Smacking Bill again

[mashman]

Looks like there are people that want this sorted.

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/7004377/poll-shows-support-for-smacking-law-change/

Whilst the article says that only 2 people have been prosecuted. Family First have been producing the "overviews" of the cases and in several instances, more than 2, they list PROSECUTED next to the case... Someone's telling porkies...

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Smacking_Cases

[rainman]

Why does this matter so much to some people?

And BTW, a poll by Curia (Nat's tame polling co) and some "facts" quoted by Family First are unlikely to be seen as fair and balanced, if that's what you were going for.

[bogan]

Wasnt there a referendum that was 80% in favour of overturning the law?

[mashman]

Why does this matter so much to some people?

And BTW, a poll by Curia (Nat's tame polling co) and some "facts" quoted by Family First are unlikely to be seen as fair and balanced, if that's what you were going for.

Have you seen what kids are capable of? This is kids we're talking about here... ya know, thems with know knowledge... how do you instill boundaries in a child that is adamant that they know it all becauswe they can think? Shout at them? Did you read the cases on the family first site... the comments of the kids, the rend in the family unit because punishment/discipline/whatever you call it was being administered by the one person who knows the child best... This shows how out of touch with the people these fuckers in their Beehive are... and how dare they tell me how to bring up my child when they'd struggle to even name her... let alone know what "punishment" works for her... It's a disgrace... and teachers, police, firemen, the public etc... all pay for it in one way or another....



Wasnt there a referendum that was 80% in favour of overturning the law?


Yup, but they DONT have to act on it, apparantly... it wasn't seen as a binding referendum

[SPORK]

Smacking Bill again?

I can think of a few Bills that could do with it.

[Maki]

Poor Bill.

[bogan]

Yup, but they DONT have to act on it, apparantly... it wasn't seen as a binding referendum

shows what the politicians think of public opinion though doesn't it. Simply having majority isn't enough, I gotta wonder how it can be overturned when they just ignore public opinion.

[mashman]

shows what the politicians think of public opinion though doesn't it. Simply having majority isn't enough, I gotta wonder how it can be overturned when they just ignore public opinion.

The problem is they think the law is working... at least that's what the party line is.

[Marmoot]

Whilst the article says that only 2 people have been prosecuted. Family First have been producing the "overviews" of the cases and in several instances, more than 2, they list PROSECUTED next to the case... Someone's telling porkies...

If there are only 2 people prosecuted so far:
- If the 2 are guilty, the law is not helping. The number of child abuse case in NZ is far above 2 and that law is not helping.
- If the law is not intended to help alleviate child abuse, the law is pointless, and thus is not needed.
- If the law is intended to help alleviate child abuse, clearly it is not working as intended.
- If the 2 are innocent, the law is not working as intended. No innocent citizen should be prosecuted by the proper law.

Weird....

[rainman]

Have you seen what kids are capable of? This is kids we're talking about here... ya know, thems with know knowledge... how do you instill boundaries in a child that is adamant that they know it all becauswe they can think? Shout at them? Did you read the cases on the family first site... the comments of the kids, the rend in the family unit because punishment/discipline/whatever you call it was being administered by the one person who knows the child best... This shows how out of touch with the people these fuckers in their Beehive are... and how dare they tell me how to bring up my child when they'd struggle to even name her... let alone know what "punishment" works for her... It's a disgrace... and teachers, police, firemen, the public etc... all pay for it in one way or another....

Well, in general it's a state prerogative to sanction and punish violence, so it's quite within normal practice for the state to tell you that you can't beat your kids. They tell you that you can't beat adults, don't they?

And yes, I know a fair bit about kids, and have two of my own - who are fairly well-adjusted, happy and co-operative. Yes, we occasionally have "boundary-pushing" issues (one of my kids is 11 :) )

These issues aren't best addressed by smacking, and usually not even by yelling (sometimes, but hey, I'm human). When I was a kid I was generally not smacked (maybe when I was very young, can't remember), and I haven't generally smacked my kids (certainly not for years and years). If you have to smack, "ur doin it rong". Kids are more likely to respect the boundaries you set when you love them, listen to them (not obey them, not hear them, but listen to them), treat them like valuable people in their own right, and respect them. Some will play up whatever you do - but smacking doesn't help here either.

Parenting's a grand game of negotiation - not forcing them to your will. And no-one said it was easy, buddy.


If there are only 2 people prosecuted so far:
- If the 2 are guilty, the law is not helping. The number of child abuse case in NZ is far above 2 and that law is not helping.
- If the law is not intended to help alleviate child abuse, the law is pointless, and thus is not needed.
- If the law is intended to help alleviate child abuse, clearly it is not working as intended.
- If the 2 are innocent, the law is not working as intended. No innocent citizen should be prosecuted by the proper law.

You missed a case:
- If 2 people are guilty and would formerly have escaped prosecution under S59, then the law is working.

S59 repeal will not eradicate child abuse in NZ. Nor will smacking, as it happens. The remedy with the best chance of success is actually greater social equality, and improved economic circumstances for the lowest socio-economic groups. Preferably through greater employment. Be nice to see some policy heading in that direction, but I'm not holding my breath.

[SPman]

FFS! What is the big deal? It's not an "anti smacking bill" - it's a bill designed to do away with the excuse of disciplining a child as an excuse for assault and thuggery on a child! All parties agreed on it and voted for it - why do some people seem so incensed about that - do they actually enjoy people beating up kids and then getting off by claiming "parental correction"! Are they so blinded by hatred they can't see the intent or are they just fucking stupid!
Sick fuckers!

[Mudfart]

its a joke. NZ where everything is so pc, its insane. except for acceptable violence. we love it.
we have one of the highest murder rates per capita in the world. and we love to make others hurt, scared, feel the pain. biatch.
oh yes in my own little existence, i can make someone who is 1/4 my weight and size fear me, yeah bring it on. I so wish that was my work collegues, who coincidentally im not allowed to sort issues out anymore with violence, but used to be!.
god save NZ......
because we have fucked it up.

[MisterD]

FFS! What is the big deal? It's not an "anti smacking bill" - it's a bill designed to do away with the excuse of disciplining a child as an excuse for assault and thuggery on a child! All parties agreed on it and voted for it - why do some people seem so incensed about that - do they actually enjoy people beating up kids and then getting off by claiming "parental correction"! Are they so blinded by hatred they can't see the intent or are they just fucking stupid!
Sick fuckers!

Do we have to go over this all again? What incenses people, is that the left-wing social-engineering types used a couple of freak jury decisions as a basis to legislate away a parent's right to discipline their children as they see fit. It was never about protecting children for Bradford, it was about increasing state control into the home.

Laws should reflect society's beliefs not be used as a blunt instrument to try to change them - a law that most people think is wrong, or will ignore, is a stupid law.

I'll repeat, kids need three things:
Love
Boundaries
Consequences for crossing those boundaries

The anti-smacking crowd should be focussing their attention on why too many children (especially those of Maori and beneficiaries) don't get item (1) and quit worrying about how some parents choose to apply item (3).

[mashman]

Children are different and as such some can be dealt with using reason, some using shouting and some using a smack... some are beaten black and blue, shoved in as drier etc... beaten with a stick and so on... I understand what the law is attempting to do... but the fact that the Police, Courts, CYF's etc... need clarification under the law as to what is deemed "reasonable" force... how can they then pursue a conviction? Make it a zero tolerance law... What's the damage to the child from not receiving a smack on the bum? in future years the child may well become uncontrolable at school? the child may repeatedly smack other kids (they don't just see this at home)? the limit is the imagination... What's the damage of investigations... check out the FAMILY FIRST SITE ABOVE...

Personally yes. I smack my children. Have I ever done it as a knee jerk reaction. Yes, once or twice and I beg for forgiveness, instantly, in exactly the same way as I would have of for "hurting" any member of my family, or society for that matter, if I was wrong... My kids are severely traumatised by my approach to parenting (sarcasm)... my 18yr old has had a terrible time with repressed memories... So bad he's gone to University, flies half way around the world to see his family and hugs me whenever we meet etc... everyone he meets loves him, he really must be insecure and worried that i'll start beating him now that he's older...

How often do I smack my children. Maybe once a week, perhaps twice. How often do I warn them before I smack them... EVERYTIME... they know what's coming, but they are testing their limits as far as I'm concerned... no more no less...

[Marmoot]

You missed a case:
- If 2 people are guilty and would formerly have escaped prosecution under S59, then the law is working.


You're missing my case. If they are, then how come there's only two while during such period so many kids were abused, despite this law being said as "functioning as intended".

[Marmoot]

You missed a case:
- If 2 people are guilty and would formerly have escaped prosecution under S59, then the law is working.


You're missing my case. If they are, then how come there's only two while during such period so many kids were abused, despite this law being said as "functioning as intended".

[Magua]

we have one of the highest murder rates per capita in the world.
.

Perhaps you'd like to substantiate this claim? Because frankly that's a load of shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[Tank]

I smack my kids. Sometimes just to remind them who's the boss.

Sadly - the oldest boy is now 6'2" and pretty strong - I'm beginning to think about retirement.

[Mudfart]

Perhaps you'd like to substantiate this claim? Because frankly that's a load of shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

yeah thats a good source, 2 murders in 2005, and thats it? my information was read in the herald on sunday, and whilst perhaps exaggerating, we were somewhere around the middle of the graph, however there were a lot of countries well behind us, with much higher populations.

[rainman]

I smack my children....my 18yr old...How often do I smack my children. Maybe once a week, perhaps twice.

You smack your 18 year old? Dunno if you're brave or stupid! :)

Seriously, how old are the kids that you are beating? And do you honestly expect me to believe that your hitting them once or twice a week means you have no other options, and does not mean that you may have anger and control issues?


You're missing my case. If they are, then how come there's only two while during such period so many kids were abused, despite this law being said as "functioning as intended".

Because I understand what the law does. This law can not eliminate child abuse (as should be obvious to anyone with an IQ in double digits). Re-read my post above.

[Marmoot]

This law can not eliminate child abuse (as should be obvious to anyone with an IQ in double digits). Re-read my post above.

exactly, so what's the point.

P.S.
Maybe it's too bad my IQ is not double-digit. It's triple-digit. 142 to be exact, according to the latest official test. But my sympathy to you if yours is. Or, maybe it is why you're missing my point. Let me know if you want me to explain in simpler way. I can try my best.

[rainman]

exactly, so what's the point.

P.S.
Maybe it's too bad my IQ is not double-digit. It's triple-digit. 142 to be exact, according to the latest official test. But my sympathy to you if yours is. Or, maybe it is why you're missing my point. Let me know if you want me to explain in simpler way. I can try my best.

OK, perhaps my being rude was uncalled for - my apologies, it's been a shit day. Week, probably.

But my point is clear - this act will not eliminate child abuse, and I don't think it was ever credibly claimed that it would. It removes a (possibly over-used) defence for child assault - which is surely a good thing in itself? You're the one claiming it's the cure to child abuse (or it has no value).

And don't believe IQ tests too readily. I had a Wechsler test a few years ago. Very instructive.

[Marmoot]

But my point is clear - this act will not eliminate child abuse, and I don't think it was ever credibly claimed that it would. It removes a (possibly over-used) defence for child assault - which is surely a good thing in itself? You're the one claiming it's the cure to child abuse (or it has no value).

I didn't. I was just highlighting the fact that it did neither reduce and/or discourage child abuse, and/or help prosecute the perpetrators of child abuse.
i.e., It is meaningless, pointless, and potentially prosecuting the wrong crowd.

P.S.
Apologies accepted. Short week like this can be hectic for everyone.

[Usarka]

Why does this matter so much to some people?


Because it's shit legislation that could have been written better on a fag packet that was used as an emergency panty liner by aunt melda as she sunk 15 rum and cokes while playing the pokies.

[crazyhorse]

Sounds like a game - can I smack Bill too ???? :rofl:

How many times can we smack him? Do we all get to have turns? Won't he get sore? When should we stop? LOL

[Magua]

yeah thats a good source, 2 murders in 2005, and thats it? my information was read in the herald on sunday, and whilst perhaps exaggerating, we were somewhere around the middle of the graph, however there were a lot of countries well behind us, with much higher populations.

You would see that it was two people per hundred thousand if you actually read it, not two people in the nation.

[mashman]

Yes my 18yr old has been smacked by me... the last time about 12+ years ago... good jump to the wrong conclusion though... Do you class a smack is a full blooded pelt on the arse? or is that a beating. How do you class a half strngth smack though, against a bum protected by a nappy? how about a quater strength smack? eight, sxteenth... it's either zero tolerance or back the fuck off to be honest. Do you really think I'm that callous, that I would beat my kids... I love them whole heartedly and hopefully they'll grow up with a polite, caring and respectful manner towards people and their opinions... you bring your perfect children up the way you like... i'll bring mine up the way I like and in a way that isn't damaging to them.

[Pixie]

Leave William alone

[rainman]

good jump to the wrong conclusion though...

You may have missed that smiley thingy at the end of my sentence.


Do you really think I'm that callous, that I would beat my kids... I love them whole heartedly and hopefully they'll grow up with a polite, caring and respectful manner towards people and their opinions... you bring your perfect children up the way you like... i'll bring mine up the way I like and in a way that isn't damaging to them.

No, honestly, I don't, and I'm sure you love them deeply and will indeed bring them up the way you see fit. But once or twice a week is a bit... real, y'know?

I'm just saying there are options you may not be considering. And that getting your blood pressure up over this law change reduces the likelihood that you will consider them, as it is very polarising.

And my kids aren't perfect - no humans are - but their imperfections aren't best addressed by me hitting them.

[mashman]

You may have missed that smiley thingy at the end of my sentence. oh may I have :shifty:..


But once or twice a week is a bit... real, y'know?

Maybe you don't spend enough time with your kids :shifty:... Honestly, that once or twice will be spread across 3 children... but I'm pretty sure there are some kids out there who receive just as much love and attention from their parents and receive harsher penalties... like taking their love away from the child (should be outlawed)... maybe smacking them once a day... and I bet the kids will turn out with very similar sunny dispositions...



I'm just saying there are options you may not be considering. And that getting your blood pressure up over this law change reduces the likelihood that you will consider them, as it is very polarising.


So now I'm a bad parent am I :rofl:... My wife and myself discipline our children very differently (maybe it's the inconsistency :shutup:)... she uses the reasoning, the naughty step, timeout, shouting and any other method she can lay her hands on... I offer the kids an alternative and they stop doing what they're doing... IF, my wife finds a way to discipline the kids without "physical" intervention... then I will adopt it...



And my kids aren't perfect - no humans are - but their imperfections aren't best addressed by me hitting them.

Depends on the child.

This legislation means I can be banged up, because I'm mistreating my children... and it's the intolerance of the law maker that can turn me into a criminal... and it's wrong

[rainman]

My wife and myself discipline our children very differently (maybe it's the inconsistency :shutup:)... she uses the reasoning, the naughty step, timeout, shouting and any other method she can lay her hands on... I offer the kids an alternative and they stop doing what they're doing... IF, my wife finds a way to discipline the kids without "physical" intervention... then I will adopt it...

We might have to end up disagreeing on this topic, but I can't but help pick up on your comment above. Sounds like your wife has found several ways to discipline the kids without physical intervention. I suspect if you allow yourself to see these as valid forms of discipline then your problem may be solved. But good luck with it.

[mashman]

We might have to end up disagreeing on this topic, but I can't but help pick up on your comment above. Sounds like your wife has found several ways to discipline the kids without physical intervention. I suspect if you allow yourself to see these as valid forms of discipline then your problem may be solved. But good luck with it.

We are disagreeing on this one... I have no problem with that... Perhaps I should have added, "that works" to the end of the quote eralier... I know full well that they're valid forms of discipline, I'm not naive enough to think that a smack will cure all, or that logic and reason will cure all, or that a baseball bat will cure all... but in my eyes, if they aren't working in our household, then I need to try something tried and tested from some 18 years ago until something "better" comes along... perhaps we need professional help, like Supernanny (go on, dare ya to say ya wouldn't :yes:)...

[Fatjim]

OK, perhaps my being rude was uncalled for - my apologies, it's been a shit day. Week, probably.

But my point is clear - this act will not eliminate child abuse, and I don't think it was ever credibly claimed that it would. It removes a (possibly over-used) defence for child assault - which is surely a good thing in itself? You're the one claiming it's the cure to child abuse (or it has no value).

And don't believe IQ tests too readily. I had a Wechsler test a few years ago. Very instructive.

This is an anti smacking law. If I smack my child in front of a police officer I can expect to be prosecuted under this law. Can I not?

I choose to smack my children, and that's my choice. My children also know what will happen if they complain. My children would rather be smacked on the bum for being way out of line, than lose their father.

The difficulty now is that I now longer in good conscience can teach my children to obey the law, because I apparently don't. I hope the moral guidance and example I give them will allow them to live happy lives despite this. For those on this site, and there are many, who don't believe in morals, I apologise.

[mashman]

For those on this site, and there are many, who don't believe in morals, I apologise. Heretic!!!!! or whatever the common word is these days... BURN HIM

[rainman]

The difficulty now is that I now longer in good conscience can teach my children to obey the law, because I apparently don't.

Well, you could always start.

[Skyryder]

Oh no not another smacking thread.................................boring boring boring.



Skyryder

[Squiggles]

shows what the politicians think of public opinion though doesn't it. Simply having majority isn't enough, I gotta wonder how it can be overturned when they just ignore public opinion.

It was a fucken stupid question...

[bogan]

It was a fucken stupid question...

I agree it was poorly worded, but surely in the leaders infinite wisdom they would have realized this before sending said question to millions of people, I reckon the question was rigged to be a cop out, and it wasn't even that hard to understand.

[Squiggles]

I agree it was poorly worded, but surely in the leaders infinite wisdom they would have realized this before sending said question to millions of people

It was the petition question, they had to ask it exactly as it was worded.

[Oscar]

I agree it was poorly worded, but surely in the leaders infinite wisdom they would have realized this before sending said question to millions of people, I reckon the question was rigged to be a cop out, and it wasn't even that hard to understand.


The referendum question has to be asked as the petition was worded.
Imagine the outcry if the wording was changed for the referendum.

[mashman]

So nothing has been learned because not only are the agencies disjointed, they aren't tracking the cases and families are being hurt by this and the "prevention" the bill was supposed to bring about hasn't worked. And to think the majority of the population to the govt to shove it.

Child assault complaints on the rise (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/10373542/child-assault-complaints-on-the-rise/)

CYF masking effects of smacking law (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/10372735/cyf-masking-effects-of-smacking-law/)

[Usarka]

Who's Bill?