'Smacking ban' to be passed?

[jrandom]

See Herald article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10411719).

When I think about the proposal, I find myself not having a problem with it, to my surprise. My only hope is that more of the quiet and horrific physical abuse that screws up too many of the nation's children will be brought out into the open as a result, and its perpetrators dealt with sternly.

I don't remember receiving a single wallop as a child that did me a bit of good. In fact, residual resentment from the regular corporal punishment my parents used to hand out when I was a wee 'un contributed a lot toward my significant falling-out with them in my later teenage years.

I now have a three-year-old and a four-year-old, both of whom collapse and comply immediately under a frown and growl if I ever need them to. I haven't laid a hand on them in years. A couple of slaps on the bum prior to their second birthdays reinforced everything that'll ever be needed.

Any parent who still needs to hit their child after age five to control them has fucked up and spawned a waste of oxygen.

[Indiana_Jones]

I have no objections to smacking, I plan to use it if/when I become a father.

I want to use the belt >8D

-Indy

[jrandom]

I have no objections to smacking, I plan to use it if/when I become a father.

Thanks for that insightful little pearl of wisdom, Indy. I was wondering what your opinion would be. Glad we've got that sorted out.

[Indiana_Jones]

Thanks for that insightful little pearl of wisdom, Indy. I was wondering what your opinion would be. Glad we've got that sorted out.

Don't mention it :D

-Indy

[ZorsT]

I have no objections to smacking, I plan to use it if/when I become a father.

-Indy

Ditto.

If theres one thing that everone understands, its pain.

[MSTRS]

See Herald article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10411719).

When I think about the proposal, I find myself not having a problem with it, to my surprise. My only hope is that more of the quiet and horrific physical abuse that screws up too many of the nation's children will be brought out into the open as a result, and its perpetrators dealt with sternly.

I don't remember receiving a single wallop as a child that did me a bit of good. In fact, residual resentment from the regular corporal punishment my parents used to hand out when I was a wee 'un contributed a lot toward my significant falling-out with them in my later teenage years.

I now have a three-year-old and a four-year-old, both of whom collapse and comply immediately under a frown and growl if I ever need them to. I haven't laid a hand on them in years. A couple of slaps on the bum prior to their second birthdays reinforced everything that'll ever be needed.

Any parent who still needs to hit their child after age five to control them has fucked up and spawned a waste of oxygen.

What a good thing you got in before the Bill, then. You child abuser, you. You do realise that the damage is done?? Your kids will grow up to be anti-social abusers too.
:Pokey:

[Deano]

A couple of slaps on the bum prior to their second birthdays reinforced everything that'll ever be needed.


But that's illegal now isn't it ?

[jrandom]

I want to use the belt

When I was about six, I crept into my parents' bedroom with a pair of scissors one night after they were asleep, took the leather belt my dad had beaten me with earlier that day, cut it into a lot of little pieces, and put them into a little pile on the end of the bed to be discovered in the morning.

I can't remember precisely what was done to me in retribution, but I tell you what. It was fucking worth it.

[MSTRS]

.....But Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said the bill should "cause parents to shiver in their boots".

"We have just heard about the right of a teenager to effectively 'divorce' their parent because they don't like the family rules, a 12-year-old being sneaked off to get contraceptives by their school and now this bill.

"Parents should be horrified by the way their authority and responsibilities are being undermined."

NZ the way you want it? I don't think so.

[jrandom]

But that's illegal now isn't it ?

If you don't leave a mark and nobody sees you do it, how on earth are you going to get into trouble for smacking an under-two-year-old? They can't talk intelligibly enough to rat on you, and by the time they can, they will have forgotten it happened.

[Deano]

If you don't leave a mark

Ah, the old phone book treatment !!

[Hitcher]

There is a big difference between domestic violence and "smacking". My concern is that the proposed Bill assumes that these are the same thing.

Corporal punishment and the application thereof has a lot to do with its cultural context. Back in the antediluvian age before cellphones, like, when I went to secondary school, corporal punishment was not just the norm, it was an artform, with accompanying traditions, liturgy and doctrine. Its application was mandatory for all manner of offences both trivial and inane. And am I a better person for the application of bloodied welts to my arse? Who knows? But I fear the counterfactual.

[Lissa]

I think its a good thing.... Never smacked my children when they were under two though... I kind of think with toddlers you have to have a lot of patience and understanding, a smack on my two year old, I think she would be pretty shocked and upset if I did that, I would hate to see the look in her eyes, that her mummy 'hurt' her. I just hope that this bill stops the "abusers" the ones that dont smack ..... they punch, hit, kick etc, taking out their aggression on someone who cant defend themselves, and not for disipline but because they feel like it.

[MSTRS]

If you don't leave a mark and nobody sees you do it, how on earth are you going to get into trouble for smacking an under-two-year-old? They can't talk intelligibly enough to rat on you, and by the time they can, they will have forgotten it happened.

Aaaah...the old "If a tree fell in the forest & no-one was there to hear, did it make a noise?"

[jrandom]

... am I a better person for the application of bloodied welts to my arse?

Yes, Mr Gormsby.

[kickingzebra]

Ain't going to be any spoiled children in my house, let that imply what it will.

Well and good if a frown and growl is sufficient, and I shall endeavour that it will, but children still frequently excercise their own free will, and if this free will interferes with their own or others safety/humanity then a whack now is a far better alternative than police cells, because the jails are full in 15 years time.

Asides from which isn't the abuse by parents who simply do not respect their childrens humanity, put them down, refuse to support them, but still do not spank them, a far worse and more insidious problem?

These are breeding the children who grow into adults without compunction.
Laws against smacking are not, repeat not, going to put a stop to chronic physical abuse. Who ever thought before a hot blooded killing, that murder is illegal, even when provoked??

Likewise, who ever thought stealing was a criminal offense first? No one. Self gratification is the first thought, and obviously, we already have laws a plenty for dealing with grievous harm to children, assaults on children etc.
Smacking and assault are not the same kettle of fish.

[MSTRS]

I think its a good thing.... ... I just hope that this bill stops the "abusers" the ones that dont smack ..... they punch, hit, kick etc, taking out their aggression on someone who cant defend themselves, and not for disipline but because they feel like it.

A forlorn hope, I fear.
Whilst not everyone is a Christian, the 10 Commandments are all that is needed for a fine society. 2000+ years later, and when in all that time did everyone comply? What will be different this time?

[jrandom]

isn't the abuse by parents who simply do not respect their childrens humanity, put them down, refuse to support them, but still do not spank them, a far worse and more insidious problem?

Let's solve one problem at a time. Got any ideas on addressing that one?


... we already have laws a plenty for dealing with grievous harm to children, assaults on children etc.

The 'reasonable force' defense adds complexity to the prosecution of offenders. Take it away, and more of them will get their just deserts.

[judecatmad]

If you don't leave a mark and nobody sees you do it, how on earth are you going to get into trouble for smacking an under-two-year-old? They can't talk intelligibly enough to rat on you, and by the time they can, they will have forgotten it happened.

Yeah, that may be so but you'll always get some curtain-twitching, interfering f*cker who sees you disciplining your child by giving a tap to the back of the legs and reports you. We will end up with parents who are afraid to discpline their kids for fear of prison (or having huge legal bills, which, let's face it, most strapped-for-cash parents couldn't afford).

I agree with not smacking after a certain age in ideal circumstances, but if you need to smack your child to instil a sense of discipline then so be it.

There's nothing at all wrong with a slap to bring you in to line. My dad used to put me over his knee after making me wait for hours, knowing it was going to happen. That's wrong. My mum used to give me a slap around the back of the legs with her bare hand when I was out of line - damn it used to sting, but it was over and done with. No anger, no multiple slaps, just short and sharp and I knew I had crossed the line.

Having an anti-smacking law isn't going to stop the Lillybing or Kahui twins type of child abuse, or the baby-shaking we hear so much of these days. All it will do is put well-meaning parents in prison or a world of financial hurt.

The police are trying to reassure us that prosecution won't follow reports of minor slaps, no matter what the new law ends up saying...I won't believe it til I see it.

[jrandom]

A forlorn hope, I fear.

Stop with the forlorn already.

"All that is required for evil to triumph..."

[jrandom]

The police are trying to reassure us that prosecution won't follow reports of minor slaps, no matter what the new law ends up saying...I won't believe it til I see it.

Why the cynicism? What possible motive could the police have for pursuing frivolous prosecutions?

[MSTRS]

Why the cynicism? What possible motive could the police have for pursuing frivolous prosecutions?

Could it be so that they are not seen to be anything but impartial upholders of the Law that will let the courts deal with it??

[Ixion]

The biggest mischief in this will come when relationships break up. Regardless of how private it may be, the open handed slap on the bum, ala Mr Fish to the sprats, is now a crime.

So when a relationship breaks up, and the partners get nasty to each other (as they do), one or other is going to throw in an accusation of criminal assault. And whilst a two year old may not be able to tattle, the same two year old two or three years later may still remember that "Mummy/Daddy hit me", when interrogated by those counsellors and psychologists who love to put words into childrens' mouths. Enter CYPS , exit any access to your children.

It will happen, nothing is more certain. Another weapon added to the divorce lawyers' amoury

[jrandom]

It will happen, nothing is more certain.

Of course. But if Family Court judges are stupid enough to let the kind of overtly manipulative situation you describe affect their judgement, then, well... I weep for society's lost sanity.

[jrandom]

Could it be so that they are not seen to be anything but impartial upholders of the Law that will let the courts deal with it??

They'll have to let a couple of test cases through to establish policy, but it should run smoothly after that. Bummer for the test cases, but then, life's a bitch. Whatcha gonna do?

[Fatjim]

Anybody who reports me for smacking my kids will get the shit beaten out of them!

[MisterD]

Yet again we're talking about a misguided piece of legislation which will criminalise the majority of normal law-abiders, whilst doing sweet fuck all to correct the problem it will allegedly solve......when will the hypocritical fuckwits in the Labour and Green Parties realise that they don't actually know better than everyone else?

Now that's a forlorn hope alright.


Edit: Just to clarify my position, I'm the father of an 8 month old and I'm not going to allow anyone who hasn't had kids at all or in the last 20 years to tell me how to raise mine. (Yes, that does include the Grandparents)

[MSTRS]

Of course. But if Family Court judges are stupid enough to let the kind of overtly manipulative situation you describe affect their judgement, then, well... I weep for society's lost sanity.

They do now. Ixion is right - these sort of situations will just be exacerbated by accusations then becoming a criminal matter.

[MisterD]

It will happen, nothing is more certain. Another weapon added to the divorce lawyers' amoury

As we can see from the Headley case, it already does. Why accuse your ex of smacking, when you can accuse them of worse?

[outlawtorn]

hmmm, methinks NZ is headed the way of the UK, soon the kids will be so full of shit and cocky because they know you cannot lift a fucking finger, hey they are already headed that way, if kids get caught nowadays being naughty or up to shit they get a slap with a wet bus ticket and told not to do it again, fuck me that'll stop the bastards!!!!

[Winston001]

Laws against smacking are not, repeat not, going to put a stop to chronic physical abuse. Who ever thought before a hot blooded killing, that murder is illegal, even when provoked??

Likewise, who ever thought stealing was a criminal offense first? No one.

I understand your point but disagree. Society has had laws against murder and stealing since before recorded history. Yet these crimes are still committed. In the face of that, should we just abandon all criminal laws? Let people do what they like because they "might" do it anyway?

Of course not. The only reason we have a society at all is because the vast majority of people stick to the rules because that provides a stable safe life for them.

As for the smacking, there is a lot of hysteria surrounding this. The main point is to have a social rule that bashing your kids is unacceptable. This is actually a new idea in some families and it will take a couple of generations to sink in.

Yes, there will always be a few pricks and bullies but is that any reason to give up on protecting children?

[Winston001]

The biggest mischief in this will come when relationships break up. Regardless of how private it may be, the open handed slap on the bum, is now a crime.

So when a relationship breaks up, and the partners get nasty to each other (as they do), one or other is going to throw in an accusation of criminal assault. And whilst a two year old may not be able to tattle, the same two year old two or three years later may still remember that "Mummy/Daddy hit me", when interrogated by those counsellors and psychologists who love to put words into childrens' mouths. Enter CYPS , exit any access to your children.

In the whole debate over the new law, this is the only point I'd agree with. Sadly you are right Ixion. Separated people will allege child abuse - but unfortunately what's new? They do that already. I had it happen to a mate who couldn't see his daughter for 3 months, until finally the mother admitted it wasn't true!!

The vagaries and viciousness of divorced parents is no reason not to do the right thing as a community.

[TLDV8]

Excellent policy.

The majority would would sit down and explain what a child had done wrong with the option in severe cases of smacking the child.

A minority beat and shake their children when they could leave the room,returning when they have come to their senses..Be that from stress,impatience or otherwise.

Some bunny hugger then comes up with a policy that will only affect those who were not the problem.

No doubt it's the same person who thought making vehicle registration non lapsing would get those who did not bother to suddenly start registering said vehicles.... Don't start me on firearm's.

Like a lot of things these days......Dealing with the symptom,not the cause...and it is worldwide.

Hmmm..

You can not smack a child.
You can not punish school children.
You can not punish at high school level.
The Police have minimal powers due to the law.
Commit a crime,get diversion.
Next stop..Hello Adult with integrity/respect built on sand.

:niceone:

[MSTRS]

Yes, there will always be a few pricks and bullies but is that any reason to give up on protecting children?
Protection was already there. Removing the 'reasonable force' clause without replacing it with something better defined (like "an open handed smack on the buttocks is OK") is simply lowering the crossbar to no good purpose. Nothing will improve - quite the contrary.

[Winston001]

Could it be so that they are not seen to be anything but impartial upholders of the Law that will let the courts deal with it??

The police daily decline to investigate complaints made to them on the basis of insufficent evidence or being a waste of time.

Lets be clear about Section 59 of the Crimes Act. The general law is that any touching or force applied to another person without their consent is assault. So if you hit your neighbour's child around the ear for being a cheeky little prick, that is assault.

But Section 59, until now, provided an exception for parents. If the neighbour hit his child instead of you, he'd have nothing to fear because he was exercising reasonable force in discipline.

Why was that? Both actions are clearly an assault. The previous law was an ass.

In the broader picture, the law said to the community that it wasn't acceptable to assault adults but perfectly alright to assault children - the smallest and most vulnerable people among us. That was nuts.

[Pwalo]

I don't get this piece of legislation. We already have laws in place that are adequate to deal with assault.

If you commit an assault against another person (be they male, female, young or old) you can already be charged under the existing laws. Parents have been.

I can't see how legislation such as this assists anyone but lawyers. It may make us look good in the eyes of the UN, but it just seems ill considered, or even worse stupid.

Legislation will not make a problem go away. All I can see that it will succeed in doing is adding another casue of anxiety for middle class parents, and another minefield for the family courts. Oh joy.

[mstriumph]

If you don't leave a mark and nobody sees you do it, how on earth are you going to get into trouble for smacking an under-two-year-old? They can't talk intelligibly enough to rat on you, and by the time they can, they will have forgotten it happened.

now THAT is 'pragmatism'

LOVE IT!!! :love:

[The Big J]

I used to share the sentiments of those who felt this law was PC Bullshit but having listened to a debate by Peter Dunne and Sue Bradford was surprised at how reasonable most of the steps seemed. Given the stretched state of CYFS and police to investigate cases an ability to draw the line at clearly ‘unreasonable force’ I think, is needed.
The catalyst for the legislation was the case of the mother who hit her child with some sort of wire cable who was able to defend the use under ‘reasonable force’. I would venture that very few NZers would accept that definition but with a good defence lawyer semantics can easily be argued. The law needs to be changed.
Taking away the leg to stand on for abusers allows police powers to intervene when clearly in this country it is clearly necessary in some cases. Proponents of the bill have clearly stated that the target is not your average smack on the bum. While many put this down to a bleeding heart liberal stand (and they may have a point to a degree), what about the damage done by allowing offenders of assault to hide behind this law? I will gladly give up my right to hit any children legally provided I see some of those cowards who abuse their children challenged and punished, severely.
Anyone campaigning for the right to discipline their child with physical force (which I agree with) should be looking at a way to define a principle where force can be applied in a parental way which will not lead to the flagrant abuse that goes with it. Not all children are lucky enough to live in a house where smacking is done with love and restraint. Not all adults have the self-control to smack effectively or purely out of discipline not anger.
Rant out.

ps while typing this some of my points have been made by others

[Ixion]

Of course. But if Family Court judges are stupid enough to let the kind of overtly manipulative situation you describe affect their judgement, then, well... I weep for society's lost sanity.

Weep. 'Twill offset the laughter of the lawyers on their way to the bank.But why condemn the judges. Parliament has now defined your "couple of slaps on the bum prior to their second birthdays" as criminal assault. If there is evidence of assault, a serious criminal offence punishable by imprisionment, the judges MUST take notice of it.

[mstriumph]

physical punishment when a child is over the age of two is lazy parenting

.. but there's nothing more effective than a short, sharp slap on the wrist to deter a little hand under that age that's reaching out towards a hot oven door ....

just my opinion

[The Big J]

physical punishment when a child is over the age of two is lazy parenting

.. but there's nothing more effective than a short, sharp slap on the wrist to deter a little hand under that age that's reaching out towards a hot oven door ....

just my opinion

that's allowed under the new legislation

[bobsmith]

Haha, if your kids are so stupid that they can't understand anything more intelligent than physical punishment, you should go jump off a cliff with your kids to protect the gene pool.

[oldrider]

I never bashed my kids. (never wanted to)
I know there is a consequence in criminal law should I have ever done so.
That does not intimidate me.
What would intimidate me would to have been judged by my children to have been guilty in their minds of having been criminally violent towards them during the time that they were in our care.
Their love and respect toward me and their mother for caring and guiding them through to adulthood successfully (in their minds) to now caring and nurturing their own children is all the reward and judgement that matters to me.
I don't need or want bloody government PC do gooder bastards in my home telling me how and where when or what I must do to raise my children.
Neither I nor my family belong to the government and as long as I abide within the laws of the country I do not want them in my life telling me what to do.
This anti smacking bill is just another excuse for government encroachment into the privacy of every ones home. There are enough laws now to deal with criminal behaviour.
Do you really want people like Sue Bradford and the bloody greens in your house telling you how to behave? For gods sake the woman is a bloody dead beat send her home to run her own house the way she wants and leave everyone else alone to run their own houses. (within the current and adequate laws that exist now!) Stupid bitch.
Really pissed off with these interfering PC do.......rant over! :shutup: (bastards) John.

[Ixion]

As we can see from the Headley case, it already does. Why accuse your ex of smacking, when you can accuse them of worse?


Simple enough. Very rarely will the "worse" allegations be true, and they can often be disproved (admittedly , at great financial and emotional cost).

But there will be many, perhaps most parents, good and loving ones, who will still, law or no law, resort to a time honoured (literal) slap on the wrist or leg . Which is now a serious criminal offence. The proponents of the Bill weasel round this by claiming "oh no, that's not what we mean". But mean it or not that's what the Bill does.

See a child poking a fork into the electric outlet , yet again, and administer a quick slap on the hand "No- bad , dangerous, I told you before" And you can go to gaol.

So henceforth, the allegations will be true. Which makes them much easier to make, and harder to disprove. As for the "oh the police won't take any notice" waffle. Bull excrement. Tell that to mr Carvell. People WILL go to gaol.

[The_Dover]

I dunno, I don't recall ever getting a hiding as a kid but there were times when I deserved it.

In fact if my old man could see me now sometime I reckon he's give it a go.

BUT, this is going to do absolutely fuck all in the fight against abuse and the result is that we're gonna see more and more disgusting little oiks walking the streets because they rule the roost at home and have no respect for authority.

Fuck, I'm 27 and I walk around going "Yound people these days"

That's what is sad.

[Ixion]

that's allowed under the new legislation

No it's not. To deter makes it "correction" which is speciically criminalised.

[The Big J]

does it? i might change my mind again!

[jrandom]

No it's not. To deter makes it "correction" which is speciically criminalised.

Just in case anybody who sees fit to hold forth here hasn't read the Bill:

Section 59 is repealed and the following section substituted:

"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)."

The select committee's comments (http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpprint/docs/bills/20062712.txt) are interesting:

The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services told us that it has various policies for dealing with situations that endanger children. It told us that it would expect the thresholds at which it removes children to remain the same if section 59 were repealed.

Also:

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.

[Fub@r]

physical punishment when a child is over the age of two is lazy parenting

.. but there's nothing more effective than a short, sharp slap on the wrist to deter a little hand under that age that's reaching out towards a hot oven door ....

just my opinion


that's allowed under the new legislation

Big J that is incorrect. Sue Bradford gave the example last night similar to the above:

If your child is running out in front of a car you CAN use reasonable force to grab the child and pull them away from the danger ie: getting squished. But if you follow it up with a slap of the child you ARE BREAKING THE LAW!

As far as I'm concerned there is nothing wrong with the current legislation.........what we have is a serious problem with the judges administering it. If a judge is going to allow a parent to use the defense of Reasonable Force when they have beaten their kid serverly, or with a weapon be it a cord, tool or whatever then we need to get rid of the judges.

I saw earlier comments about the Family Court above and how they will be able to sort the difference out. Anyone that thinks that obviously has not experienced the female biased family court system. Changing the law will just see more dad's being denied access to their kids due to false accusations.

Currently for example my ex could say I threatened her on the phone, she can instantly get a protection order which also prevents me seeing my son and I have no right to defend it. It will take 6 months to be able to defend it in which time I would have to complete an anti violence course and only get 2 hour supervised visits with my kid to which I would have to pay the court to supervise. And after all that prove its a crock of shit and the ex can just walk away scot free. Awesome Family system we have

[The Big J]

ok, granted I'm wrong.
there not so bad admitting that.
my real main point is I agree with doing something about child abuse. The critics may have valid points that I haven't maybe thought through. But I see little by way of alternative suggestions. The judges interpret the law. they have little to do with it.

[jrandom]

for example my ex could say...

My dislike for that sort of vicious behaviour is the reason I've always tried to avoid fucking manipulative slappers. Or, at least, tried to avoid breeding with them.

YMMV.

[terbang]

Spare the rod, spoil the child..! Or so they once said. My old man used to dish out some serious hidings to us boys and yep we got him back (let the brake off his tractor and rolled it downhill into a swamp). Our teachers caned the shit out of us (I got over 150 in one year) when we were at school. We hated them for it, wore 3 pairs of undies, put books into our pants and broke damn near every window in the school. Late night visits to the the rugby fields on our trail bikes also showed them our appreciation for the cane. My boss kicked my arse when I was an apprentice and the NCO's kicked us around when in the army. Did it make any difference. No, not positive or negative. Now I have kids and we have gone off the idea of smacking them and don't. Give that stupid labrador a whack across her thick hide every now and then but that doesn't seem to work either. People, like their dogs, tend to perform better when the motivation is positive rather than negative.

[Fub@r]

My dislike for that sort of vicious behaviour is the reason I've always tried to avoid fucking manipulative slappers. Or, at least, tried to avoid breeding with them.

YMMV.

Yeah but its not always apparent till quite some way down the track.

Prime example of my ex:

Organise holidays, she decides drop off time doesn't fit her social schedule, I maintain it stays the same as I had plans with my son. Go to drop him off noone home, all phones are off, go to her work, her parents etc everyone unavailable.

Go to local cop shop explain situation, also that I believe within next 48 hours she will try have me done for kidnapping. I take my son home.

Now drop off time +36 hours I get abusive call from ex about how she on her way to cops to get me arrested for kidnapping, told her what cop shop to go to and how they were expecting her (did not go down well) but damn lucky I covered my arse that day or I would've been strung up.

Only reason I cover my butt so well is that from my experience the family court is a total crock

[jrandom]

Yeah but its not always apparent till quite some way down the track.

My sympathies. I know. It really, really sucks. Women can only really hurt you if they have your money or your children, and unfortunately, they're pretty good at getting both.

What can you do, eh?

At least you don't have to live with her any more.

[Motu]

You don't need to smack a child to abuse them.....come and stay with me for a weekend and I'll open the window so you can hear what goes on next door.I don't think they actualy get off their arse to hit the kids,but the verbal abuse is brutal....even if they don't know what a ''fucking little cunt'' is,they get the tone.And the neglect,sigh - at least if they got smacked it would mean someone was noticing what they were doing,my kittens get a thousand times more attention from their mother,and they are called animals....

[MSTRS]

I used to share the sentiments of those who felt this law was PC Bullshit but having listened to a debate by Peter Dunne and Sue Bradford was surprised at how reasonable most of the steps seemed.

Yep. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
As others have said - do not believe that no action will be taken against a parent who smacks. This law change is not about protecting children. It is all about control of the adult. And will do nothing in those (abuse) cases that have always occurred.

[yungatart]

I am vehemently opposed to child abuse, however I believe God gave children well padded buttocks for the purpose of administering discipline, although it was infrequently used in our house. Other things can, but do not always work - it depends on the child/cicrumstances etc.
But, what does this law do to protect the likes of the Kahui twins, Delcelia Whittaker, James Whakararu, ad infinitum, ad nauseum... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Those kids, and the hundreds like them are afforded no more protection under this law, than they were under the old law. They still have to be assaulted before anything is done to keep them safe.
Compulsory parenting licences and forced education of some of our parents would have achieved far more than making decent, caring parents in to criminals

[mstriumph]

You don't need to smack a child to abuse them.....come and stay with me for a weekend and I'll open the window so you can hear what goes on next door.I don't think they actualy get off their arse to hit the kids,but the verbal abuse is brutal....even if they don't know what a ''fucking little cunt'' is,they get the tone.And the neglect,sigh - at least if they got smacked it would mean someone was noticing what they were doing,my kittens get a thousand times more attention from their mother,and they are called animals....

is there a reason you don't dob?

no disrespect intended - just curious

[Lou Girardin]

Modern society is a tribute to Benjamin Spock and his permissive child upbringing theory's.
This law will be just as successful. I can just see all the child abusers saying "I better not beat the shit out of the kid now that it's illegal".

[kickingzebra]

Family Court judges... stupid

Have you not heard the stories of those who have been there done that? There are a million and one ways to beat the system that even the stupidest of off beat parents knows.

I cannot and will not trust my children to the court system, doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that they don't know what the heck they are doing, likewise CYFs etc. People who intend well, but can't and don't understand what impact their heavy handed tactics have!

When I was a young guy I had to spend hours and hours and hours with these people trying to convince them I had never been arse raped by a person who eventually they stuck something to anyway. How many ways of saying NO can a child expect to know?!

I have no respect for those people, and ones like them. That was suring the Kiddy Fucker witch hunt of my youth, well, bring on another witch hunt, the bad parent one. As I say, the parents that care enough about their children to use any means neccesary to stop bad behaviour will go down in their droves, carted off to prison, and the caregivers who repeatedly abuse children in other ways will be laughing all the way to the graves of the families that have been broken.

New laws will never solve the inherant problems in humanity. I suspect better methods will be to better fund the organisations who care about the family - Parenting with confidence, Plunket etc, and include behavioural training in things like antenatal classes/post birth visits.

Support for parents who are at the end of a long tether is going to be cheaper in the long run, and easier to administer than big kicks in the arse for those who don't tow a line drawn in the sand by a half blind elephant.

[WINJA]

This Is Indeed Sad News , Im Gonna Give My Kid A Few Bashes B4 The Bill Is Passed Preemting All The Bad Shit Hes Gonna Do For 18 Years , Conversly I Can Save It All Up For Holiday Time And When We Go To Fiji Ill Give Hime One Years Worth Of Bashings Over A 2 Week Period , Holidays Gonna Suck For Him

[Indiana_Jones]

That's right Peter, and if your kids give you any lip you can beat them with a sack of sweet Velency Oranges. They won't leave a bruise and it'll let 'em know who's boss.

:D

-Indy

[JimO]

stopping smacking isnt going to stop the retards from bashing their kids to death

[Grahameeboy]

I am just worried how Dover feels about the news......

[Winston001]

The point of changing the law is to shift social attitudes. At present some people think it is fine to bash their kids - the case where a vacuum cleaner cord was used (referred to above) and the parent acquitted is a good example.

Children die weekly in NZ at the hands of those who are supposed to love and care for them.

The new law will be ignored by some but over time attitudes will change.

Look at homosexual law reform and all the hysterical cries against that. It happened anyway. The sky didn't fall in and slowly social attitudes shifted.

[oldrider]

I dunno, I don't recall ever getting a hiding as a kid but there were times when I deserved it.

In fact if my old man could see me now sometime I reckon he's give it a go.

BUT, this is going to do absolutely fuck all in the fight against abuse and the result is that we're gonna see more and more disgusting little oiks walking the streets because they rule the roost at home and have no respect for authority.

Fuck, I'm 27 and I walk around going "Young people these days"

That's what is sad.

Hey if your old man wants a stand in tell him I will volunteer to do the whacking for him just as long as he gets the retribution not me.(lol) (I bruise to easy)
There is nothing wrong with the young people of today, they are every bit as good (or even better) as them in the "good ole days".
The percentage of fuckwits among them seems bigger because there are more of them and the media has much more effect today than it did in the good ole days.
I dislike hearing the older generation berating the young today as if they themselves were better examples of proper behaviour and manners compared to kids today.
What bullshit the cheeky buggers were just the same as the kids today and I was there to witness a lot of it.
Life is harder for the kids today too but they handle it pretty well, all things considered. (In my opinion anyway).
27! shit I am 40yrs older than you, better disregard the offer of assistance to your father, he might have to assist me! :shit: Cheers John.

[Laava]

This legislation is being pushed thru by the people that need the smacking most!:spanking:

[bobsmith]

The point of changing the law is to shift social attitudes. At present some people think it is fine to bash their kids - the case where a vacuum cleaner cord was used (referred to above) and the parent acquitted is a good example.

Children die weekly in NZ at the hands of those who are supposed to love and care for them.

The new law will be ignored by some but over time attitudes will change.

Look at homosexual law reform and all the hysterical cries against that. It happened anyway. The sky didn't fall in and slowly social attitudes shifted.

Oh... okay... so the government is trying to change how people think.... right... just like they're trying to make people think that being completly uneducated unintelligent idiots are okay with the NCEA system so over time people will forget what intelligence and civilised society is all about...

[Indiana_Jones]

Oh... okay... so the government is trying to change how people think.... right... just like they're trying to make people think that being completly uneducated unintelligent idiots are okay with the NCEA system so over time people will forget what intelligence and civilised society is all about...

This labour govt no. 1 hobby is social engineering, well after stealing your money :sunny:

-Indy

[ghost]

The point of changing the law is to shift social attitudes. At present some people think it is fine to bash their kids - the case where a vacuum cleaner cord was used (referred to above) and the parent acquitted is a good example.

Children die weekly in NZ at the hands of those who are supposed to love and care for them.

The new law will be ignored by some but over time attitudes will change.

Look at homosexual law reform and all the hysterical cries against that. It happened anyway. The sky didn't fall in and slowly social attitudes shifted.

Its only a good example of the court system reaching the wrong conclusion. Changing another law to try to cover the incompetence of jury's or judges cant and wont stop this.

Kids die at the hands of fuckwits who treat them as a cash cow for welfare or retards so self absorbed in themselves they cant care about anything else.

To a "normal" person there is a huge difference between a smack and beating a child. this law will make criminals out of "normal" people and do nothing to resolve the arsewipes who beat children.

As its the proposed law stands, it makes no sense and is far to ambiguous and should be scrapped. Either repel the current law or let it stand and start procecuting people properly.

[Big Dave]

If I got a 2 year old that wants to stick a fork in the power point I'm smacking it. End of story. Sue me.

[outlawtorn]

If I got a 2 year old that wants to stick a fork in the power point I'm smacking it. End of story. Sue me.
I'm with you on this one......

[Winston001]

Lets be clear about Section 59 of the Crimes Act. The general law is that any touching or force applied to another person without their consent is assault - except for S.59.

So if you clout your neighbour's child around the ear for being a cheeky little prick, that is assault.

But Section 59 at present provides an exception for parents. If the neighbour hits his child or the same reason, he'd have nothing to fear because he is exercising reasonable force in discipline.

Why is that? Both actions are clearly an assault.

Interesting. Nobody has answered or resolved this glaring inconsistency.

[The_Dover]

if you smack the cheeky little prick hard enough then it doesn't matter.

[Fatjim]

Interesting. Nobody has answered or resolved this glaring inconsistency.

The fact that someone doesn't understand this says alot about them.

[ghost]

Interesting. Nobody has answered or resolved this glaring inconsistency.

An answer for this is that its not an inconsistancy, call me slow but if I disipline a neibours kid for being a smart little prick its assault. Accept that. If I disipline a neibours kid for repeatedly running out on the road or throwing stones at cars, that too is assault, I accept that to.

BUT as a childs legal Guardian (an having a vested interest they they grow up straight and true) I am held legally accountable for their actions when they throw stones at cars, light fires, poke fingers in a socket etc there for I will dicipline them how i see fit, not with a jug cord, or whip, or fist, or boiling water etc, but in way that I know the message will get thru.

On a personel matter I doubt my little guy will get a smacked bum when hes old enough to understand and suffer consequences, (wash my car) ( no bike for a week ) but at the moment when he repeatedly tries to put his had on the hot oven he may get a smack instead of a burn.......

Im comfotable with that even if the socialists arn't.....they can garn get f*^%&&

[Ixion]

Interesting. Nobody has answered or resolved this glaring inconsistency.

There is no inconsistency. The law recognised that, a child being a wilful and unreasoning being, it would sometimes be appropriate or necessary to use force to coerce or restrain the child. Thus, if I see you putting a fork into the power point and grab your hand, and you yell "let go , I wanna", if I do not release my hold and allow you to have your forky fun, you may charge me with assault. But the law allowed for a parent to use force to coerce the child . A more reasonable example might be , eg, playing a game on the road, or swimming in a dangerous place. I may not coerce an adult from doing so against his will. But hitherto , the law allowed a parent to haul Junior out of the water , kick scream and refuse as he might . But the law restricted this discretion to the parent, for obvious reasons. The child is the responsibility of the parent , and only the parent is qualified to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

What is a more practical inconsistency is that, were it not for the late added amendment, much decried by Ms Bradford, it would be impossible for a parent to compell a child to do ANYTHING.

Nice family day at the beach. Time to go home. Come on Junior , into the car. "No. Won't I want to stay here. Get off. You can't touch me. I'm staying at the beach' And indeed Junior would be right. In Ms Bradford's ideal world, the family could not go home until Junior was willing . They cannot abandon him at the beach - CYPS would have a fit. They cannot use force to compell him.

Or, Junior misbehaves. "Time out. Go to your room. " Won't. You can't make me. Don't you dare touch me, I'll have the police on you".

I have put this question to parents who claim "Oh I don't need to smack. I have other ways, I send him to his room, etc etc". " And what if he refuses? You cannot compell him " " uh , aar , well I'd just pick him up and ... uh ar that is ". Without the implicit sanction of compulsive force , there is nothing that can enforce discipline once the child realises that he need not obey.

[ZorsT]

There is no inconsistency. The law recognised that, a child being a wilful and unreasoning being, it would sometimes be appropriate or necessary to use force to coerce or restrain the child. Thus, if I see you putting a fork into the power point and grab your hand, and you yell "let go , I wanna", if I do not release my hold and allow you to have your forky fun, you may charge me with assault. But the law allowed for a parent to use force to coerce the child . A more reasonable example might be , eg, playing a game on the road, or swimming in a dangerous place. I may not coerce an adult from doing so against his will. But hitherto , the law allowed a parent to haul Junior out of the water , kick scream and refuse as he might . But the law restricted this discretion to the parent, for obvious reasons. The child is the responsibility of the parent , and only the parent is qualified to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

What is a more practical inconsistency is that, were it not for the late added amendment, much decried by Ms Bradford, it would be impossible for a parent to compell a child to do ANYTHING.

Nice family day at the beach. Time to go home. Come on Junior , into the car. "No. Won't I want to stay here. Get off. You can't touch me. I'm staying at the beach' And indeed Junior would be right. In Ms Bradford's ideal world, the family could not go home until Junior was willing . They cannot abandon him at the beach - CYPS would have a fit. They cannot use force to compell him.

Or, Junior misbehaves. "Time out. Go to your room. " Won't. You can't make me. Don't you dare touch me, I'll have the police on you".

I have put this question to parents who claim "Oh I don't need to smack. I have other ways, I send him to his room, etc etc". " And what if he refuses? You cannot compell him " " uh , aar , well I'd just pick him up and ... uh ar that is ". Without the implicit sanction of compulsive force , there is nothing that can enforce discipline once the child realises that he need not obey.
This is so true.

The lady living next to us wouldn't smack her kids. It was 'wrong'. Even the youngest child (5 year old) was hugely out of control. She would scream and yell at them all day and it made no difference. They knew she could do nothing.

[Fatjim]

Well put mate

[Lias]

I support smacking, and am very opposed to the bill, as is my partner.

Our kids dont get smacked very often, but we very much feel its our right to have that option available if needed. The government and the liberal filth have no right to tell us how to raise our kids.

By all means clarify the law so that it closes the loopholes that allow kids to be beaten with alkythene pipes or jug cords or whatever, but to pointblank outlaw a good solid smack on the bum with a hand (or even the trusty wooden spoon!) is lunacy.

Then again I also firmly believe we should have coproral punishment in our schools again, and our legal system as a whole (ala singapore) so I may be somewhat biased. I cant help but think that the reason society is going to shit so much and the huge increase in youth violence etc is directly linked to the removal of corporal punishment from school. I'm pretty close to being one of the last generations to have experienced any sort of it, with it being outlawed when I was around 7-8ish from memory.

[SPman]

Hey if your old man wants a stand in tell him I will volunteer to do the whacking for him just as long as he gets the retribution not me.(lol) (I bruise to easy)
There is nothing wrong with the young people of today, they are every bit as good (or even better) as them in the "good ole days".
The percentage of fuckwits among them seems bigger because there are more of them and the media has much more effect today than it did in the good ole days.
I dislike hearing the older generation berating the young today as if they themselves were better examples of proper behaviour and manners compared to kids today.
What bullshit the cheeky buggers were just the same as the kids today and I was there to witness a lot of it.
Life is harder for the kids today too but they handle it pretty well, all things considered. (In my opinion anyway).
27! shit I am 40yrs older than you, better disregard the offer of assistance to your father, he might have to assist me! :shit: Cheers John.

But.....they've been doing it for at least 5000 yrs if recorded complaints are right...........can we claim traditional rights?
The 10 Commandments...."Honour thy mother and thy father..."..obviously the kids were stroppy as all shit then, as well! Needed an edict from their God to back up the oldies.

Its all about how you treat your kids - honour and respect flows 2 ways.
I hit each of my boys once only, when they were young. Thats all I had to. The little sods were just testing boundaries and I felt worse than they did.
The kids will tend to reflect the values of the parents!

[yungatart]

A wee story for you, and I swear it is true!
Some years ago I had had one of those totally unpleasant mornings that only parents of teenagers can truly understand.
The then teenager was being a stroppy little shit, disrespectful, antisocial etc etc.
Off I went to work, stormed (yes, I was still wound up) in to the staff room and said in a loud voice " By God, he deserves a good smack and when I get home, he's going to get one!"
At that point two police officers made their presence known..leaving me with a red face. So I boldly stated that when one of my kids gets out of line and won't get back in, then I will smack them, and hard - and there isn't anything that you can do to change that!
One of these cops - the local youth aid officer said, "Pity we didn't have more parents like you, who are actually prepared to discipline their kids.It would make my job much easier"
Interesting, huh?

[mstriumph]

........................................I have put this question to parents who claim "Oh I don't need to smack. I have other ways, I send him to his room, etc etc". " And what if he refuses? You cannot compell him " " uh , aar , well I'd just pick him up and ... uh ar that is ". Without the implicit sanction of compulsive force , there is nothing that can enforce discipline once the child realises that he need not obey.

- the trick is not to let it GET to that point or, if he does, have fair systems in place to underline his/her place in the pecking order...
f'rinstance, looked at from the OTHER end, a parent can't be compelled by the child to do/provide anything other than basic food, shelter, education etc either ...................

bigger kids understand the principals of self-interested co-operation /give and take/fair play/one hand washes the other .... it's only when they percieve their parents will provide playstations, trips to exotic places and designer jeans WITHOUT expecting acceptable behaviour on the home front that they start to subvert the system
........and any parent that provides 'rewards' in the absence of acceptable behaviour is the author of their own downfall surely?

smaller kids - yup, a smack in time serves as both immediate deterrant and longer-term training mechanism .... sue me, too!

[Winston001]

Well we all really share the same views. Children need discipline - no argument.

The problem is that some politician has given the issue the catchy and emotive title "Anti-smacking law" It isn't. It is an anti-bashing law.

My wife and I smacked our 3 children maybe once a year up until the age of 6. In fact I can't even remember doing it but it did happen. They are approaching teenagehood now and are good children - I'm proud of them. They don't fear mum or dad, they are polite, they don't hit other people.

It wasn't easy and I'll freely admit to seeing a red rage at times but I held back. Hitting would have been oh-so-easy and I'd have never been able to take that moment of fear and pain back. The one thing I was determined on was that my children would never be scared of their parents.

[SPman]

..... Hitting would have been oh-so-easy.........

And therein lies the answer............