The Gummit sent me an envelope

[MadDuck]

No doubt this has been debated on mass here on KB so Mods feel free to merge this.

I got an envelope today. Its asking me whether to vote for "Should a smack be" ....blah blah blah. You know the rest.

I dont have kids so what the heck gives me the right to decide what parent out there should or shouldnt do? Personally I say NONE!

I am a big believer in dont vote dont complain but this ones got me stumped.

[Highlander]

"They" are spending $9 million or there abouts on our behalf to find out what the public view is.

As the public, we owe it to ourselves to express our view.

We said to our son, think about your future kids (WAY in the future we hope), if you want the right to smack as part of parental dicipline, then vote NO, if you want the current law to stand then vote YES.

[Hitcher]

There's no right answer to this and the Gummint isn't going to change anything irrespective of whatever result the referendum produces.

You have four options:


Yes
No
Invalid
Don't return it


Choose wisely.

Isn't democracy marvellous.

[mynameis]

There's no right answer to this and the Gummint isn't going to change anything irrespective of whatever result the referendum produces.

You have four options:


Yes
No
Invalid
Don't return it

Choose wisely.

Isn't democracy marvellous.

Disgrace! It's Gubmint.





Write on the form can I smack you for spending our 9 mil on this and send it back :lol:

[MadDuck]

Isn't democracy marvellous.

Hell yeah! It is giving me the chance to vote for something I know nothing about apart from my upbringings in the 60s where a thrashing was a good thing.

[Highlander]

Hell yeah! It is giving me the chance to vote for something I know nothing about

That sounds surprising close to most of the voters they talked to on the Telly before the General Election

[MadDuck]

That sounds surprising close to most of the voters they talked to on the Telly before the General Election

Dont believe everything you see on the Telly and the interweb!

[mossy1200]

No doubt this has been debated on mass here on KB so Mods feel free to merge this.

I got an envelope today. Its asking me whether to vote for "Should a smack be" ....blah blah blah. You know the rest.

I dont have kids so what the heck gives me the right to decide what parent out there should or shouldnt do? Personally I say NONE!

I am a big believer in dont vote dont complain but this ones got me stumped.

Maybe there is other peoples children that you think could do with a good smack.
These poles dont mean anything when one persons idea of smack differs from the next person.
I didnt get many smacks but lived in fear of getting one so I avoided being bad.It also taught me that if you were going to be naughty insure you dont get caught.This is a life skill that helps later on in life when your married.

[SMOKEU]

I got a letter from the government in the mailbox as well today. Too bad it was a letter 'reminding' me to pay my fines.

[scracha]

I dont have kids so what the heck gives me the right to decide what parent out there should or shouldnt do? Personally I say NONE!


You pay for the little darlings don't yer? When you retire, the little darlings will be working to keep you in the style you're accustomed too. Therefore you have every right to voice your opinion on how a parent should best discipline their little darling.

Personally, I think if a few more of them got a good foot up the arse when required, there'd be a lot less of them ending up as a burden to society.

************cliche alert***********
Never did me any harm
*********end of cliche alert*********


I'm sick of screaming brats running up and down when I'm trying to eat my lunch. Their parents just ignore them. They should have had a 3rd option on the vote.
"Yes, and other adults can give them a smack when their own parents can't manage good parental discipline"

[mossy1200]

You pay for the little darlings don't yer? When you retire, the little darlings will be working to keep you in the style you're accustomed too. Therefore you have every right to voice your opinion on how a parent should best discipline their little darling.

Personally, I think if a few more of them got a good foot up the arse when required, there'd be a lot less of them ending up as a burden to society.

************cliche alert***********
Never did me any harm
*********end of cliche alert*********


I'm sick of screaming brats running up and down when I'm trying to eat my lunch. Their parents just ignore them. They should have had a 3rd option on the vote.
"Yes, and other adults can give them a smack when their own parents can't manage good parental discipline"

Now your talking.Re-train parking wardens to be children smackers who first give your child a smack then give the parent a ticket for failing to take control of the situation themselves.I dont approve of the high pitched squeeling kids at grocery stores for a starter.:2guns:

disclaimer(I didnt intend to be grumpy bastard and I should be ignored)

[Motu]

It's not about the right to smack,that's a media blow up.It's about low lifes beating the shit out of their kids - and getting off a charge by claiming it was discipline.It's about giving kids the same rights as adults.

I remember being told decades ago when there were human rights,womans rights and animal rights issues - that children would be the last to get equal rights.How right they were.....

[RantyDave]

I'm gonna STFU except just to say...



Don't return it


....that it's going to be nice being in the majority for a change.

Dave

[Subike]

No doubt this has been debated on mass here on KB so Mods feel free to merge this.

I got an envelope today. Its asking me whether to vote for "Should a smack be" ....blah blah blah. You know the rest.

I dont have kids so what the heck gives me the right to decide what parent out there should or shouldnt do? Personally I say NONE!

I am a big believer in dont vote dont complain but this ones got me stumped.

as this law is a direct challenge to the cival rights of all kiwis your vote counts.
an non vote is a vote in agreement with the law,
you may not have kids right now, but is we let laws like this restrict our personal choice to do what we want inside out own homes, then we are heading down the wrong road into our future.

[Grahameeboy]

It's not about the right to smack,that's a media blow up.It's about low lifes beating the shit out of their kids - and getting off a charge by claiming it was discipline.It's about giving kids the same rights as adults.

I remember being told decades ago when there were human rights,womans rights and animal rights issues - that children would be the last to get equal rights.How right they were.....

That's right......................

[Grahameeboy]

as this law is a direct challenge to the cival rights of all kiwis your vote counts.
an non vote is a vote in agreement with the law,
you may not have kids right now, but is we let laws like this restrict our personal choice to do what we want inside out own homes, then we are heading down the wrong road into our future.

Like beating up kids I guess...............

[peasea]

Hell yeah! It is giving me the chance to vote for something I know nothing about apart from my upbringings in the 60s where a thrashing was a good thing.

It still is, if you own a motorcycle. Mine's been good lately but I'm still going to give it a good thrashing this weekend because I'm a bad parent.

[ManDownUnder]

Before I vote... I have one question... Can someone please define... "smack".

What is it, where can I apply said smack, and under which circumstances?

If we're going to end up with any changes we need to know what we're asking for - which does raise the question on what we currently have too - and is it any different?

The chances of change are pretty low anyway because I understand smacking children goes against some UN charter for the rights of children and NZ would probably need to tow the line or face financial penalty as part of the international community.

[peasea]

as this law is a direct challenge to the cival rights of all kiwis your vote counts.
an non vote is a vote in agreement with the law,
you may not have kids right now, but is we let laws like this restrict our personal choice to do what we want inside out own homes, then we are heading down the wrong road into our future.

I smacked my kids on the bum when they were little and sometimes on the hand if they were about to touch something they'd already been told not to touch. "A short, sharp shock" and all that. As they grew they understood and respected their boundaries. Now they are teenagers who DO NOT get into strife.

I will support them if they choose to discipline their own kids the same way. By the time my kids were old enough to say shit like; "You can't smack me I'll call the cops" they didn't need smacking. The ground rules were in place before they got to school.

Fuck the nanny state.

[Grahameeboy]

I smacked my kids on the bum when they were little and sometimes on the hand if they were about to touch something they'd already been told not to touch. "A short, sharp shock" and all that. As they grew they understood and respected their boundaries. Now they are teenagers who DO NOT get into strife.

I will support them if they choose to discipline their own kids the same way. By the time my kids were old enough to say shit like; "You can't smack me I'll call the cops" they didn't need smacking. The ground rules were in place before they got to school.

Fuck the nanny state.

Nanny State....that's silly..I think we often make our own worlds the way we are..at the end of the day what is really important in life...not getting your whiskers in a twist over this Law...

[Grahameeboy]

Before I vote... I have one question... Can someone please define... "smack".

What is it, where can I apply said smack, and under which circumstances?

If we're going to end up with any changes we need to know what we're asking for - which does raise the question on what we currently have too - and is it any different?

The chances of change are pretty low anyway because I understand smacking children goes against some UN charter for the rights of children and NZ would probably need to tow the line or face financial penalty as part of the international community.

WWF eat ya heart out

[koba]

Like beating up kids I guess...............

It has always been illegal to beat the shit out of your kids.

[Grahameeboy]

It has always been illegal to beat the shit out of your kids.

Agree..but the Anti-Smacking Law takes the loop holes out for the Police...

[JimO]

Agree..but the Anti-Smacking Law takes the loop holes out for the Police...

there is a big difference between a smack and a beating...........if you dont know the difference perhaps you arnt a suitable parent, just like the people who beat kids

[James Deuce]

I'm gonna STFU except just to say...



....that it's going to be nice being in the majority for a change.

Dave

Yay! I'm with Dave! Can I come to Burning Man now?

Motu has it of course, but despite what Graham thinks there is a big chunk of NZ society who don't love or want their kids and find them a burden because they are the result of a lifestyle choice not concious decision, a combined logical/emotional decision to raise a child successfully even if the parents aren't staying together, or a simple and much treasured series of accidents. These kids don't get "smacked", they get far worse than that from "family" who are stupid enough to shake their babies in hospital if they won't stop crying because of whatever ghetto disease they've landed in there with.

This referendum is a silly, pointless waste of money. There's only two ways to fix "the" problem, and thanks to the bipartisan social ideologies that have dominated NZ's political landscape for 80 years, neither issue will be dealt with.

[sunhuntin]

i tore mine up and stuck it in the trash. felt like sending it back shredded, but i ripped up the return addy.

[Mom]

I was down the road the other day and saw a young guy with a couple of smallish kids in tow. They were leaving the playground and the elder boy was whining and dragging his heels, Dad saying come on mate you have had your time. This kid started performing something wicked, his father got down to eye level with him and had a word. Went something along the lines of, if you dont stop this nonsense right now I will smack your bum and then you will have something to cry about.

He stood up and met my eye and did something that I can only describe as a startled jump. Big eyed stare at me. Obviously worried I would report him for even threatening to smack his very badly behaved son. I smiled at him and said, they can try the patience of a saint somedays eh? He relaxed.

Pathetic!

I can remember saying to one of my kids in the supermarket one day, when said child was being absolutely vile in the extreme. If you dont cut it out right now, when we get home I am going to take a stick to you and beat to within an inch of your life, making said child laugh at me. Crisis averted. They used to love me telling them I would break off their arms and legs and beat them to death with them too. Very diversionary and far removed from what I would actually do. Imagine how I would be treated these days for saying the same thing.

[FROSTY]

2 THINGS
1) Under the law as it used to stand a parent had the right to choose not to use physical means to punish their kids.
2)There always was a law preventing a person from BEATING another person. regardless of age The police needed to enforce it.

on monday our Mr 13 had a total meltdown. F ing and blinding at his mother. He's about 60mm taller than her now. He made it clear that she couldn't hit him but if he chose to he could hit her --and no concequences.

[Grahameeboy]

there is a big difference between a smack and a beating...........if you dont know the difference perhaps you arnt a suitable parent, just like the people who beat kids

That is why the old Law allowed people to get aquitted..there was too much ambiquity...now there is not. Kids need security not ambiguity...I know the difference but guess deciding to have shared custody of a severely disabled Daughter (rare for a guy) just is not enough to be a suitable parent...I can't smack her (even if I wanted to) as she is weak so I guess that means I can comment on otherways of discipline ie not needing to smack kids

[Grahameeboy]

2 THINGS
1) Under the law as it used to stand a parent had the right to choose not to use physical means to punish their kids.
2)There always was a law preventing a person from BEATING another person. regardless of age The police needed to enforce it.

on monday our Mr 13 had a total meltdown. F ing and blinding at his mother. He's about 60mm taller than her now. He made it clear that she couldn't hit him but if he chose to he could hit her --and no concequences.

Problem was that the Police enforced but the Court's did not.Kids are allowed to have meltdowns

[davereid]

Hell yeah! It is giving me the chance to vote for something I know nothing about apart from my upbringings in the 60s where a thrashing was a good thing.

Yeah, by the 80's it was getting difficult to find a chick who likes a good caning... nows its virtually impossible !

[Mully]

Before I vote... I have one question... Can someone please define... "smack".


While they're at it, can they also please define "good parenting".

The question is vague and misleading. A better question would be "Would you like to see a reinstatment of Section 59 etc?"

Not that it matters, cos the damn thing ain't binding anyway.

But the repeal of S59 was great - it's stopped kids being beaten by their parents and caregivers after all....... What??..... Oh, never mind

I view this like the alcohol thing - the repeal of S59 was a desire to have a simple response to a complicated problem (in this case people beating the living snot out of their children). Make it illegal and they wont do it, right?

IMHO, the courts should have been defining "reasonable force" (that's what the law entitled parents to use), and if they couldn't/wouldn't, then the Gubmint should have redefined it for them - i.e. "Reasonable Force is an open handed slap to the legs, buttocks, hands or arms." Smacking a kid with an electrical cord until they DIE is clearly not reasonable.

[Marmoot]

Write on the form can I smack you for spending our 9 mil on this and send it back :lol:

I want to smack Sue Bradford for getting us to spend 9 million on this.

[Hitcher]

I want to smack Sue Bradford for getting us to spend 9 million on this.

You'd be smacking her for the wrong reason, but hey, if it makes you feel better...

[Clockwork]

It's not about the right to smack,that's a media blow up.It's about low lifes beating the shit out of their kids - and getting off a charge by claiming it was discipline.It's about giving kids the same rights as adults.

I remember being told decades ago when there were human rights,womans rights and animal rights issues - that children would be the last to get equal rights.How right they were.....

Since when did society think children should have the same rights as adults? Should we let them drive, marry or have sex, vote, own guns. Maybe we shouldn't compell tem to go to school, maybe we should pay them the dole if they choose to opt out!

Hell, a large part of society is even complaining that eighteen year olds can buy alcohol.


Problem was that the Police enforced but the Court's did not.Kids are allowed to have meltdowns

What we seem to be forgetting here is that those "contentious" cases where parents were aquitted of beating thier kids under section 59 were judged by their peers. ie representatives of our own society. They sat through the case listened to the evidence and presumably felt the beating was justifyable and reasonable. So do we really want to let the likes of Sue Bradford second guess them?

[Marmoot]

You'd be smacking her for the wrong reason, but hey, if it makes you feel better...

What's your right reason? Did she have her grammar wrong?

[Nasty]

Hell yeah! It is giving me the chance to vote for something I know nothing about apart from my upbringings in the 60s where a thrashing was a good thing.

There is a difference between a thrashing and a smack and between a smack and a bollocking ... yup in the 70's it wasn't a bad thing to smack a child ... in the 90's it wasn't a good thing - but accepted as a correction way .. now it can't be done at all ...

Looking at the teens and some of the kids around now a good smack (shock factor not beating) might make them realise there are consequences to the actions.

I don't have kids .. don't want kids .. but will vote .. I am with the don't vote don't complain. But smacking to me needs to be done in the right place with the right attitude - and you can't legislate that. Smacking a kid in anger is wrong .. and won't achieve anything. But without anger - and with the right of mind - I believe that the shock for the child can sometimes achieve the outcome needed.

Blabber over .. but hmmm gives me food for thought for how I may vote.

[Grahameeboy]

Since when did society think children should have the same rights as adults? Should we let them drive, marry or have sex, vote, own guns. Maybe we shouldn't compell tem to go to school, maybe we should pay them the dole if they choose to opt out!

Hell, a large part of society is even complaining that eighteen year olds can buy alcohol.



What we seem to be forgetting here is that those "contentious" cases where parents were aquitted of beating thier kids under section 59 were judged by their peers. ie representatives of our own society. They sat through the case listened to the evidence and presumably felt the beating was justifyable and reasonable. So do we really want to let the likes of Sue Bradford second guess them?

Then clearly the offences were not contentious if NZ is saying that the general public i.e. peers think the Law is wrong.

[Clockwork]

I don't follow your reply. I suspect it's because the contentious cases I was referring to were the ones cited by the opponents of S59 when they had it repealed. ie Before the Crimes Act was changed, rather than the more recent ones since.

[ynot slow]

Think of those dominatrix people,they need your vote.

It's hard,my kids got a smack on the bum or hand,the marks left quickly so that was an indication of force/lack of it,and this was from us the parents only.Nine times out of ten they were good at grandparents or friends,better with other friends with kids they could play with.I believe you bring them up that they respect peoples homes,similar ethics we had as adults.

I agree it is simple to work out a smack or a beating,but some can't they should be made infertile,rather than breed.

[Disco Dan]

I am really confused with the question. The more I read it, the more it does not make sense.

I want to be able to smack my own children when they play up. I want my children to be able to do the same to their children.

Too many children are losing respect for adults - mainly those in authority like parents, teachers and Police. I believe this is due to softer rules/laws and parents moving away from smacking.

But at the same time I do not want to allow bad parents a loop hole to 'beat' their child black and blue and then get away with it.

[Jonno.]

Children need to be corrected. They need boundaries. You can't expect a child to have a time out in a supermarket. Just like you can't expect a child to pop out mum as a good person/citizen. The reform is a quick fix that punishes the rest of society who smack but don't beat their children. There are other laws that could be put in place (ie defining reasonable force), and banning something is not the way to solve it. People who abuse their children don't think about laws. If everyone obeyed the laws we wouldn't have prisons.

Also people who claim children need the same rights as adults. Well last time I checked it's not my job to raise adults. Society trusts me as a parent to make my children fit into the norm of society (obey the laws, get a job etc). Now I agree smacking isn't the only way, but it's one of many tools and parents need to keep their options open. Look at schools compared to 40 years ago. Aren't they just doing the best :innocent:

[MisterD]

It's about giving kids the same rights as adults.

Yeah lets give kids the same rights as adults...to vote, drink, drive...

Someone needs to produce a "stupid anti-smacking argument bingo" card for these threads...

[EJK]

No doubt this has been debated on mass here on KB so Mods feel free to merge this.

I got an envelope today. Its asking me whether to vote for "Should a smack be" ....blah blah blah. You know the rest.

I dont have kids so what the heck gives me the right to decide what parent out there should or shouldnt do? Personally I say NONE!

I am a big believer in dont vote dont complain but this ones got me stumped.

Oh that letter? We recieved it too, but my father used it to lit up firewood.

[sidecar bob]

I discussed the contents of said envolope with my two kids, aged 7 & 9 & asked them what they thought should happen.
They both decided that they would rather allow the smacking, because is was considered less inconvienient than the alternatives.

[Street Gerbil]

Personally I have experienced both. My dad has given me some thrashings that would have landed him behind bars in a modern New Zealand. Imagine that: he actually applied a belt to my rear quarters when I deserved it. My mom was an opponent of that approach. She often boasted that she could put her children in their places without lifting a finger.

I am in a great relationship with my dad. He's done a great job of teaching me to stay out of trouble without the bubble wrap. My mom... I have not spoken to her for quarter century. I will never be able to get over the humiliation she has been subjecting me to. As for smacking... the pain goes away quickly, but the lesson sticks.

[Trudes]

It may be a big fat yawn to read all of these, but it really is quite interesting if you're actually interested.
Parliament debates and Readings of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/b/1/6/47HansD_20050727_00001406-Crimes-Abolition-of-Force-as-a-Justification.htm
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/1/8/2/48HansD_20070328_00001170-Crimes-Substituted-Section-59-Amendment.htm
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/3/d/e/48HansD_20070314_00001195-Crimes-Substituted-Section-59-Amendment.htm
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/3/f/6/48HansD_20070502_00000954-Crimes-Substituted-Section-59-Amendment.htm
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/5/3/0/48HansD_20070221_00001185-Crimes-Abolition-of-Force-as-a-Justification.htm
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/0/8/8/48HansD_20070516_00001041-Crimes-Substituted-Section-59-Amendment.htm

The Referendum
http://yesvote.org.nz/files/2009/04/s59-briefing-sheet-20090427.pdf
http://yesvote.org.nz/referendum/
http://voteno.org.nz/

[Magua]

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/0F294939-83D6-486C-B0DF-BEB956729AF6/94184/DBHOH_BILL_6844_3929998.pdf

I found this to be a good summary document if you don't have the time for all the above links.

"We consider that there is widespread misunderstanding about the
purpose and possible results of the bill as introduced. We do not
consider that the repeal of section 59 will lead to the prosecution of
large numbers of parents and persons in the place of parents in New
Zealand. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, we have recommended
amendments to the bill to clarify that parents may use
reasonable force in some circumstances, but not for the purpose of
correction. We note that there are several potential offences directly
related to the care of children that are rarely prosecuted. Such an
example is if a caregiver sends a child to its room against its will,
this technically constitutes kidnapping under section 209 of the
Crimes Act. However, the police are not regularly prosecuting parents
for this. We consider that logic dictates the police will adopt a
similar approach to parents who use minor physical discipline following
the changes to section 59.
We do not believe that the changes we have proposed to section 59
of the Act will lead to a large increase in convictions or the removal
of children from their families for the use of minor physical discipline."

[scracha]

2 THINGS
on monday our Mr 13 had a total meltdown. F ing and blinding at his mother. He's about 60mm taller than her now. He made it clear that she couldn't hit him but if he chose to he could hit her --and no concequences.

You can still beat them up if it's self defence.

Seriously, if I'd so much as hinted at lifting a hand to my mother I'm pretty sure one of her mates would have seriously given me a (well deserved) kick in the teeth. A lot easier and cheaper than all this "bootcamp" bullshit too.

[PrincessBandit]

Kids are NOT miniature adults. If you look even at the animal kingdom babies and youngsters cannot expect "adult" status and rights.

With human beings there is also a natural "pecking order" whether people like it or not. Children DO NOT have the same skills, reasoning powers, ability to judge (actions and consequences) etc. as adults. Yes, we are raising FUTURE adults, but they have not achieved that status yet.

No, there is never any justification for beating the living daylights out of a child, and to do so just because you're bigger and can is abhorrent. But even children are savvy enough to know when the punishment is deserved, and the whole idea of punishment is to make it unpleasant enough so it's a deterent. Punishment which is effectively a non-event is a waste of time.

I'm a firm believer in being clued into what has the most impact on your children. For some it IS a physical smack. others it might be withdrawal of privileges. At school almost all students I've seen would rather have a detention ('cos then they're just hanging out with their mates half the time anyway) than have their precious mp3 player taken off them. I go for confiscation 100% of the time because I know it pisses them off the most!

Treated my children the same way. This meant that smacking could be reserved for the very worst offences, and didn't have to be used all that often.

[Mully]

very good post about common sense

But half the problem is if some do-gooding wowser sees you smack your child (having not seen the child try to run onto the road) and reports you to the Police.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Police are the obliged to investigate if a complaint is made? Tying up valuable resources and frankly embarrasing the parents who, let's face it, have done nothing wrong.

[James Deuce]

What precisely is it saying Indy, bearing in mind that if you have to type out even the faintest interpretation of the question, you've failed to make your point?

[kit]

[QUOTE=Clockwork;1129341545]Since when did society think children should have the same rights as adults? Should we let them drive, marry or have sex, vote, own guns. Maybe we shouldn't compel them to go to school, maybe we should pay them the dole if they choose to opt out.



Damn Straight!!!!!!


The thing is its the principal of the matter.... The taking away of parental rights!!!! Most of nz signed a petition against this law...... but they went ahead with it anyway.....I thought we lived in a country that was a democrasy not a dictatorship! (obviously NOt) Some people choose to bring up there kids without smacking them, and some people choose to smack them, its all about the choice. It never hurt me, and it never hurt my daughter as a way to correct behaviour in a hurry.:spanking:

This Law wont stop those people who beat their kids....is there a reduced rate in child abuse since this law has been brought in?