with the 'reasonable force' and 'light and inconsequential' crap...JUST CLARIFY WHAT CONSTITUTES A SMACK AND WHERE IT CAN BE APPLIED.
Oh - and remove that bullshit about 'not for the purposes of correction'. If a child is out of line, a smack is just as relevant after the fact as going in...

You are a decent bloke and the frustration you express is at the core of this argument. Unfortunately you've been misled.

There is no statutory law in NZ which states a smack is unlawful. None. So its pointless to define a word which doesn't exist in any statute. Just as there is no definition of speed, dangerous, etc.

In the past, some parents got away with serious assaults because they convinced a jury that what they did was reasonable in their particular circumstances. Juries can be easily confused - as we know from the Bain case - and when they are told they must give the parent a reasonable doubt = not guilty.

The changed Section 59 simply tightened up the defence an abusive parent could try to argue.

[jono035]

You are a decent bloke and the frustration you express is at the core of this argument. Unfortunately you've been misled.

There is no statutory law in NZ which states a smack is unlawful. None. So its pointless to define a word which doesn't exist in any statute. Just as there is no definition of speed, dangerous, etc.

In the past, some parents got away with serious assaults because they convinced a jury that what they did was reasonable in their particular circumstances. Juries can be easily confused - as we know from the Bain case - and when they are told they must give the parent a reasonable doubt = not guilty.

The changed Section 59 simply tightened up the defence an abusive parent could try to argue.

Agreed, but the justification for this was 'Even though the change makes physical contact for the means of correction illegal, we won't prosecute anyone that doesn't deserve it...'

Which basically means you can no longer do it without risking some busybody laying a complaint and exaggerating the situation to the point where you end up in court and as you said, juries get confused...

Just seems like it fixes one problem at the cost of possibly creating another.

The referendum is pretty pointless though with a question like that, but at least Sue Bradford is on the case now (she stated earlier that she is going to be focusing her attention on the citizen initiated referendum procedure...).

[MSTRS]

You are a decent bloke and the frustration you express is at the core of this argument. Unfortunately you've been misled.

There is no statutory law in NZ which states a smack is unlawful. None. So its pointless to define a word which doesn't exist in any statute. Just as there is no definition of speed, dangerous, etc.

In the past, some parents got away with serious assaults because they convinced a jury that what they did was reasonable in their particular circumstances. Juries can be easily confused - as we know from the Bain case - and when they are told they must give the parent a reasonable doubt = not guilty.

The changed Section 59 simply tightened up the defence an abusive parent could try to argue.

To a degree you are right.

Section 59 states:

"(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of -

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution."
The use of some form of physical contact generally implies a smack of some description. The bloke in ChCh recently was found guilty of assault for 'giving his kid a flick on the ear'. I couldn't say whether the effect was inconsequential or not, although I suspect that father thought so...but the jury did not. If the legislation stated that an openhanded smack on the (child's) hand or buttocks that left no lingering mark, then I suspect that the majority could accept that as good law.

[Skyryder]

To a degree you are right.

The use of some form of physical contact generally implies a smack of some description. The bloke in ChCh recently was found guilty of assault for 'giving his kid a flick on the ear'. I couldn't say whether the effect was inconsequential or not, although I suspect that father thought so...but the jury did not. If the legislation stated that an openhanded smack on the (child's) hand or buttocks that left no lingering mark, then I suspect that the majority could accept that as good law.

Whenever Mason is mentioned (bloke in Chch) the opponents of Bradford's bill always demean the seriouness of the offence by stating that he was only found guilty of flicking his son's ear. Mason was found guilty of assault by punching his four year old yes four year old son in the face.

But on the third count - which accused him of pulling the 4-year-old's ear and punching him in the face - the jury returned a guilty verdict.

from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10573340

At least there is one journo out there who makes sense

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10578843


Skyryder

[Kickaha]

If we can't smack then would an electric dog collar (http://www.collartron.co.nz/FAQ.aspx)be ok?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4wU2sfGF1do&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4wU2sfGF1do&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Genestho]

Via the Act website....

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen today (May 9 '08) announced that he will introduce a Private Member's Bill to amend the controversial Anti-Smacking law inflicted on New Zealanders by Labour and the Greens in 2007.

"My announcement coincides with yesterday's release of a poll that shows widespread support for the law to be altered," Mr Boscawen said.

"This poll, commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by Curia Market Research, surveyed the views of 1,000 everyday New Zealanders - 83 percent of whom felt the law should be changed, with a total 77 percent of respondents believing the law would not help reduce our child abuse rates.

"While addressing the concerns of those who felt that the original section 59 of the Crimes Act was too vague, my amendment to the law will protect from criminalisation those parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction.
"The amendment will change the Act so that: it is no longer a crime for parents or guardians to use reasonable force to correct children; there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force; parents and guardians have certainty about what the law permits; it is no longer reliant on police discretion for the law to be practical and workable.
"In an attempt to curb child abuse, this law has simply criminalised law-abiding parents and removed their freedom to decide how best to raise their children - something that ACT has consistently opposed."

[Skyryder]

Via the Act website....

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen today (May 9 '08) announced that he will introduce a Private Member's Bill to amend the controversial Anti-Smacking law inflicted on New Zealanders by Labour and the Greens in 2007.

"My announcement coincides with yesterday's release of a poll that shows widespread support for the law to be altered," Mr Boscawen said.

"This poll, commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by Curia Market Research, surveyed the views of 1,000 everyday New Zealanders - 83 percent of whom felt the law should be changed, with a total 77 percent of respondents believing the law would not help reduce our child abuse rates.

"While addressing the concerns of those who felt that the original section 59 of the Crimes Act was too vague, my amendment to the law will protect from criminalisation those parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction.
"The amendment will change the Act so that: it is no longer a crime for parents or guardians to use reasonable force to correct children; there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force; parents and guardians have certainty about what the law permits; it is no longer reliant on police discretion for the law to be practical and workable.
"In an attempt to curb child abuse, this law has simply criminalised law-abiding parents and removed their freedom to decide how best to raise their children - something that ACT has consistently opposed."

It's very clear and in black and white.

Current law.

Section 59 states:

"(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of –

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

There is nothing in the current act that needs changing.

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen is just jumping on the bandwagon trying to get himself noticed.

Skyryder

[Genestho]

It's very clear and in black and white.

Current law.

Section 59 states:

"(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of –

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

There is nothing in the current act that needs changing.

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen is just jumping on the bandwagon trying to get himself noticed.

Skyryder

SO what is the definition of reasonable force? When you relate it to the Crimes Act - Section 2 - Assault:

“Assault” means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose.

The amendment says that no prosecution by the police needs to proceed if ‘the offence’ – that is, the use of force for the correction of children – is inconsequential. If the correction doesn’t correct the child and doesn’t change their behaviour, then you won’t be prosecuted, but if the correction does correct the child and does change their behaviour, as is intended by the correction, you will be prosecuted!

There is obviously an overwhelming reponse to this law for at LEAST these reasons, the definition of reasonable force is not clear, and not even the experts know, it is a drain on resources, failing to deal with the real issues.

FWIW I do think the referendum should be scrapped. And I won't be voting.

Is John any different to any other MP?

[Winston001]

Lets start from base. It is unlawful to assault another human being. Exceptions being - self defence, medical need, safety of others, police powers, customs and excise, immigration etc and......parental control.

So, there is a specific exception (Section 59 Crimes Act 1961) which gives a defence to a parent.

How about somebody suggests the best wording for S.59 which will protect children, still allow parents to "smack", but not excuse a parent whose smack sends a kid across the room.

[Winston001]

The amendment says that no prosecution by the police needs to proceed if ‘the offence’ – that is, the use of force for the correction of children – is inconsequential. If the correction doesn’t correct the child and doesn’t change their behaviour, then you won’t be prosecuted, but if the correction does correct the child and does change their behaviour, as is intended by the correction, you will be prosecuted!



Mmmmm...good thoughtful post.

Your point (as in bold) is exactly what most decent people fear - but it doesn't happen.

Think about it. The law has been in place for 2 years now. There are 4 million people in NZ of which 300,000 are under the age of 10. I guess that every day at least 3000 smacks are given. 1%. Probably too low.

So where are all of the hundreds, or thousands of good middle-class people rolling through our courts for this?? :blink:

[Phurrball]

So where are all of the hundreds, or thousands of good midle-class people rolling through our courts for this?? :blink:

Well, the 'floodgates' argument has once again been proven fallacious - sounds like our friend the de minimis principle at work...the law is not concerned with trifling breaches.

The same principle that prevents speeding tickets for 55km/hr etc.

*sigh* The referendum reminds me of Winnie's compulsory savings referendum a few years back - another linguistically piss-poor question IIRC.

Something is amiss with our citizens' initiated referenda process when questions like that get through. Apparently ACT's John Boscowen is on record as being a yes voter. More likely he didn't comprehend the question with a quick glance :ROFL:

[Winston001]

The same principle that prevents speeding tickets for 55km/hr etc.



Actually I got a ticket for 53k a couple of years ago.....:shit: near a school. Bugger.

[Phurrball]

Actually I got a ticket for 53k a couple of years ago.....:shit: near a school. Bugger.

See - children get near any of these issues and all reason goes out the window... :blink:

[MisterD]

So where are all of the hundreds, or thousands of good middle-class people rolling through our courts for this?? :blink:

Just because you haven't been prosecuted, does not mean you are not a criminal. The shoplifting analogy I heard yesterday is good:

I go into a shop take something small and walk out without paying and without being noticed. Am I a criminal, because I haven't been caught and I haven't been prosecuted, but I have broken the law...

[MSTRS]

It's very clear and in black and white.

Current law.

Section 59 states:

"(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of –

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

There is nothing in the current act that needs changing.

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen is just jumping on the bandwagon trying to get himself noticed.

Skyryder

There most definitely is...

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
This part in particular. I understand it to mean that a 'smack' is not allowed AFTER a naughty event. The preceding Part 1 is concerned only with the prevention of naughty/harmful behaviour.
And I still call for 'reasonable' to be clarified, in black and white.

[Winston001]

And I still call for 'reasonable' to be clarified, in black and white.

Fair enough, here you are. It goes back to Roman Law.


A v A - [1998] NZFLR 72

Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 is but a codification of the Common Law which in turn had its origins in Roman Law, under which by the time of Justinian in the 6th century, the Patria Potestas amounted to a right of reasonable chastisement. In determining what is reasonable force, care should be exercised when considering older decisions of the Courts. Social conditions and child-rearing practises are not static, as is obvious from s 59 itself which, when originally enacted, included schoolmasters as having parental rights of correction. As Judge Inglis QC said in Kendall v Director General of Social Welfare (1986) 3 FRNZ 1; at 10:

What is “reasonable” must be a matter of degree and will depend in large measure on what can be perceived to be the current social view at any given time.

Although the Court has an unfettered discretion, it is reasonably plain that, in determining whether or not the degree of force used was reasonable, the Court should have regard to:
[1998] NZFLR 72 page 80

* •
The age and maturity of the child
* •
Other characteristics of the child, such as physique, sex and state of health
* •
The type of offence
* •
The type and circumstances of punishment.

Not only must the force used be reasonable but the purpose for which it is used is crucial. It is to be borne in mind that s 59 authorises the application of force which would otherwise be an assault and that it is the purpose for which it is used which is the principal ground of defence. As the New Zealand Court of Appeal said in R v Drake (1902) 22 NZLR 478, 487:

The self-same act may be either an obviously just act of parental correction or an act of revenge.

In his article “Parental Physical Punishment and the Law” Caldwell says at p 373 after quoting the above paragraph from R v Drake:

This means that even if the act of force should at first sight appear reasonable, it will be held unlawful if it has arisen out of “spite, rage, fury, anger or ill will”. Arbitrariness or caprice on the part of the parent could similarly remove the parent from the protection of s 59. In making an assessment of parental motive at the time of the infliction of force, the Courts will regard evidence of the relationship of the parent and child prior to the incident as admissible and relevant.

With respect, I adopt this passage as correctly setting out the current state of the law in New Zealand.

In inflicting punishment the parent must act in good faith, having a reasonable belief in a state of facts which would justify the application of force. In such a case the parent would be protected from liability even though the factual position as he reasonably believes it to be is not actually the case. The purpose of the punishment must therefore be both subjectively and objectively reasonable.

[Pixie]

As much as he needs one its not my place to do it eh.I really feel for the bloke to be honest,hes only a wee fella and his 2 boys are as big if not slightly bigger than him and on more than one occasion they have been asked to do something and all hes got back is a load of abuse,the conversation always ending with "get fucked" seems he just gives up.As i said earlier personally i believe its doing them more harm than good and once out in the real world some big falls are coming for both of them.At what expense to others though before it does eh?

He should kill 'em all and blame it on the paperboy

[MSTRS]

Fair enough, here you are. It goes back to Roman Law.

Aieee...it's a minefield.
The Romans thought it was reasonable to break the legs of a crucifixion victim if they didn't die 'quick enough'.
The Victorians thought it was reasonable to beat one's wife with a stick, as long as that stick was no thicker than the beater's thumb.

So, according to part of your post, 'reasonable' is a sliding scale, dependent on the seriousness of the waywardness. Fair enough. So why can't there be a codicil to S.59 that states the upper limit of the day, changeable as social mores change?

[Hinny]

A point that has been overlooked by those wishing to politicise this debate.
In the leaders debate before the last election, Both leaders clamoured to be regarded as the earliest adopters of Sue Bradfords bill.
The irony of this situation was not missed by John Campbell.

[Winston001]

This is how I see the referendum and the indignation over Section 59. There are three groups involved.

1. Some Christian people who believe firmly in the literal meaning of "spare the rod and spoil the child". They find this a direction from God to physically discipline their children.

These people are not able to change their minds.

2. Family First and similar groups who believe that "discipline" includes physically striking a child. Indeed they do not accept that discipline can exist without the right to strike.

The wording of the referendum question clearly demonstrates this.

3. Parents who resent the government telling them how to raise their children.

I think the change of law, had it happened 15 years ago, would have passed unremarked. However today there is a strong backlash in the community against "Nanny State" and S. 59 has become a touchstone issue - a cause celebre. Enough is enough.

The result is that responsible parents who would never harm their children, have been scared into believing they are criminalised by the law.

Actually the reverse is true. Assault on any person, young or old, is a crime. So any hitting etc is first and foremost unlawful. However S. 59 provides a getout defence for parents.

And once again, the test of the law is how many responsible parents are rolling through the courthouse doors.....??

[MSTRS]

And once again, the test of the law is how many responsible parents are rolling through the courthouse doors.....??

Enough that shows there is (still) an issue with at least the semantics of 'reasonable'.

[Hitcher]

There is no place for badly drafted law. The intent of any law should be clear. If nothing else that would reduce the need for lawyers and courts.

Just because a law doesn't raise issues on a day to day basis doesn't necessarily mean that it's good law.

In the case of smacking legislation, I am not sure how the intent of "reasonability" can be effectively captured. The law, as drafted (whether it "works" or not), effectively criminalises parents who "smack" a child. The consequences of this are severe (such as the confiscation of children by CYFS) and potentially way out of whack (scuze the pun) with the purported offence. I do not offer that example as a straw man defence.

While I understand and support the intent of the current legislation I don't support the way it's written. I understand why some parents are concerned about it.

[James Deuce]

Heather broke her foot on Tuesday.

I've been getting 2-4 hours sleep a night for weeks. I'm off work trying to organise the "household" so I can Get back to work and run things in terms of getting kids to school and picking them and meeting work obligations. My employer has been brilliant.

The community suck.

Someone collared me yesterday afternoon during school pickup and demanded to know where Heather was. Not concerned for Heather, aggro that she'd "disappeared". She asked me what I'd done. I refused to answer, and yelled out to the kids to get into the car. Not yelled "at", yelled "out", they were a good 50 metres away.

No word of a lie, the bitch (sorry, there is no other word) said, "Section 59 was designed for people like you".

Section 59 has empowered bullies, radical feminists, and Government depts in ways that have nothing to do with courtrooms. It's just another weapon in a bully's arsenal. The threat is enough.

[Skyryder]

SO what is the definition of reasonable force? When you relate it to the Crimes Act - Section 2 - Assault:


Reasonable is used in many acts but the defining it's meaning is complex.

I think the best way to try and understand the context of the word is what it does not mean.

Some juries adjucated that reasonable force when used in child assault was an injury that left a mark on the childs skin.

Parlimentarians voted overwhelmingly that an injury that left a mark (bruise?) could not be defended on the grounds of reasonable force. If memory serves me correctly this was 113 to 8.

Ultimatley it is the public (juries) that decide what reasonable means, however in the case of child assault, the public (jurys) appear to have put the parents rights to assault, above all else, than punish the parent for inflicting injury to their child.


Skyryder

[Hitcher]

Ultimatley it is the public (juries) that decide what reasonable means, however in the case of child assault, the public (jurys) appear to have put the parents rights to assault, above all else, than punish the parent for inflicting injury to their child.

Even if the parent(s) is(are) innocent, they will still have state social workers all over them like a Hallenstein's suit and in all likelihood have their children confiscated by CYFS pending the outcome of any court case. Even then, our "justice" system will not regard them as "innocent", rather guilt unproven, as too will the communities in which they live.

Families are uniquely complex and private entities. Most work. Any law should aim to enhance this, not destroy it.

[MisterD]

No word of a lie, the bitch (sorry, there is no other word) said, "Section 59 was designed for people like you".

Section 59 has empowered bullies, radical feminists, and Government depts in ways that have nothing to do with courtrooms. It's just another weapon in a bully's arsenal. The threat is enough.

There is another word James, it's "facist".

[jetboy]

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

With any luck the government will look at the overwhelmingly strong "no" in the light of the question that was actually asked and it's complete irrelevance to the repeal of section 59 when telling the pitchfork carriers that they can't have their legal right to beat children back. Perhaps "should children be afforded the same legal protections as adults?" was a little too factually correct for the proposing parties. Or maybe even "since the repeal of section 59, has the sky actually fallen in?". Or "since the repeal of section 59 are the prisons crowded with middle class parents?". Or maybe even "Is it OK to hit a child with a riding crop?".

And if s59 comes back in, where do we draw the line? I smacked her? I smacked her with a paddle? I smacked her with the pipe off the vacuum cleaner? I smacked her for an hour and a half? I smacked her and sold the video to someone on the Internet? I smacked her and she fell down the stairs? All legal, you want your name on that?

The good news is that we have a new canonical example of a contradiction in terms: "smack" and "good parental correction".

So bring it on, child beaters. Register your ongoing interest in raising another generation of violent criminals with a red rep, just as before. It's the one with the, like, justice scales thing in the corner. Y.. Yeah ... that one.

Dave
If I ever have kids and I smack one of them becuase they were being naughty, I would hate to be labled as a 'child beater'. What the fuck is that about?

Was this bill not drafted to prevent the rediculously high levels of child assaults NZ has seen over the past few years? Funny that, after the bill passed, there were/are still cases of child abuse happening - just read the papers. So all this bill has done is criminalise parents using a correctional method which works.

Personally, when I was a little shit, I got smacked and I learned very quickly not to do whatever I did to get the smack again!, and I don't hate my parents for it.

The real child beaters out there are fucked in the head and will continue to beat their children whether this law sticks or not.

I would be more concerned if I saw a kid with a cigarette in it's mouth over a parent smacking a naughty child.

[Skyryder]

Even if the parent(s) is(are) innocent, they will still have state social workers all over them like a Hallenstein's suit and in all likelihood have their children confiscated by CYFS pending the outcome of any court case. Even then, our "justice" system will not regard them as "innocent", rather guilt unproven, as too will the communities in which they live.

Families are uniquely complex and private entities. Most work. Any law should aim to enhance this, not destroy it.


I have no knowledge of what you say but given the fact that when CYPS gets it wrong all and sundry are up in arms so even if what you say is true can you blame them for covering their arse??

I'm not too sure that I agree that families per se are complex however I have no doubt that some are.

I believe any law that reduces violence or it's causes, for any reason whatsoever, enhances society as a whole. I see no contradiction in this where families are concerned.

Skyryder

[MSTRS]

No word of a lie, the bitch (sorry, there is no other word) said, "Section 59 was designed for people like you".


Obviously this woman has not matured enough to see beyond what is immediately in front of her. In that sense, she is child-like. I'm surprised you didn't invoke S.59 by giving her a smack...

[Skyryder]

There most definitely is...

This part in particular. I understand it to mean that a 'smack' is not allowed AFTER a naughty event. The preceding Part 1 is concerned only with the prevention of naughty/harmful behaviour.
And I still call for 'reasonable' to be clarified, in black and white.


(d) gives an out. Who says that the smack was for correcting. I can think of many situations in bringing up children where safety and all of (d) can be used as an excuse for a smack instead of correction.

Reasonable is subjective. It can not be defined in terms of black and white.

It's why the word is used so much in legislation.

Skyryder

[MSTRS]

(d) gives an out. Who says that the smack was for correcting. I can think of many situations in bringing up children where safety and all of (d) can be used as an excuse for a smack instead of correction.


If the 'behaviour' has stopped, then you are NOT allowed to apply a smack or anything...Ms Bitch made that intent quite clear.

[Skyryder]

If the 'behaviour' has stopped, then you are NOT allowed to apply a smack or anything...Ms Bitch made that intent quite clear.

If it has stopped maybe there is another way. Oh but that will take too long. Gota get back on the phone, put on the makeup, go to the gym etc.........a smack is quicker.


Skyryder

[Genestho]

A response received this week to our Official Information Act request shows that there have been nine prosecutions under the new law in the first 15 months since the law was passed.

Many of these cases have resulted in the parent being discharged without conviction, sent to a parenting course, or receiving a suspended sentence"

Police reports show four prosecutions in a six-month period for “minor acts of physical discipline” and report a 200 per cent increase in families being investigated – yet fewer than 5 per cent were serious enough to warrant prosecution.

There has been a huge 32 per cent increase in CYF’s notifications.

Not surprisingly, the child abuse rate has continued unabated, with 12 child abuse deaths in the 21 months since the law change – the same rate as before the change.

The courts are quite obviously not full of childbeaters, but families are being unfairly complained by, and investigated, by "expert's" of whom obviously don't understand the law themselves, wasting resources, putting good parent's families through hell.
This kind of investigation stays on the record.

This is ridiculous!

Child abuse deaths continue.

Sue Bradford herself said this law was not designed to stop child abuse or deaths resulting, so what exactly do they up their sleeves that will?

[Hinny]

...
Sue Bradford herself said this law was not designed to stop child abuse or deaths resulting...

Get it people?
do you?
do you really?

For many posters here ... I don't think so!

[Winston001]

Was this bill not drafted to prevent the ridiculously high levels of child assaults NZ has seen over the past few years? Funny that, after the bill passed, there were/are still cases of child abuse happening - just read the papers.

No.

Bottom line - assault has been a crime in all jurisdictions for centuries.

Assault is a crime today.

Despite that, people have been maiming and hurting each for centuries. People do that. To their children too. Just because its illegal doesn't mean it won't happen - but the incidence reduces over time.

The change to S 59 was never intended to suddenly cure the sad and tragic brutality children suffer. How could it?

What it does do is reduce the defences which abusive parents have used to justify hurting their children. That can only be a good thing.

[jono035]

No.

Bottom line - assault has been a crime in all jurisdictions for centuries.

Assault is a crime today.

Despite that, people have been maiming and hurting each for centuries. People do that. To their children too. Just because its illegal doesn't mean it won't happen - but the incidence reduces over time.

The change to S 59 was never intended to suddenly cure the sad and tragic brutality children suffer. How could it?

What it does do is reduce the defences which abusive parents have used to justify hurting their children. That can only be a good thing.

I think a lot of people are arguing 2 different points in this debate. No-one here has said that 'abusive parents' should be able to 'justify hurting their children'. To argue that is a gigantic straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). What people are arguing is that the change to the law spills over into criminalising something that non-abusive parents would like to have open to them as a disciplinary measure. A lot of people do not believe that a smack on the bottom that does not leave a mark, administered sparingly is something that is unacceptable, let alone something that should be prosecutable, which it now is.

Please everyone, stop suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you must be supporting child-abuse, it belittles this discussion.

[Skyryder]

What it does do is reduce the defences which abusive parents have used to justify hurting their children. That can only be a good thing.

That is what so many do not see because they are blinded by their political ideology and personal hatred of Sue Bradford.


Skyryder

[RantyDave]

If I ever have kids and I smack one of them becuase they were being naughty, I would hate to be labled as a 'child beater'. What the fuck is that about?
Well perhaps you should consider not doing it then. But this whole thing has been started by people who want their right to hit children.

Was this bill not drafted to prevent the rediculously high levels of child assaults NZ has seen over the past few years?
No, and that's the tragedy of the whole fucking thing. Sue Bradford - an irrelevant member of a mostly irrelevant party increasingly centred around political correctness as a way of life - saw an opportunity to do a little house cleaning, clear up some daft loophole and make it look like she's actually working for a living knowing full well it won't make the slightest bit of difference to more than ... what ... half a dozen cases a year? But, y'know, when it comes time to decide on the party list she can make her case blah blah blah.

Then some cretin says "anti smacking" and all hell breaks loose. The solid base of people who like hitting children get all up in arms and spin it into "the nanny state telling us how to raise our children" and run around telling their Churches (yes it is (http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/About_Us)) that the state is telling us how to behave and isn't that the Church's job? So they create another huge kerfuffle and, well, here we are with this enormous pile of people under the impression that someone from CYFS is going to stand in their living room with a clipboard.

As you might have noticed almost nothing actually changed unless you were in the habit of (say) hitting four year olds in the face and getting caught.

Personally, when I was a little shit, I got smacked and I learned very quickly not to do whatever I did to get the smack again!, and I don't hate my parents for it.
Of course not. Biology programs kids to accept whatever is around them as the norm, and their caregivers as being right in all things. This is why cycles perpetuate: the poor stay poor, the rich stay rich, and violence unfortunately begets more violence because nobody sees anything wrong with it.

I would be more concerned if I saw a kid with a cigarette in it's mouth over a parent smacking a naughty child.
Oh, not another. Dude. It's an avatar. A picture. On the Internet. I don't give my kids cigarettes.

Dave

[Genestho]

What it does do is reduce the defences which abusive parents have used to justify hurting their children. That can only be a good thing.

From what I understand, there was 15 cases over 10 years that used that as a defence...

[MSTRS]

But this whole thing has been started by people who want their right to hit children.
....The solid base of people who like hitting children ....

Actually, this whole thing was started by someone who wants that 'right' taken away.
And where is it written that (good?) parents like to hit their kids? Smacking is just one tactic in the grab-bag of parenting options, whether it's used or not.
Thinking of analogies...I come up with the fact that many car-makers are no longer fitting lighters/ashtrays in their vehicles. 'They' have decided that 'we' don't need them now. WTF? No-one says you have to use such items, but many do, and now the choice is removed. I, like many others, resent that.

[James Deuce]

Obviously this woman has not matured enough to see beyond what is immediately in front of her. In that sense, she is child-like. I'm surprised you didn't invoke S.59 by giving her a smack...

She loves winding me and Heather up. It was a pleasure to ignore her pointedly.

[MSTRS]

She loves winding me and Heather up. It was a pleasure to ignore her pointedly.

Probably a good thing that you had the 'safety' engaged...
How is Heather?

[James Deuce]

Good mate, bit sore, but good. I'll never bitch that solo parents have it easy, ever again.

[Winston001]

I think a lot of people are arguing 2 different points in this debate. No-one here has said that 'abusive parents' should be able to 'justify hurting their children'. To argue that is a gigantic straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). What people are arguing is that the change to the law spills over into criminalising something that non-abusive parents would like to have open to them as a disciplinary measure. A lot of people do not believe that a smack on the bottom that does not leave a mark, administered sparingly is something that is unacceptable, let alone something that should be prosecutable, which it now is.

Please everyone, stop suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you must be supporting child-abuse, it belittles this discussion.

Good post and I agree and have previously said that decent people are fearful they may face prosecution. The test therefore is - how many decent parents have actually suffered wrongful prosecution for giving a light smack in the past two years?

None that we have know of.

Families First says there are 9 prosecutions. 9. Two years, four million people, 9 cases. And in some of those the parents pleaded guilty!!

Furthermore when Bob Mccroskie (FF manager) was directly asked three times by Sean Plunkett on Morning Report (Tuesday) for specific cases involving smacking - he was unable to name a single one. Nadda. This is the man leading the referendum campaign.

As suggested above, if 1% of our children under 10 are smacked in a day = 3000 children. That equates to 2,190,000 chances of parents being criminalised in 2 years.

The truth is good parents have nothing to fear.

[James Deuce]

The truth is good parents have nothing to fear.

I wrote some stuff out but it all feels a bit pointless. It's not Police or lawmakers I "fear", it's the judgmental prats I have to share my community with.

[MSTRS]

The test therefore is - how many decent parents have actually suffered wrongful prosecution for giving a light smack in the past two years?


That may be the Litmus Test, but behind that is the question "How many little brats that desperately deserve/d a smack, didn't get one for fear of being prosecuted?"

[Hinny]

That may be the Litmus Test, but behind that is the question "How many little brats that desperately deserve/d a smack, didn't get one for fear of being prosecuted?"


How many big brats that desperately deserve/d a smack, didn't get one for fear of being prosecuted?

Kids are expected to remember everything they are told and follow all instructions like automatons. When they are flat out learning about their whole world, learning to talk, walk, do arithmetic yada yada. And if they slip up you expect them to put up with physical violence.
How would you like it if I followed you around and whacked you every time you did something to piss me off? Or maybe something I consider to be 'wrong'.

[MSTRS]

How would you like it if I followed you around and whacked you every time you did something to piss me off? Or maybe something I consider to be 'wrong'.

You are not my parent, and you are not responsible for me or my actions. Try the above, and Section 48 will apply...

[Hinny]

Don't you think you are missing the point?

[MSTRS]

Don't you think you are missing the point?

Not at all. Following a kid around, giving him/her a belt every time they make a mistake is abuse. A parent doing that deserves to feel the eyes of the law/community on them.
Tell us... your 5yo, was told that he couldn't have a lolly, so went to your gargre, grabbed a screwdriver and scratched FUCK DAD into the tank of your newly polished m/c. Was that a 'mistake'? Or being naughty?

[James Deuce]

Tell us... your 5yo, was told that he couldn't have a lolly, so went to your gargre, grabbed a screwdriver and scratched FUCK DAD into the tank of your newly polished m/c. Was that a 'mistake'? Or being naughty?

Hairy lipped childless social workers would tell us that he was just expressing himself and it was our fault for letting him know where the screwdirvers were and how to spell "FUCK".

[Winston001]

That may be the Litmus Test, but behind that is the question "How many little brats that desperately deserve/d a smack, didn't get one for fear of being prosecuted?"

Ok - lets imagine my 12yr daughter is employed by me after school. She forgets to get the mail posted before 5:00pm. I smack her for being a clot - as part of disciplining her as an employee.

At home that night, she spills nail varnish on our new carpet, having been told not to bring it into the living room. I give her a smack just to bring home that mum and dad mean what they say.

No bruising in either case.

Where is the difference?

[Hitcher]

Where is the difference?

This is a trick question, right?

[Winston001]

Someone collared me yesterday afternoon during school pickup and demanded to know where Heather was. Not concerned for Heather, aggro that she'd "disappeared". She asked me what I'd done. I refused to answer, and yelled out to the kids to get into the car. Not yelled "at", yelled "out", they were a good 50 metres away.

No word of a lie, the bitch (sorry, there is no other word) said, "Section 59 was designed for people like you".



I'd be ultra pissed off if that happened to me and I'd have given her 40 words or more. :2guns: There are some nasty pieces of work out there, filled with bitterness.

[Winston001]

This is a trick question, right?

Sorry - is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour? :msn-wink:

[MSTRS]

Where is the difference?


This is a trick question, right?

I think so. 12 year olds, esp girls, are past the stage where a smack is appropriate...

[MisterD]

Perspective from Blair Mulholland (http://blairmulholland.typepad.com/mulholland_drive/2009/06/perspective-on-sue-bradfords-new-bill.html).

Number of people required to hold a referendum:
285,027


Number of people required to elect Sue Bradford as a list MP:
17,513

[MSTRS]

Number of people required to remove her permanently...1

[PrincessBandit]

Number of people required to remove her permanently...1

Ah, but by what means????....:psst::whistle::shutup:

[Lias]

. So too was anybody who thought that the Police would be out to prosecute any care-giver who gave a child a "loving tap".

When my 11 year old step daughter was brought home by the police for shop lifting, she had apparently told them I or her mother would give her a hiding, and as I came to the door I was formally cautioned by the police. I queried and was told in no uncertain terms that even a light smack on the bum would result in mine or my partners prosecution for assault, and the likley removal of the children to CYFS care.

We have never beaten the kids, never had issues with CYFS etc, and then we get that. If that isnt the sky falling I dont know what is. The new law is retarded.

It should be legal to give your child a smack on the arse for the purposes of correction. The new law has not stopped one single kid from being punched, kicked, or beaten to death, but it has stopped good parents doing their job.

My 2 cents.

[jono035]

Ah, but by what means????....:psst::whistle::shutup:

I doubt there are that many who would be concerned by the means :D

Winston: Thanks for the considered reply! The difference in your 12 year old girl example (or make it a kid who is more 'appropriate' for the smacking analogy if anyone prefers) is that you are not the sole person responsible for every aspect of your employees lives. I would also suggest that smacking someone for forgetting to take the mail out isn't what I would define as reasonable.

I prefer to use the example of smacking a kid when outright defiance is shown... I.e. you get to the stage where you say 'don't run away from me when we're in the car park' so the kid runs off, you go after him and grab him and he squirms and kicks and starts screaming at the top of his lungs, then gets free and runs off again.

I don't think it is a disciplinary action that should be used often by any means, but I do think that having it there as a 'last resort' is something that would be beneficial to the parent as well as the child. I also don't like the idea of flouting a law like that just because someone has made a thin promise that I wouldn't be prosecuted or because it hasn't happened yet. It isn't really how the law is being used now that is going to decide how good it is, but how it is being used 5, 10 or even 20 years from now. There are plenty of laws around that get bent away from their original intentions to be used however can be got away with...

[jono035]

When my 11 year old step daughter was brought home by the police for shop lifting, she had apparently told them I or her mother would give her a hiding, and as I came to the door I was formally cautioned by the police. I queried and was told in no uncertain terms that even a light smack on the bum would result in mine or my partners prosecution for assault, and the likley removal of the children to CYFS care.

We have never beaten the kids, never had issues with CYFS etc, and then we get that. If that isnt the sky falling I dont know what is. The new law is retarded.

It should be legal to give your child a smack on the arse for the purposes of correction. The new law has not stopped one single kid from being punched, kicked, or beaten to death, but it has stopped good parents doing their job.

My 2 cents.

I certainly agree... How long before it becomes something along the lines of all the kid has to do is threaten to go to the police and tell them you hit them if you won't let them go to a party/dye their hair/get a tattoo or whatever... I've seen similar behaviour plenty of times from friends and people I went to school with. Seems pretty immature and disgusting in retrospect but when you're an oh-so-misunderstood teenager, I guess things look a little different...

[jono035]

Heather broke her foot on Tuesday.

I've been getting 2-4 hours sleep a night for weeks. I'm off work trying to organise the "household" so I can Get back to work and run things in terms of getting kids to school and picking them and meeting work obligations. My employer has been brilliant.

The community suck.

Someone collared me yesterday afternoon during school pickup and demanded to know where Heather was. Not concerned for Heather, aggro that she'd "disappeared". She asked me what I'd done. I refused to answer, and yelled out to the kids to get into the car. Not yelled "at", yelled "out", they were a good 50 metres away.

No word of a lie, the bitch (sorry, there is no other word) said, "Section 59 was designed for people like you".

Section 59 has empowered bullies, radical feminists, and Government depts in ways that have nothing to do with courtrooms. It's just another weapon in a bully's arsenal. The threat is enough.

Holy crap. It is EXACTLY these kind of people that terrify me whenever I see a law that can be bent to allow someone with this kind of an attitude to wreak havoc and play god with other peoples lives. In a lot of cases it doesn't matter that you would be found not guilty if charged either, if it makes it to court it is still WAY to close for comfort, as someone said before, juries can be confused...

This is a similar situation to laying complaints about other road users... The first time I rang *555 over someone overtaking me on a blind corner and forcing an oncoming car off the road I asked what options they had for ticketing this person etc. The woman informed me that they would alert any local cars and get them to pull the guy over if seen and have a word, but that if I wanted to I could come in to the station and lay a complaint. When asked she said that such complaints, depending on severity can result in anything from a warning letter to a fine/demerit point loss for whoever was driving... I have no idea if this is correct but that idea chills me to the bone as well. I consider myself a relatively safe driver, very pro-active in the approach that I take to driving (doesn't everyone though?) but would also be extremely frustrated if some nosy old biddy (can think of a few) were to get angry at being legally overtaken by a hoon (black car with tinted windows) and complain that in her opinion I had overtaken her in a dangerous place at a dangerous speed... sorry < /rant>

[devnull]

Well, if you want to down a commercial airliner these days, use kids.

The S.59 quoting so far has been disingenious. People only quoting the first subsection and saying "See? nothing to worry about"

It is subsections (2) and (3) that have people pissed off.

The way this is worded, it also cancels out S.60 (Discipline on a ship or aircraft)

Anti-smacking seems to be some form of religion.
The Otago Uni study done in 2006 showed that kids that were smacked as part of parental discipline did better later in life.

Most likely because their parents:

a) weren't beating them (despite the current spin on this topic)
b) actually cared enough to enforce boundaries
c) encouraged their kids (goes hand in hand with boundaries)

People whining about the wording of the referedum really have nothing to complain about, because the law uses EXACTLY the same wording.

Likewise, those that say that screeds of child abusers were being let of under the old law are full of it. Never happened. That's pure unadulterated lies.
So what motiviation is there to remove a law that was working, and replace it with one that threatens the welfare of people's kids?

Control.

Control the population through their children. If they think their kids will be at risk, they'll be docile. Hitler followed the same doctrine.
But they forget one thing - S.48 (Self defence or defence of another)

How much lime should go in the hole with the social worker that was silly enough to say they were going to take your children because you smacked a hand?
If they carry on like this, that scenario will be a "when" not an "if"
Good parents will do anything and everything to ensure the safety of their kids

[fire eyes]

something has to happen .. maybe it would work maybe it wouldnt .. but its better than nothing happening at all ... the exposure of child abuse in NZ far outweighs the same type of exposure over where I am. Here you hardly read about it or even hear about .. lots of 'swept under the carpet stuff' its crazy .. but prevelent .. even in the areas I work such high rates of the abuse but rarely anything done .. I know innocent people would be targeted with the anti-smacking laws .. but NZ has more balls to actually attempt to do something right. Unfortunately a mass cull of abusers is out of the question ..

[devnull]

The problem is, that although the key risk indicators for child abuse were identified years ago e.g low maternal age at birth, drug or alcohol abuse, etc., successive govts have been spineless in addressing it.

Labour didn't, because they'd be attacking a proportion of their support base (demographically speaking), and it looks like National are being Labour lite and trying not to offend anyone

What we've ended up with is something that doesn't address the problem at all. Instead, it exacerbates youth crime, and undermines families. One look at Sweden should've been enough warning....

[James Deuce]

Unfortunately a mass cull of abusers is out of the question ..

You don't need to cull them, simply remove their kids at birth and give them to the hordes of potential parents who would otherwise go childless.

As Devnull says, the indicators are well known.

You want the problem sorted then the harsh measures required need to be actioned. That stops the prevarication around amending laws and allows parents to take corrective action in public when required. I had the dubious pleasure of being "handled" by a couple of kids with no impulse control and their clearly frustrated Dad did his best, but wheedling and negotiating with children doesn't work. Clear, absolute, consistently applied boundaries makes everyone happy.

[idb]

The quality of the referendum question and the subsequent justifications from the organisers would make me question whether I wanted to be associated with those people - no matter what my opinion was.

[Ms Piggy]

Apart from millions of column cm devoted to this issue, can anybody tell me what has actually changed?

Hey Hitcher - my understanding is that the repeal of section 59 removed the "reasonable force" clause.

Prior to the repeal parents/care givers could have a savvy lawyer legally argue that physically disciplining their child with for example a riding crop was "reasonable force".

The repeal means that children now have the same legal protection as everyone else in society when it comes to be assaulted.

[devnull]

Hey Hitcher - my understanding is that the repeal of section 59 removed the "reasonable force" clause.

Prior to the repeal parents/care givers could have a savvy lawyer legally argue that physically disciplining their child with for example a riding crop was "reasonable force".

The repeal means that children now have the same legal protection as everyone else in society when it comes to be assaulted.

Well that's pretty thin on fact...

How many people, since 1961, have successfully used S.59 as a defence?
If a jury can decide on "reasonable force" in a case where a person claims self defence, how is claiming "reasonable force" under S.59 any different? The court, not the offender, decides on what is reasonable under the circumstances.

As for the riding crop - should she have used a baseball bat instead? (So she'd have the same weapon as the kid)

If kids REALLY had the same protection as everyone else, then the toddler that bit my little boy would've been arrested and charged. He'd be facing jail time.

Beckett (British Journal of Social Work) showed quite clearly the fallacy that the anti-smacking religion really is. His article "Child Deaths in Sweden: The Swedish Myth" shows not only how it doesn't work, it also identifies the key abuse indicators.
If anti-smacking equated to lower child abuse rates, then Sweden, not Spain, would've been top ranking (Spain had no such law)

[scumdog]

Bullshit. Smacking a child a few times throughout the early years, creates control.


Damn right.

When my boys were in their teens they still remembered the smacks they got when they were about 2 - 3 years old which was probably the last time they got a smack.

Mere raising my voice worked ever after that.


Just like with a pup, you've got to show them who's the boss when they're very young, too late later on (as a lot find out).

[NDORFN]

Damn right.

When my boys were in their teens they still remembered the smacks they got when they were about 2 - 3 years old which was probably the last time they got a smack.

Mere raising my voice worked ever after that.


Just like with a pup, you've got to show them who's the boss when they're very young, too late later on (as a lot find out).

Yep. Worked for me.

[Ms Piggy]

Well that's pretty thin on fact...
I wasn't saying it was, I stated it was my understanding based my general knowledge off the top of my head.


How many people, since 1961, have successfully used S.59 as a defence?
If a jury can decide on "reasonable force" in a case where a person claims self defence, how is claiming "reasonable force" under S.59 any different? The court, not the offender, decides on what is reasonable under the circumstances. No idea - would be an interesting piece of research.


As for the riding crop - should she have used a baseball bat instead? (So she'd have the same weapon as the kid)
Sorry you've lost me?? Of course she shouldn't have.


If kids REALLY had the same protection as everyone else, then the toddler that bit my little boy would've been arrested and charged. He'd be facing jail time.
Sounds like a nasty situation. Maybe his parents should have been held accountable.


Beckett (British Journal of Social Work) showed quite clearly the fallacy that the anti-smacking religion really is. His article "Child Deaths in Sweden: The Swedish Myth" shows not only how it doesn't work, it also identifies the key abuse indicators.
If anti-smacking equated to lower child abuse rates, then Sweden, not Spain, would've been top ranking (Spain had no such law)
Sorry 1 article won't change my mind but it would sure be interesting reading.

[MSTRS]

If kids REALLY had the same protection as everyone else, then the toddler that bit my little boy would've been arrested and charged. He'd be facing jail time.





Sounds like a nasty situation. Maybe his parents should have been held accountable.



Really? And just how were those parents (assuming they cared enough) to control their toddler? Kids that age don't have the mental/social development to know that biting is wrong. It must be taught. Biting them in turn can work real well. Ooops, sorry...not allowed. Ok...a short, sharp stinging smack can work, slightly less well. Oooops, sorry...not allowed. Well, then...you could try talking to the offending child. Or the 'naughty corner'. Like the kid will understand, or stay in the corner. Ooooh, I know...put a muzzle on the little shit. Good luck with that.

[Mom]

Biting them in turn can work real well. Ooops, sorry...not allowed.

No but something that did work well for me. One of my kids was a biter. One day he gave a particularly nasty bite to one of my foster kids, I got the foster kid to bite him back :D

Win, win here. Must say it was very effective. The foster kid no longer annoyed my kid until he was bitten, the biter never laid his teeth into anyone ever again.

[MSTRS]

Must say it was very effective.

Which was my point. Effective = not allowed.

[Ms Piggy]

Really? And just how were those parents (assuming they cared enough) to control their toddler? Kids that age don't have the mental/social development to know that biting is wrong. It must be taught. Biting them in turn can work real well. Ooops, sorry...not allowed. Ok...a short, sharp stinging smack can work, slightly less well. Oooops, sorry...not allowed. Well, then...you could try talking to the offending child. Or the 'naughty corner'. Like the kid will understand, or stay in the corner. Ooooh, I know...put a muzzle on the little shit. Good luck with that.

It sure is tricky to try and sort this stuff out eh. I guess my experience is that nothing is ever black and white or has a simple solution. I reckon your comments demonstrate that quite well.

[devnull]

Sorry 1 article won't change my mind but it would sure be interesting reading.

I don't wish to change your mind.
I don't care what your opinion is.

There is no shortage of data available out there if you want to educate yourself on this issue - but it isn't my job to do that for you.
Anyway, if this debate has highlighted anything, it's that some people willingly favour their own opinions to the point of obsession, disregarding all research that doesn't coincide with their beliefs. Thus, the anti-smacking mantra is a pseudo-religion, favouring social experimentation over established fact.

All I want is LESS govt involvement in my life, not more.

I DON'T want a group of childless lesbians and convicted criminals dictating that my kids can only be raised in a state-approved manner.

I DON'T want my kids growing up in a lawless society having no respect for others, and lacking empathy.

Sweden makes a great example of where anti-correction laws will take us, since it was among the first. How anyone can support this socialist experiment after seeing the end results there astound me. I suppose children aren't important to them....

[idb]

...
I don't care what your opinion is.
....

Why bother expressing yours at such length then?

[devnull]

Why bother expressing yours at such length then?

Maybe I didn't write that as well as I could have...

Basically, I don't think everyone has to hold the same opinion that I do, nor do I think I have any right to force my views onto others...

I object to people that feel that they have the right to do that, and refuse to allow those people to involve my kids in a failed social experiment.
It's my job, as a parent, to protect them from such things.

I'm not saying you can't hold a view different from mine, just don't give me the "we know best" crap even in the face of overwhelming data that the self-appointed "elite" are clearly wrong, and try to ram it down my throat.
Over 80% of the country appear to feel the same way I do....

[Winston001]

There is no shortage of data available out there if you want to educate yourself on this issue - but it isn't my job to do that for you.

Fair enough, how about some links please.


Anyway, if this debate has highlighted anything, it's that some people willingly favour their own opinions to the point of obsession, disregarding all research that doesn't coincide with their beliefs. Thus, the anti-smacking mantra is a pseudo-religion, favouring social experimentation over established fact.

There is no anti-smacking mantra. There is no law which mentions smacking. The only place where blind obsession appears is in discussions like this - and on the Family First site.


All I want is LESS govt involvement in my life, not more.

I DON'T want a group of childless lesbians and convicted criminals dictating that my kids can only be raised in a state-approved manner.

I DON'T want my kids growing up in a lawless society having no respect for others, and lacking empathy.

So you don't think children deserve the protection of the law??? And anyone who says otherwise is a lesbian??? :crazy: And you require the right to hit your kids so they learn empathy??

[Ms Piggy]

I don't wish to change your mind.
I don't care what your opinion is.

There is no shortage of data available out there if you want to educate yourself on this issue - but it isn't my job to do that for you.
Anyway, if this debate has highlighted anything, it's that some people willingly favour their own opinions to the point of obsession, disregarding all research that doesn't coincide with their beliefs. Thus, the anti-smacking mantra is a pseudo-religion, favouring social experimentation over established fact.

All I want is LESS govt involvement in my life, not more.

I DON'T want a group of childless lesbians and convicted criminals dictating that my kids can only be raised in a state-approved manner.

I DON'T want my kids growing up in a lawless society having no respect for others, and lacking empathy.

Sweden makes a great example of where anti-correction laws will take us, since it was among the first. How anyone can support this socialist experiment after seeing the end results there astound me. I suppose children aren't important to them....

Okay then.

[devnull]

Fair enough, how about some links please.


Try Beckett's "Child Deaths in Sweden: The Swedish Myth" already uploaded here: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=61539




There is no anti-smacking mantra. There is no law which mentions smacking. The only place where blind obsession appears is in discussions like this - and on the Family First site.


Actually, the phrase "anti-smacking bill" came about because that was what it's author called it.



So you don't think children deserve the protection of the law??? And anyone who says otherwise is a lesbian??? :crazy: And you require the right to hit your kids so they learn empathy??

Now the straw man argument.
Children were ALWAYS protected under the law.
They are also protected by their parents.
However, now we have a situation where parents have to protect their children from the state.

Some other research to look up and read:
Millichamp, Otago Uni (2006)
Larzalere (numerous journal publications)

Statistics that make for interesting reading would be things like Sweden's serious youth crime rates and the industry that's sprung up regarding seizing and "relocating" children. The sexual abuse rates are abhorrent.

And you have the gall to imply that the predominantly left-wing group, in which the majority are childless and have a higher lesbian concentration that the national average, have all of a sudden become experts on my children, and that this elite group have the right to dictate to the rest of us? Of course, it's OK to say that anyone that smacks their child's hand is a child abuser though, isn't it...

Does that sound like a democracy to you?

Or that the author of the bill, a known criminal with numerous convictions, is a model parent?
I'm concerned that someone with that many convictions can even get into Parliament - why the hell isn't there a minimum standard?

The real child abuse indicators have been around for years - this attacking good parents is a touchy feely smoke screen.
It's nothing more than a U.N. suckup.

See http://www.voteno.org.nz/ for more info - poll results, FAQ, etc.

Bradford's latest interview is linked off there too - most likely for comedic value

Why am I so passionate about this?
Because I have young children that I don't want to see ending up like the Swedish kids. Neither do I want to see them injured or killed by the spawn of some scumbag that was too lazy to give their kids the love, attention, and BOUNDARIES that good parents should...

[jono035]

and have a higher lesbian concentration that the national average

This is interesting reading all told, but the lesbian cracks sound a liiiiitle on the looney side I'm afraid...

[devnull]

This is interesting reading all told, but the lesbian cracks sound a liiiiitle on the looney side I'm afraid...

Couldn't resist it... I get a bit sick of seeing the socialists labelling any parent that uses any form of force - time out, smacked hand, etc - as a child abuser, they do deserve a bit of their own medicine. :buggerd:

Although, when you look at Labour's caucus line-up before they were voted out... :lol:

On a more serious note, here's the process of how the referendum came about:

http://www.nzcpr.com/weekly185.htm

As you can see, it's pretty involved, and MP's are well aware of what's going on every step of the way.

If this referendum goes the way the polls have indicated, and the govt doesn't move to amend the law because the referendum isn't binding, how much patience will voters have?

If a govt tramples the will of the people, how will the people make them listen? After all, they are our appointed representatives, not our rulers.

[Winston001]

Try Beckett's "Child Deaths in Sweden: The Swedish Myth" already uploaded here: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=61539

And you have the gall to imply that the predominantly left-wing group, in which the majority are childless and have a higher lesbian concentration that the national average, have all of a sudden become experts on my children, and that this elite group have the right to dictate to the rest of us? Of course, it's OK to say that anyone that smacks their child's hand is a child abuser though, isn't it...

Does that sound like a democracy to you?



I've already looked at Beckett's paper but it doesn't appear to have widespread academic support ie. peer review and extensions of the findings. Indeed there is a subsequent article in the British Journal Of Social Work which deconstructs Beckett.

Ad hominen attacks on people who have opposing views is unfortunate.

Democracy: Parliament composed of eight different political parties voted 113 to 8 in favour of the current Section 59. Despite the votes possibly lost by some of them. It would be hard to think of a stronger example of democracy.

[Hitcher]

Democracy: Parliament composed of eight different political parties voted 113 to 8 in favour of the current Section 59. Despite the votes possibly lost by some of them. It would be hard to think of a stronger example of democracy.

From memory the eight votes against were the Greens, bless them.

[devnull]

And National only supported the bill after they had subsection (4) inserted.

Labour didn't need National's support, they already had the numbers, but they wanted to have a "show of unity".

[devnull]

I've already looked at Beckett's paper but it doesn't appear to have widespread academic support ie. peer review and extensions of the findings. Indeed there is a subsequent article in the British Journal Of Social Work which deconstructs Beckett.



Errr... his isn't research. It's an article that cites research.
Quite a lot of research, actually.

What was the basis of the introduction of this extremely controversial bill in NZ?

1 research paper, by Joan Durrant.
(The paper has been widely discredited - statistical manipulation)

Ironically, Durrant tried to have a similar bill introduced into her own country, Canada.
It was thrown out.

The most recent research was done right here in NZ, at Otago Uni.
It was lauded as ground-breaking, yet it is ignored by a subsection of society because it doesn't fit with their political idealism.
And when political idealism is given precedence over real child abuse issues, it's a pretty sad indictment on the society involved, don't you think?

[Winston001]

What was the basis of the introduction of this extremely controversial bill in NZ?

1 research paper, by Joan Durrant.
(The paper has been widely discredited - statistical manipulation)

Agreed.

The most recent research was done right here in NZ, at Otago Uni.
It was lauded as ground-breaking, yet it is ignored by a subsection of society because it doesn't fit with their political idealism.


Millichamp, drawing on the world renowned longitudinal child study, concluded that the occasional smack does not appear to harm a child. I agree. So does the law. So do the police. So do the courts.

So why is there so much misdirection and emotion? A referendum over a something which the law doesn't mention? It's a non-issue.

[devnull]

Agreed.


Millichamp, drawing on the world renowned longitudinal child study, concluded that the occasional smack does not appear to harm a child. I agree. So does the law. So do the police. So do the courts.

So why is there so much misdirection and emotion? A referendum over a something which the law doesn't mention? It's a non-issue.

Therein lies the problem.

The law does NOT agree.
Good parents being held for questioning, undergoing CYFS investigations (permanent record), children being forced to live elsewhere, the alternative being having kids uplifted....

Clearly, this isn't a "non-issue" for over 80% of the population.

Only those with an agenda want this swept under the carpet, and the majority ignored.
In fact, if even one good parent has been affected, it's too many.
Though we know that far more than one has been adversely affected, don't we?

If we want to be absolutely accurate, Bradford made a criminal of every parent that uses any form of force for the purpose of correction.
If they are charged and convicted, their status changes - it goes from "criminal" to "convicted criminal"

Satirical look at the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfrwuBxc5w8

"Well behaved kids are prima facie evidence of child abuse.
If they are well behaved, they are being corrected. But correction is illegal.
Child abuse" :lol:

[Winston001]

The problem is, that although the key risk indicators for child abuse were identified years ago e.g low maternal age at birth, drug or alcohol abuse, etc., successive govts have been spineless in addressing it.


That is a point well made and as a society, that is what we should be discussing. Not middle-class angst over imagined persecution.


From memory the eight votes against were the Greens, bless them.

Nope.

Ayes 113 New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 4 (Brown, Donnelly, Stewart, Woolerton); Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1.


Noes 8 New Zealand First 3 (Mark, Paraone, Peters); United Future 1 (Turner); ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland, Field.


The law does NOT agree:
Good parents being held for questioning, undergoing CYFS investigations (permanent record), children being forced to live elsewhere, the alternative being having kids uplifted....

Clearly, this isn't a "non-issue" for over 80% of the population.

Only those with an agenda want this swept under the carpet, and the majority ignored.

If we want to be absolutely accurate, Bradford made a criminal of every parent that uses any form of force for the purpose of correction.
If they are charged and convicted, their status changes - it goes from "criminal" to "convicted criminal"


The concern held by the ordinary parent is that they mght be hauled off to jail if they give their child a light smack. I wouldn't want to see that either.

So - as posited earlier if 1% of children are smacked per day that equals 3000 smacks nationwide. Every day. Where are the legions of bewildered parents being dragged before the courts??

Where are all of these cases of good parents being held for questioning, undergoing CYFS investigations (permanent record), children being forced to live elsewhere.......?? Even Family First can only come up with 9 situations over two years.....and the man in Christchurch who has been held up as a shining example of parenthood swore at his kids, then punched one in the face.

That really convinced a lot of people. Tui.

[jono035]

if even one good parent has been affected, it's too many.

That is a pretty important point I think... The concept behind 'innocent until proven guilty' should really apply here too... I think a lot of people can't see this through the haze induced by the 'but think of the children!' viewpoints...

[devnull]

The concern held by the ordinary parent is that they mght be hauled off to jail if they give their child a light smack. I wouldn't want to see that either.

So - as posited earlier if 1% of children are smacked per day that equals 3000 smacks nationwide. Every day. Where are the legions of bewildered parents being dragged before the courts??

Where are all of these cases of good parents being held for questioning, undergoing CYFS investigations (permanent record), children being forced to live elsewhere.......?? Even Family First can only come up with 9 situations over two years.....and the man in Christchurch who has been held up as a shining example of parenthood swore at his kids, then punched one in the face.

That really convinced a lot of people. Tui.

Several points here...

Firstly, the law change allows carte blanche Care & Protection Orders on the basis that force has been used - in the past, they had to prove assault. With the law change, that's no longer necessary.

(C&P Order is required in order to uplift children from their family, and can be granted without the parents being aware of any action until CYFS turn up on the doorstep)

So what worries good parents?
Bad parents wouldn't be overly worried if their kids are uplifted. Good parents would be more than worried. Many would feel the need to take direct action. That is why this is so dangerous - the vast majority will do whatever is necessary to protect their kids. No matter the cost.

As for the guy in Chch, I'm impressed that an adult can "punch a toddler in the face" and leave not so much as a mark or bruise.
How disingenuous to make 2 allegations under a single assault charge, when the offender has already admitted to the lesser of the two allegations :oi-grr:

Of course, one must ask, WHY was this amendment necessary?
It is poorly worded, bad law.

WHY is there support for such a bill, when it is political idealism, has no basis to improve abuse statistics (and was never intended to do so), and perhaps most damning, seeks to emulate a social experiment that failed miserably, destroying the lives of so many children in the process (Sweden)??

[Winston001]

Sorry Devnull, I don't doubt your sincerity or your good intentions. Smacking is not unlawful. Good parents are not losing their children.

People are losing their jobs in a recession. There are kids living on the streets in large cities. Drug abuse with associated robbery, violence, and hospitalisations is so common we hardly notice. Our trade competitors are locking their doors against us.

Any one of these issues is of far greater importance to us as a society.

[MisterD]

Smacking is not unlawful.

I disagree Winnie, the use of force for the purposes of correction is is specifically outlawed.




Good parents are not losing their children.

Good parents are in fear of having CYFS sicced on them - it has happened. Some of us won't be bullied though.



People are losing their jobs in a recession. There are kids living on the streets in large cities. Drug abuse with associated robbery, violence, and hospitalisations is so common we hardly notice. Our trade competitors are locking their doors against us.

Any one of these issues is of far greater importance to us as a society.

All true, but I disagree. This meddling of the state where it ought not to be has to be stopped early doors. Those of us of a liberal / libertarian viewpoint see this as the thin end of the wedge. Though they would never admit it, Sue Bradford et al believe the same...

[devnull]

Sorry Devnull, I don't doubt your sincerity or your good intentions. Smacking is not unlawful. Good parents are not losing their children.

People are losing their jobs in a recession. There are kids living on the streets in large cities. Drug abuse with associated robbery, violence, and hospitalisations is so common we hardly notice. Our trade competitors are locking their doors against us.

Any one of these issues is of far greater importance to us as a society.

Well there we disagree. As does the law, it would seem.
In fact, correction is specifically forbidden by law.


Using the economy, drug abuse, or health care to excuse the inexcusable intrusion of the state into familes doesn't cut it.
If you want to target those, then ask why, during record years, did the previous govt spend up large instead of building a financial buffer?

BTW, recessions are generally driven by falls in profit - depressions are driven by collapsing debt. The jury is still out on this one, but I don't think it'll be called a recession when all is said and done.

What did Helen Clark have to say on this issue?



Clark: "… they don’t want to see, ah, you know, stressed and harassed parents, ah, you know, called in by the police because they, they smacked a child, so I think there’s a debate to go on…"
Interviewer: "…right … so, you don’t want to see smacking banned…"
Clark: "Absolutely not! I think you’re trying to defy human nature."
- Helen Clark, Radio Rhema, Election Campaign 2005 (audio)

"She wants to busy herself with what goes on in the homes of the nation in areas which families regard as their own responsibility, and I think she's going over a very dangerous line."
- Helen Clark referring to Jenny Shipley 1999!