Smacking kids?

[Quartermile]

Ok so here we go what is your opinion on smacking kids ??

Personally I don't see making it illegal making a huge difference as it will be hard to stop the ones whe get serious hidings, and some almost innocent average person is going to get slammed for a slight tap on the hand.

[FROSTY]

My opinion--its the biggest crock of shit Ive ever heard. A Law change still isnt gonna stop the people that beat up their kids but will simply make normal parents criminals

[Lissa]

This is a hard one to answer honestly. I tend not to smack my kids... I use other punishments such as taking stuff away or time out. When they have been particularly naughty (and they can get very stubborn and temper tantrum etc etc) I have been known to throw their stuff in the rubbish bin.... well for my older children. My two year old, I dont tend to punish at all, as shes too young and such a sweetie.

But on the other hand... making it against the law I really honestly dont think that it is going to stop the people who 'punch, kick, hit, abuse' their children.... which is who they are trying to target.

Edit/ also kids can get alittle out of hand, esp in supermarkets or any where public, are you going to have silly old people ringing the police because some stressed out mum, smacks their child on the hand, I can see it happening.

[Her_C4]

My children are in their mid to late twenties and tend to get a bit stroppy if I slap them these days (what is THAT about?) ...wouldn't stop me if I felt they deserved it though.... :dodge:

delivered with love - of course :yes: :love:

[Quartermile]

Yea all I see it as is a vote collector, we care soooooooooo much, when they know it won't make a difference to the incidents that mater like the Kahui twins!!!

[Lissa]

Also seeing as its going to be illegal (?)... if an older kid goes to school and tells their teacher "my mum or dad smacked me last night" does the teacher then have to tell the authorities? Have we got enough police to tend to all this?

[Quartermile]

does this mean I can get into a fight with my dad as I do and if I loose take him to court:scratch::D

Oh this is all going to go down the sh!tta, stupid NZ Govt, again

[Deano]

It won't stop "child abuse" will it - E.g. Kahui twins.

It will however make criminals of parents who spank their kids (like most of us were spanked without destroying us psyhcologically or emotionally ?), despite Sue's reassurances that Cops won't ever kow about that sort of thing...we know that a lot of the time the cops will prefer to charge someone and leave it up to the courts to decide..........

My opinion has changed somewhat after watching the 'nanny' programs with problem children - it seems that 'time out' and honest, up front communication seems to work....I could be wrong...will try it with my kid when he ? arrives.

Sue Bradford - she doesn't come across well though does she ? Wasn't she a dole bludger before becoming an MP ? Talks like Lynn of Tawa...LOL

I tell ya something though - if at teenage years my kid ever tries to strike me or the missus, they won't know what hit em. Might make sure thay realise this before that ever possibly arises.

[98tls]

SMACK...........he said smack for fucks sake..........what the hell has ever been wrong with smacking your kids arse..........i got smacked........what did it teach me..........dont do it again......simple......anyone that votes for this shit needs there head read............i simply cant believe that we have reached the point of this becoming an issue........abuse is abuse........for fucks sake when/how did the average kiwi lose the ability to tell the difference..........when will the spiral of do gooder lets fuck this country once and for all shit end.........................then again when our kids go bad we can always comfort ourselves with the fact that maybe they just have ADHd........or whatever the greenies call it.............bullshit

[Lissa]

My opinion has changed somewhat after watching the 'nanny' programs with problem children - it seems that 'time out' and honest, up front communication seems to work....I could be wrong...will try it with my kid when he ? arrives.
Some days... NOTHING seems to work. :( All I can say is, if you threaten them with some sort of punishment... carry through with it, or they might run rings around you.... (from personal experience) :)

[Brett]

Smacking for discipline and beatng the living shit out of a kid are two different things. I had my arse regularly smacked...when i was really bad a belt was used, and if I had not been disciplined so, I would have been a delinquent. Sometimes boys only understand pain, girls are slightly different, I dnt recall my sisters getting their backsides smacked much at all...my brother and I made up for that.

As has previously been stated, those that are abusing their kids and fmaily physically dont give any regard to the law as is, and making this new statute law is not going to change a thing, lets be honest, if you are caught smacking your child for discipline...what are they really going to do? I very much doubt it will really become a criminal offense...no more so than being overtly drunk in public. Therefore the bastards that hit their wife and kids will barely even think of the law, and naughty kids like i was will be given that little bit extra rope that we really didnt need, I mean any father of a few boys will testify that trying to get a kid, let alone a boy, to go to 'time out' (what a crock of crap) is really impossible.
Being sent to a corner or into a cupboard as such as a kid never made me regret or learn from my actions, it was more like a chance to get a bit of rest...getting a good old smack however, now there was something you avoided where possible, and if a known offence would incur such a bottom warming, then hell, we actually obeyed our parents once in a whle...

DOWN WITH THE ANTI-SMACKING BILL.

[Ghost_Bullet]

Fair call to try and stop people beating the shite out of there kids in an abusive mannor... though what the' is abussive these days, hell probably saying "You are a naughty boy/girl" is mucking with their heads.

I dont support the anti smacking thing, though dont support smacking where ya say would be leaving marks or bruises.
It's all about balance, talk, time out and physical force all in a fashin to obtain direction.
I was a factor of as a child. There were times when ya just dont listen, and the ole mans hand sorta made me sit back and think....

The politicians will sort it??:mellow:

[shafty]

I didn't vote as I don't agree with the choices given in the poll as a reasonable choice = pity it nullifies the vote to some extent;

I would defy the Bill on the basis that I wouldn't want a child saying to me:

"You can't smack me...................hah nah na nah............."

[scracha]

I'd only smack them in self defence

[Quartermile]

I didn't vote as I don't agree with the choices given in the poll as a reasonable choice = pity it nullifies the vote to some extent;

I would defy the Bill on the basis that I wouldn't want a child saying to me:

"You can't smack me...................hah nah na nah............."

Sorry by wallop the little buggers I do mean, PC: [I agree with the option to use a small amout of force to help the child in question lean to distingish between doing an act correctly, right or incorrectly, wrong]

but im not really a serious person nor a Politicaly Correct person:Punk:

[James Deuce]

I'm with shafty.

it pays to think about poll questions a bit.

Wallop is too strong a word for a surprise tap with an open hand on a bottom that has turned off its reason centre.

Having said that, it is impossible to even raise your voice to a child in public without attracting a significant number of glares and the occasional intervention.

In my parent's day enough whacks with a strap to draw blood, or a cane for that matter, or maybe even a knife thrown at you was acceptable. In my day and open handed slap and some deafening shouting was the go.

Nowadays if you aren't wheedling and begging with your three year old you're a bad parent.

Kids aren't little adults. Their brains are missing bits, things that haven't joined up, and they haven't experienced enough physical and emotional pain to know that it is bad to dip your hand in the jar of Marmite you just heated in the microwave for 30 mins. I'd rather intervene and provide a scary memory than watch a child deglove (http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/deglove/) a finger in a vat of superheated Marmite thanks. Wheedling doesn't teach right from wrong, any more than example does. teaching by example works from about 6 up IMO. Under that it's your job as a parent to scare kids out of being too stupid to stay alive.

[Motu]

Human rights,consumer rights,workers rights,womans rights,animal rights,the list goes on - but the last rights ever to be addressed will be childrens rights.

[James Deuce]

No one has any rights. Rights are an illusion to divert you from the serfdom that is your lot.

[boomer]

<object width="300" height="80"><param name="movie" value="http://media.imeem.com/m/thS1_5Cjaf/aus=false/"></param><param name="wmmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://media.imeem.com/m/thS1_5Cjaf/aus=false/" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="300" height="80" wmode="transparent"></embed></object>


what a load of pc bollox

[Motoracer]

Alright alright, but back in thoes days there were people who thought gay people should be burnt alive, black people are only good for being slaves, the earth is flat not round etc etc.

Obviously I am exasurating but the times you guys are talking about "back in the days", are times when people weren't very open about a lot of things. Not a lot was discussed. Maybe it was discussed to your partner or someone very close but there was no open discussion in public. About issues such as kids and sex education.

Am I drifting a bit off topic here? No, I don't think so. The above are just examples of mine, in order to convay my opinion on how far we have come as society. All this in the time frame of 1 or 2 generations.

I know quite a few of you are upstanding members of society and very fine people in general. However, you can achive the same result or even better with alternate methods that have far better reasoning behind them than using brute force (Yes I am talking directly about smacking kids here).

Deano said it, watch the programs like them "Nanny" ones and you'll see the proof. I know smacking and the good old fashioned meathod of disiplin is easier and may seem more effective on the surface. However IMHO, you as an adult have the capacity to be better than that. You can use your experience and cunning ways of being a mature adult to mould your child's growing up process to help them become as good as they can be.

I am not a parent however so all this is my theory and opinion.

[98tls]

Human rights,consumer rights,workers rights,womans rights,animal rights,the list goes on - but the last rights ever to be addressed will be childrens rights. theres still hope motu............"then over the hill came with chickens with guns "

[Macktheknife]

I got heaps of smacks as a kid, it never did me any harm and I don't believe that it would do any other kid any harm to recieve the same. In fact my observation is that some kids need that kind of communication to understand limits, there is no mistake about it. I do not condone or support the 'beating of children' under any circumstances but the no smacking idea is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.
And I think you mean 'chickens in choppers' (cows with guns song)

[0arbreaka]

In my opinion its a bunch of PC bullshit, I personally think that parents should have a right to smack their children as a form of punishment but only within reason, by saying this I mean just a propper smack, no punches, weapons etc etc.

[eviltwin]

Discipline and violence are not the same thing, the government can go fuck themselves... who the hell are they to tell me how to raise my kids.

A community cop once said to me, if you love your kids heaps, discipline them heaps.

Fundamentally the problem with violence in the family is nothing to do with discipline or smacking, it's to do with the total lack of love in that environment. Those so called parents who abuse their kids don't love their kids...they don't give a flying fuck about them! And I for one don't appreciate being put in the same basket as them by our yoghurt smoking government policy makers!

I smacked my kids because I wanted them to know instantly, in the moment...that whatever they did wrong was unexceptable behaviour by me, by the person that loved them the most...the person that cared about them the most.

For every action there is a reaction...simple!

My kids have never felt unloved, even if they did get the occasional kick up the arse!

A positive relationship combined with firm guidelines moulded my kids into caring, honest, respectful and happy young adults.

You can ask them if you don't believe me, I've got them tied up in the basement.

[James Deuce]

Alright alright, but back in thoes days there were people who thought gay people should be burnt alive, black people are only good for being slaves, the earth is flat not round etc etc.

Obviously I am exasurating but the times you guys are talking about "back in the days", are times when people weren't very open about a lot of things. Not a lot was discussed. Maybe it was discussed to your partner or someone very close but there was no open discussion in public. About issues such as kids and sex education.

Am I drifting a bit off topic here? No, I don't think so. The above are just examples of mine, in order to convay my opinion on how far we have come as society. All this in the time frame of 1 or 2 generations.

I know quite a few of you are upstanding members of society and very fine people in general. However, you can achive the same result or even better with alternate methods that have far better reasoning behind them than using brute force (Yes I am talking directly about smacking kids here).

Deano said it, watch the programs like them "Nanny" ones and you'll see the proof. I know smacking and the good old fashioned meathod of disiplin is easier and may seem more effective on the surface. However IMHO, you as an adult have the capacity to be better than that. You can use your experience and cunning ways of being a mature adult to mould your child's growing up process to help them become as good as they can be.

I am not a parent however so all this is my theory and opinion.

So just like Sue Bradford you're taking an admission of child smacking as a method of discipline as being the only method that a particular parent uses because they're obviously too stupid to use any other method.

You don;t have kids and your memories of being one are distorted beyond belief, by time, developmental changes in your brain and social interaction skills and expectations.

I can achieve more with three minutes time out for a three year old than I can with a tap, I said tap too, not a bashing with a cut down barrel stave or a jug cord, or a cinder block, a tap. A tap that you wouldn't feel through the back of your bike jacket. But the punishment needs to fit the crime, needs to be of consequence or it is pointless. Most of all it needs to fit the personality of the child and its developmental stage. A three year old is devastated by being removed from a social situation. They're wired to interact at a furious rate to learn the rules.

But a 6 year old will get a book off the shelf and read (once they have calmed down), again depending on the personality.

But sometimes that tap is EXACTLY what is need to break a cycle of behaviour that is spiralling out of control. Diversion doesn't work because it doesn't address the problem. You need to know what you did wrong so you can learn not to do it again. Under 5 children have no reason. The Dawn of reason is around four years old and it is limited by the child's experience.

What am I trying to say? That you and Sue Bradford and Helen Clark and every other fucker who thinks he can do it better than me can just shut the hell up.

It's none of your business, unless I invite you to help me raise my kids.

You've pigeon holed me me into a violent child basher. I'm fucking not.

I read child development books, parenting books, books specifically about raising boys, but most of all I look at people who raise successful children who are confident and engaging and ask questions and advice from those parents. Plus I'm not perfect. I get sick, my kids get sick, I get tired, I get emotional, and every other bloody human experience. Parents aren't machines who can be expected to replicate behaviours to a "T" every time, to get it right every time. But as long as the methodology is consistent, the child is addressed and respected as a person and included in the parent/child relationship, you will get great results.

[yungatart]

I got smacked by my parents, it probably explains a lot about me:innocent:
My children got smacked too - all 6 of them. It was not the only discipline/punishment meted out in our house, nor was it used on a regular basis. Some of my kids got smacked more than others, because their personality type responded better to a tap on the backside or legs better than other measures in some circumstances.
I don't believe that a smack should make me into a criminal and I fail to see how making smacking illegal is actually going to do anything about the appalling rates of child abuse in NZ. Murder is illegal too, but it still happens.
BTW, if hXc steps out of line, I'm not averse to giving him a smack either, better do it quick, before he gets too much bigger than me.....

[Squeak the Rat]

The law is designed with the intention that the police don't enforce it for minor cases.

How fucked up is that?

[Finn]

Quote from Cyfswatch...

"Anonymous writes:

I have just viewed the interview on TV with Sue Bradford and her Bill to ban smacking.

She looked mentally ill and sounded delusional - her equating a rugby tackle with assault was an indication of just how unwell this woman really is.

Such a cognitive distortion is evidence of historical psychological trauma, most likely related to either sexual abuse or rape.

Sue sees no difference between a parent smacking their children, and the awful assaults that have been perpetuated on children that are now dead.

Since Sue cannot tell the difference, I would like the opportunity to drive my fist straight into her face as hard as I can, hopefully breaking her nose or jaw in the process. As she is lying on the ground, blood and mucous pouring profusely from her nose and mouth, I would then give her a light smack on her substantial arse, and ask her "Now Sue, is the difference a little more clearer to you?".

If ever someone needed a beating, it is this sociopathic witch.

She is projecting her own allergy to correction or any form of discipline onto the families of New Zealand, so that our kids can end up as sick as she is.

Bradford is a worthy candidate for NZ's first political assassination - I only wish I had the resources to do it."

We need to hear more voices like Mr Anonymous. You cannot change human behavior with laws. When will they ever learn this?

[spookytooth]

I was a little shit.So were my kids :) but behaved around around mum and dad .Why because we didnt want a sore ass.

[FROSTY]

big problem is--those with the highest opinion of anti smacking--either arent parents yet--or have forgotten what its like to be a parent
Also MSS bradford is under the delusion that children are mini adults
-Does that mean I can send BB out to work now??

[lb99]

did you ever notice how the pro bill peoples say "HITting" (just like that, in caps and bold), and the anti bill people say "smacking"?

I think my kids will be OK, I have taken to punishing the lot for ones misbehavior, so they eventually meter out their own discipline, have you ever seen Full Metal Jacket?

but seriously, I think a lot of the bad behavior of teens and even younger kids, stems from the families lack of respect for authority, police, teachers, elders, bus drivers etc....

Being a fairly young parent of 4 children myself, I interact with their friends parents occasionally at school etc, and frequently come across appalling attitudes to authority figures being projected right in front of the kids, no wonder they have no respect anymore.

I think Sue Bradford might be a bit nuts, she said that if her bill gets watered down at all she'll withdraw it totally, because its not what she was trying to achieve.
She's on the right track, but going about it the wrong way, what they are trying to do is to eliminate the "reasonable force" argument that the scumbag lawyers always ride on in child abuse cases.
But by putting a blanket ban on physical discipline is the wrong way to go about it IMO, why not just define reasonable force?

Does a blanket ban on physical discipline extend to restraining a child?, ever tried to put a struggling 2yo in a car seat when the just don't want to go?, how about grabbing them and pulling them back when they are about to run onto the road/off a cliff etc...

to go to extremes, how long before a child cost you your job/ vetoed a family holiday/ prevented you from moving house/ remarrying, just because they "didn't want to" and you couldn't make them, I can feel the lawyers closing in already.
Some people could get very rich from this.

end transmission

[Squeak the Rat]

to go to extremes, how long before a child cost you your job/ vetoed a family holiday/ prevented you from moving house/ remarrying, just because they "didn't want to" and you couldn't make them, I can feel the lawyers closing in already.


And the child custody cases - "he used to hit the kids".......

[Lias]

I got smacked as a kid, I got the wooden spoon every now and then and a belt across the arse once that I recall.

Others I know got the jug cord, the alkythene pipe, the metal ruler etc and that IMHO IS child abuse, let alone fists/kicking or worse.

I honestly dont see the harm in an open hand smack, or even a wooden spoon/hair brush applied to the arse a few times for major things.

I'll be smacking my kids as needed, law or no law.

[Guitana]

Anti smacking Bill what a load of fucken shit as if NZs parents don't have enough shit to worry about already!! What's next an anti masturbation bill because touching yourself is a sin????
I can see where Sue Bradford is coming from but this dose'nt require a law to govern it, this requires education!!!
Personally I dont smack my kids I dont need to they're scared of their UNHINGED father as it is!!!!
Part of the problem these days is the lack of respect towards adults from children!! You only have to walk into a college classroom to see the effect of no discipline!!! Kids today run amok in the classroom I don't know how teachers these days cope I really feel for these poor bastards they get treated like shit!! I dont know about you but just the threat of getting the cane back in the day was enough to keep you in line then of course there was the reputation of those teachers Usually the male ones and the stories of their super human caning technique.
Child abuse be fucked the poor old teachers are the ones getting abused and these little fucks know damn well they can't do shit about it!!!
Fear is a healthy thing it gives people boundaries take that away and you have chaos!! You only have to look at the fuckers that are causing the crime these days all products of the PC school system with no boundaries!!!
I bet if you looked at their school records they abused beat up and intimidated teachers with gay abandon with no threat of action!!!
Oh no they're going to expell me!!! Woop de fuck school sucks anyway!!
I'll just go join a gang and have some fun at the expense of the NZ taxpayer!!!
Wake up fuckers it's only going to get worse!!!!!!!!!

Bring back the bash, Buck Shelford for Primeminister!!!!!!

[Squeak the Rat]

they're scared of their UNHINGED father as it is!!!!

No shit! ;)



95% of parents do a fine job and it is these people who will be affected by the bill. The other 5% won't give a shit.

But we have to do something because we have a horrendous child abuse record. Hey, let's classify a smack on the arse as child abuse, that'll make the figures look better! Oh, but we also don't expect the police to prosecute - they can make subjective decisions about which cases are important.

LABOUR (and greens - it goes without saying) - You are a bunch of morons.

[Ralph]

OK I'm no parent but I got smacked as a child and I turned out fine, most likely smack a child of my own as some have pointed out some kids respond better to a smack on the arse than other methods.

The only thing I see happening is innocent hard working good parents that put shoes on kids feet, breakfast in their stomach and drop them at school at the right time getting prosecuted for trying to teach discipline.

Can't see it having any effect what so ever on child abuse, the witch needs a :bash:

[idleidolidyll]

With some kids nothing else works.
Beating a child (abuse or assault) is one thing and should be prosecuted, smacking a child when all else fails is another.

This bill is ridiculous and despite those who say it won't criminalise parents, I am sure that the proponents of the bill will be looking hard for their first prosecutions.
Eventually, if it passes, total strangers with no idea whatsoever about the particulars, will be calling police and laying complaints. If a complaint IS laid, the police must follow it up: do the math.

[ManDownUnder]

3 things are converging here

An increase in child abuse (or maybe reported abuse) hitting the press... not sure if it's actually an increase in abuse or those with an agenda simply publicising things more to raise public awareness

The UN rights of a child to not be smacked (however that's worded) makes it en vogue to not smack

Sue Bradford has a past of being abused and I would fully expect being smacked or beaten is part of it. It's a very sensitive issue to her personally which explains her passion and determination... I have respect for people that believe in their cause - no matter what it is. Whether I agree with their passion is a whole different topic, and that respect is also tempered by their willingness to consider external challanges, and not simply carry on blind to their own predispositions.

Following a recommendation from Wolf about a year back I backed off on the smacking, reducing it from "as often as my parents did" toi really serious/urgent stuff only. When I'm angry - I call in the boss so she can deal with things. Kids need to know right and wrong - not a parent seeking retribution or in need of anger managment.

I'm convinced I never abused my kids anyway - but now I reserve a smack to when it's needed, on the spot, settled and done.

As FROSTY said - outlawing it isn't going to stop those that abuse now anyway, and taking a weapon to hand (a la Lias example) is outrageous. Whjy would you need a jug cord, length of alkathene pipe etc? No hurt your hand less (kind implies you're really whcaking them hard), or to inflict more pain... (kinda implies a bit of abuse there too)

The law change is over the top but has a basis in good intention and international trends. Outlaw smacking, watch the levels of reported abuse stay where they are, watch average parents get confused about what their rights are... and are not.

I forget the strict definition of assault, but I think it's along the lines of "trespass on a natural person" or something like that. I read some interesting stuff in Invetigate magazine where a number of QCs were asked if picking up a prtesting child and taking them to their room for time out fell into the definition of assault. A resounding yess from 2 of the 3, and a quite likely yes from #3.

Great. Now I don't know where I stand... so... that helped... NOT

I don't want this law passed. I think it's stupid for all the reasons outlined above. I also think we need less tolerance for prima facie cases of abuse. The definiton of that needs to be spelled out very clearly, and kids removed from families need to go somewhere safe (i.e. to a grandparent or other safe family member). I know it's not always that simple but I don;t pretend to have all those answers

[Squeak the Rat]

This may be a leap of logic for some people, but this is serious:

We're banning all levels of smacking because it is seen as child abuse. Well, child abuse can be mental as well as physical.

So we also need to outlaw mental abuse, surely - I would argue that's more important than physical abuse, because it's the mental side of the physical abuse that does the lasting damage.

So we also need to outlaw things like:

Put your child in solitary confinement (timeout)
Blackmailing your child with threats if they don't do what you want
Other parenting tricks which I'm not aware of.


Do you think that I'm stretching this too far? If you think so, would you have thought the same thing if i told you smacking was going to be outlawed 8 years ago?

[Guitana]

3 things are converging here


The UN rights of a child to not be smacked (however that's worded) makes it en vogue to not smack

The FUCKEN UN !!!!!! Rights????? The UN is the biggest joke in the history of man a bunch of bloated beureuacrats sitting around a table doing fuck all but eat club sandwiches and talk shit what a fucken waste of time!! How long did it take these pricks to act while the Rwandans were ethnically cleansing their little slice of paradise??? They were all tied up in red tape and thousands of children were being hacked to death with Machetes by rabid militia!!!!
The UN needs a fucken smack in the head!!!!

[oldrider]

I'm with shafty.

it pays to think about poll questions a bit.

Wallop is too strong a word for a surprise tap with an open hand on a bottom that has turned off its reason centre.

Having said that, it is impossible to even raise your voice to a child in public without attracting a significant number of glares and the occasional intervention.

In my parent's day enough whacks with a strap to draw blood, or a cane for that matter, or maybe even a knife thrown at you was acceptable. In my day and open handed slap and some deafening shouting was the go.

Nowadays if you aren't wheedling and begging with your three year old you're a bad parent.

Kids aren't little adults. Their brains are missing bits, things that haven't joined up, and they haven't experienced enough physical and emotional pain to know that it is bad to dip your hand in the jar of Marmite you just heated in the microwave for 30 mins. I'd rather intervene and provide a scary memory than watch a child deglove (http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/deglove/) a finger in a vat of superheated Marmite thanks. Wheedling doesn't teach right from wrong, any more than example does. teaching by example works from about 6 up IMO. Under that it's your job as a parent to scare kids out of being too stupid to stay alive.


I agree with Jim about the wording of our polls, I voted for walloping but that is not what I mean but I get the drift and I hate the STATE controlling my life in absolutely everything I do!

The STATE (crown, gov't, call it what you like) works for "US", the STATE belongs to "US" not the other way around!

The "GREENS" are only suitable for "COMPOST" so bury them before they bury us! :nono: Bloody lunatic fringe! :yes: John.

[Guitana]

Lets face it these kind of laws only affect the Law abiding citizens!!
Take the new Firearm laws for miliatary style rifles it only affected the law abiding citizens,did the crims get affected fuck no they didnt have a license in the first place and they still mange to get their hairy paws on assault rifles and illegal firearms. Fucken do gooders only trying to proove to the public they're actually doing something for the bloated paypacket they get every month!! They should shut the fuck up and go hide under a rock till the next election!!!!!!

[Dilligaf]

I am going to chime in here.... I smack my child - often when she has to choose a punishment (teddies going into time out, removing a star from her reward chart etc) she actually chooses the smack. :moon:
She also gets a smack on the count of five (i.e. if I have counted and actually say 5 then smack it is). This is in times of non-compliance, getting her to start obeying when she's been told to do something etc.
However, I have never smacked my child because they have got me wound up and frustrated that I lash out. And let's be honest here, that happens loads of times and you DO see it happen and that is the smacking IMO that changes this method of behaviour modification into something that doesn't work. (i.e. because I didn't explain that well, I mean that when they tell you that smacking is not a good behaviour modification tool, I reckon it's because they are tracking families who smack more out of frustration than as a deterrent). I believe that a child should always know that a smack is on it's way. If they don't then it's a fair standard to say that you are lashing out in anger / frustration - and No, that isn't going to work, it's going to make the child confused and angry at you.

[Squeak the Rat]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3970778a10.html

Police say website comments not illegal.

[Edit:] But site has been shut down... wtf?

[Guitana]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3970778a10.html

Police say website comments not illegal.

[Edit:] But site has been shut down... wtf?

Great open the FLOOD GATES!!!!!!!!!

[Quartermile]

Sorry for the confusion about the poll Jim2 and Oldrider and anyone else with the same problem I surgest reading my post at the bottom of page 1 as this clarifies what I mean by the walloping, :weird:

If there are any other problems with the poll please feel free to read other posts in the thread as they are free for you to read any comment on, thus the general purpose of a Forum :D

[Indiana_Jones]

look at the poll figures, many people are against this PC piece of bullshit that isn't gonna stop any child abuse. Easy for Helen Clark to support it, how many kids has that dog had?

bah, it's bollocks. A good smack or belting never did any harm.

and why am I listening to "wild wild west"

-Indy

[Street Gerbil]

"Dad, if you will not buy me that toy, I'll tell everybody that you spanked me!"
Nuff said.

[SPman]

The bill is to help change attitudes and not to stop a good sharp smack on the backside, with an open hand. It will also give some teeth to the police to prosecute people who beat their kids and get off, because it's their "right"
As for this bullshit about making criminals out of ordinary parents! - no one is begrudging the necessity of stopping kids sticking their hands in powerpoints or whatever, without slapping their hands aside, for example, or giving them a sharp slap on the bum - within moderation.

FFS, does anyone actually look at the intent and think things through logically over a period of more than 10 secs, before they explode into selfrighteous indignation about how it might impinge on their "rights" to do something, using preconceived ideas and second hand vitriol to lash out with yet another dose of drivel inspired by loudmouths in a country with one of the highest rates of child violence in the "civilised" - and not so civilised world!
Most parents DON'T bash, wallop or beat their kids, but a lot don't know how to draw the line, where a rebuke or timely reinforcement becomes an assault!
- and just because your parents did it, doesn't make it right!

Its just a sad reflection on society as a whole, that we need a law like this in the first place!

[mstriumph]

................ You can use your experience and cunning ways of being a mature adult to mould your child's growing up process to help them become as good as they can be.

.......................

one of my cunning ways being to sharply slap small, questing fingers away a split second before they reach the hot stove ...................

working from the premise that responsible parents want to guide, not marmalize, their children i think the authorities need to treat the adults like adults and leave them legal leeway to continue doing whatever is appropriate and necessary in the circumstances they find themselves in...............

there are already laws in place to deal with those that beat up and brutalize others [children included] - an anti-smacking law is both superfluous and counterproductive to the rest of us

but its obviously sparking a lot of public debate ..... is it an election year or something?:mellow:

[MisterD]

FFS, does anyone actually look at the intent and think things through logically over a period of more than 10 secs,

Since when did the "intent" of a law have the slightest thing to do with the way in which it is applied?

That's what makes this bad law, it's making something that most people see very clearly defined (ie the difference between reasonable parental discipline and abuse) into a big blurry mess - smacking is illegal, but if you do it within reason the cops won't prosecute. :weird:

There's an amendment on the table to define "reasonable force" but La Bradford has said if it get's passed she'll withdraw the whole bill since she doesn't believe any force is reasonable.

[KATWYN]

Interesting place we will in.

We are told how, when and with who to run our businesses

And now parents are told how they are to discipline their children.

Isn't it all a bit patronizing??

[Quartermile]

Haha some internet forum has listed violent and sadistic threats to old Sue, she say's that she's scared of the fact that people want to physicaly harm her............Quite ironic isnt it

[avgas]

cant give someone rights if they plan to abuse em i say.
How many male teachers are left now after all the bullshit rape claims

[Squeak the Rat]

FFS, does anyone actually look at the intent and think things through logically over a period of more than 10 secs, before they explode into selfrighteous indignation about how it might impinge on their "rights" to do something, using preconceived ideas and second hand vitriol to lash out with yet another dose of drivel inspired by loudmouths in a country with one of the highest rates of child violence in the "civilised" - and not so civilised world!

Are you pot or kettle?

The only place intent comes into this is if you are physical with your child to stop them from further harming themselves. Any sort of physical discipline is illegal.

Creating a law to make something illegal with the expectation that the cops will ignore it is fundamentally wrong. If the politicians don't want it enforced then it shouldn't be illegal.

[Edit:] If i was a cop i would charge *every* complaint I received, even if it was from Ms Busybody who saw johnny get his hand smacked. Because I know how much shit the cops get into if they make the wrong decision, especially when that decision isn't following the letter of the law.

[Guitana]

Haha some internet forum has listed violent and sadistic threats to old Sue, she say's that she's scared of the fact that people want to physicaly harm her............Quite ironic isnt it

That will be the next bill they come up with the ANTI SLAGGING POLITICIANS IN FORUMS BILL!!!
Next thing you know we'll all be wearing green uniforms, driving ladas and calling each other comrade!!!
They treat us like Retards but the real fuckwits are running the country and we're responsible for putting them there!!!
You may slag the Fijians but at least they do something when their govt fucks up!!!!

[N4CR]

alright alright, but back in thoes days there were people who thought *** people should be burnt alive, black people are only good for being slaves, the earth is flat not round etc etc.


is that not allowed now or something? when the hell did that stop??? flat?? wtf? you drunk or something? stupid new age ideologies.

d;

i used to get smacked, wooden spoon, booted etc if i was a little sh1t. and pretty much 99.9% of the time i deserved it and it made me not do it again. much better than having something taken off me or being sent into my room when i was very little (where i'd just break something or cry under the bed lolol) and not learn anything.

bullsh1t bill i say.

[riffer]

Wading in.

My kids have got a whack on the arse at times. I'm probably not going to stop it if they make it illegal. I won't be stabbing them or beating them to death though.

Another thing that concerns me about this bill is the talk I hear about how, say, removing a child from the lounge and placing them in timeout against their will, would now constitute an assault against the child.

So faced with a two-year-old who will not comply with orders and is doing what they do best, namely throw tantrums and break things, would it be technically illegal to undertake any force of discipline against their will which has any physical nature?

[SPman]

[Edit:] If i was a cop i would charge *every* complaint I received, even if it was from Ms Busybody who saw johnny get his hand smacked. Because I know how much shit the cops get into if they make the wrong decision, especially when that decision isn't following the letter of the law.

A bit like speeding, really, isn't it........:whistle:


Kettle, actually........

Do away with parental "rights", per se and just have the common assault law - what you can't do to an adult, you can't do to kids, unless it is to prevent harm.

[KATWYN]

SMACK...........he said smack for fucks sake..........what the hell has ever been wrong with smacking your kids arse..........i got smacked........what did it teach me..........dont do it again......simple......anyone that votes for this shit needs there head read............i simply cant believe that we have reached the point of this becoming an issue........abuse is abuse........for fucks sake when/how did the average kiwi lose the ability to tell the difference..........when will the spiral of do gooder lets fuck this country once and for all shit end.........................then again when our kids go bad we can always comfort ourselves with the fact that maybe they just have ADHd........or whatever the greenies call it.............bullshit

Did you ever get smacked for swearing so much 98tls.....:laugh: :dodge:

[Lissa]

Another thing that concerns me about this bill is the talk I hear about how, say, removing a child from the lounge and placing them in timeout against their will, would now constitute an assault against the child.

So faced with a two-year-old who will not comply with orders and is doing what they do best, namely throw tantrums and break things, would it be technically illegal to undertake any force of discipline against their will which has any physical nature?I have a just turned two year old. Shes is way to young to know that most things she is doing is wrong... and I have smacked her once on the hand.. never again, because the look on her face was terrible. Time out doesnt work for them either... because two year old's have no concept of time. I dont really have a problem with her, she knows that 'ouchy' means dont touch. If she gets into my makeup and makes a hell of a mess on her or everything else around her.. which happens alot... its my fault for having it where she can get her hands on it.

What I am trying to say is... there are many ways of discipline.. and different situations and degree of discipline. But its up to the parent to decide what is right, not someone else.... lets face it some kids can be down right naughty and uncontrol -able sometimes... mine included.

[SPman]

What I am trying to say is... there are many ways of discipline.. and different situations and degree of discipline. But its up to the parent to decide what is right, not someone else.... lets face it some kids can be down right naughty and uncontrollable sometimes... mine included.
- and lots of parents handle it in entirely satisfactory ways, but enough don't and resort to violence often enough, that in NZ it is a major problem.
If it takes a wake up call in the form of legislation to wake peoples ideas up, then thats what it takes.

A corrective smack is one thing
A whipping with a belt or rod that leaves someone black and blue is not and , unfortunately, there are too many parents out there who think that it is OK!
Maybe the furore which is ensuing, will make everybody stand back and take a good look at how they and others, treat their kids.
I wouldn't bet on it though!

[jrandom]

the talk I hear about how, say, removing a child from the lounge and placing them in timeout against their will, would now constitute an assault against the child.

No no. Technically speaking, that constitutes kidnapping, not assault, and the 'reasonable force' defence has never been applicable to it.

Some people, attempting to introduce a moderating voice of reason, have used that example to point out that not every crime is likely to be prosecuted when committed in family situations, even if a specific defence in such situations is not legislated.

Why, only this morning, I kidnapped my son when he wouldn't stop throwing things at his sister, and I got away with it even though I had no defence, legally speaking, for doing so.

[Motoracer]

So just like Sue Bradford you're taking an admission of child smacking as a method of discipline as being the only method that a particular parent uses because they're obviously too stupid to use any other method.

You don;t have kids and your memories of being one are distorted beyond belief, by time, developmental changes in your brain and social interaction skills and expectations.

I can achieve more with three minutes time out for a three year old than I can with a tap, I said tap too, not a bashing with a cut down barrel stave or a jug cord, or a cinder block, a tap. A tap that you wouldn't feel through the back of your bike jacket. But the punishment needs to fit the crime, needs to be of consequence or it is pointless. Most of all it needs to fit the personality of the child and its developmental stage. A three year old is devastated by being removed from a social situation. They're wired to interact at a furious rate to learn the rules.

But a 6 year old will get a book off the shelf and read (once they have calmed down), again depending on the personality.

But sometimes that tap is EXACTLY what is need to break a cycle of behaviour that is spiralling out of control. Diversion doesn't work because it doesn't address the problem. You need to know what you did wrong so you can learn not to do it again. Under 5 children have no reason. The Dawn of reason is around four years old and it is limited by the child's experience.

What am I trying to say? That you and Sue Bradford and Helen Clark and every other fucker who thinks he can do it better than me can just shut the hell up.

It's none of your business, unless I invite you to help me raise my kids.

You've pigeon holed me me into a violent child basher. I'm fucking not.

I read child development books, parenting books, books specifically about raising boys, but most of all I look at people who raise successful children who are confident and engaging and ask questions and advice from those parents. Plus I'm not perfect. I get sick, my kids get sick, I get tired, I get emotional, and every other bloody human experience. Parents aren't machines who can be expected to replicate behaviours to a "T" every time, to get it right every time. But as long as the methodology is consistent, the child is addressed and respected as a person and included in the parent/child relationship, you will get great results.

Even before I saw your post, all I've been hearing on the radio is talk about this very popular and heated topic. From hearing it all, I had already agreed on that, it should be left up to the parent to choose how to raise their child. I do agree that it has been blown out of proportion and the problem is being targeted with a destined to fail meathod. Like shooting a crowd of people in a random order to get a terorist in the midst. Even then, I personally don't think the law is an effective way to cut down on true family violence... This is not me changing my opinion because I feel cornered by your argument.

My opinion still stands but what I should have made clear in my post above is that, I do know the difference between smacking and bashing. I have a standard level of respect for any other person unless they provoke me to raise or lower that respect with their actions. Out of that respect, I trust their best judgement to raise their own off-spring the way they belive is best. I think criminal charges should only be layed for true criminals and obviously a mother or father smacking (not bashing) their own child shouldn't be classed as criminals. I know that and you obviously know that.

From the above, I sence that you are obviously proud of your children and proud of the way you have raised them. Good on you. You obviously are taking this topic very personally because it has a direct effect on your daily life. Me, I am just voicing my opinion on just another topic. So I understand your anger.

I will still raise my kids the way I think is best. Everyone should have that right. That's called democracy.

[jrandom]

I will still raise my kids the way I think is best. Everyone should have that right. That's called democracy.

Democracy is where the citizenry makes laws based on a majority consensus. That structure itself has no direct relationship to personal freedoms.

It would be perfectly valid for a democratic society to prescribe strict non-violent guidelines for child-rearing. It would also be possible for an authoritarian dictatorship to allow parents to do whatever the hell they liked behind closed doors.

Do try not to confuse separate sociopolitical issues, Murkn-style... you might provoke me to raise or lower my respect with your actions.

;)

[Toaster]

Some days... NOTHING seems to work. :( All I can say is, if you threaten them with some sort of punishment... carry through with it, or they might run rings around you.... (from personal experience) :)

I completely agree (from observing other people kids). Lissa you made many good points through this thread :)

[doc]

It's typical of a Labour (lead by feminists because we have no male leadership at all) Government dabbling in social engineering. Makes me want to puke. If you look back in history it all started when they stopped, Hang Drawing and Quartering now that was real entertainment on your day off. What will they stop next maybe the Westpac ride... ya never know.

[McJim]

Despite coming from Glasgow I was never smacked that much...well maybe just a couple of grams to help me sleep....

[Motoracer]

Democracy is where the citizenry makes laws based on a majority consensus. That structure itself has no direct relationship to personal freedoms.

It would be perfectly valid for a democratic society to prescribe strict non-violent guidelines for child-rearing. It would also be possible for an authoritarian dictatorship to allow parents to do whatever the hell they liked behind closed doors.

Do try not to confuse separate sociopolitical issues, Murkn-style... you might provoke me to raise or lower my respect with your actions.

;)

True.

However you are mearly commenting on my last sentence consisting of 3 words. I know you are a smart man. Can you really tell me that you don't know where I am coming from (the rest of what I said)? Or in a game of arguments, are you just creating some opposing ammo?

Like you, I too feel that this compelsary ban of smacking which is a compelsary law against a fundamental tool of parenthood for most, is ridiculos. I must admit, I wasn't aware of what Sue Bradford was doing when I initially made my post in this thread. I have always disscussed it with people in the past and I was just doing so looking at the thread title. I DID NOT, make a post to support her. Especially now, after doing some research.

For your sake I will just explain why I wrote the last 3 words in that sentence. To me it is dictatorship, like you said. In my head, the words opposing dictatorship were freedom and then pretty much democracy. Maybe my choise of words weren't appropriate in this instance, but I know that you know what I mean.

[Ixion]

Hm

Mum and dad and Junior have gone to the beach for a nice day out. Mum and dad agree its time to head home . Junior (lets assume maybe 5 years old) doesn't agree. He's having a good time, no way is he going to get in the car.

Now, in Bradfordland, wot y' going to do?

Y'cna't grap Junior and sling him in the car. Cos that's assault (no, not kidnapping - the assault is when you forcibly grab him). Y' can't just drive off home and leave him - CYPS would have a fit.

Wot y'going to do?

People may a big deal out of "You wouldn't be allowed to hit an adult, why should you be allowed to hit a child". They forget that when dealing with adults you have other choices that are not available when dealing with a child.

If you had a boarder who disrupted the household, caused all sorts of trouble, and refused to behave when spoken to, you have the option of telling him to sling his hook. "You're not welcome here, clear out". You can't do that with a kid. You're stuck with him, and kids don't take much notice of social conventions , unless they're made to.

As for "Even though it's illegal, the police will ignore it" - poppycock.

Even if the police were inclined to turn a blind eye, CYPS will not. Nosey Mrs Grundy reports "child abuse" to CYPS. CYPS take action - "Did you strike the child ?" "I only smacked him, on the wrist". " That's enough, that's assault, pack your bags sonny while we call the cops".

[McJim]

In the long run it's alright though - I waited until I was 21 and then beat the shit out of my dad for all the smacks when I was a kid.

Job done.

[APPLE]

smack them up man?kick dey little asses,dey gotta b disiplined,and while your at it?kick sue bradfords ass to.....:headbang:

[Skyryder]

Smacking is the inability of parents to 'effectivley' communicate to their children. It is justified by the religouse right as sanctioned by God. That should tell those of you who support the 'hitting' of children, for whatever reason, something about yourselves.

[SPman]

An occasional light smack can be very effective when all else fails.

It's effectiveness, however, generally diminishes with constant use.

[bikemike]

I am agreeing with SPman mostly.

Someone posted that we need education, not a new law. I can see the point of the comment, but I see that in the grand scheme of things, a law IS education. It's getting everyone here wound up in knots thinking about what is right and wrong, and I can't think of any other 'education' that would be as effective in that regard.
The law sends the general signal that violence is not ok, and we need to find other ways of managing our kids. I'm happy with that in principle, but for me that's because I would not hit my child at all.

Some have commented that proponents don't see or don't make the distinction between a smack and a bashing. I think the reality is that they are all on the continuum, of violence. As another poster said, kids can be terrified when smacked even lightly. Smacking breaks an attachment, a bond of trust betwixt child and parent that exists before the 'Dawn of Reason'. Kids may not even know what their errors are, especially in the case of those so young as to have no defence or escape, and who have died. But they DO know that you have broken that bond. The more often you break that bond, the less respect you will be accorded, no matter how much you love them. So much is done in the name of love that it is a useless argument here. Circumcision, child betrothal and wedlock, and more. If there is love in your heart it will be shown in your actions, not your words.

I certainly remember 'do as I say, not as I do' too many times as a child. I was whacked a few times but it only taught me to subvert my father. I was smarter than him from a young age, so that was not hard. With my brother they collided head on until he left home, and thereafter. From that, lifelong disrespect and disgust was a mutual outcome. I am now estranged from my father because I do not do as he wishes. I'm 40 for heaven sake, and he is the child.

Anyway, I would like to mention a book that has helped me to see different patterns of behaviour than the manipulative, threatening ones I grew up under.

It's called Parenting for a Peaceful world and it is both the most shocking and positive 'child rearing' book I have read. It is academic up to a point, but easy to read.
In summary the author, Robin Grille, takes us through his 6 modes of parenting. These are the historical shifts in what society at large generally conceives child bearing and child rearing to be about. Those stages are:


Infaticidal
Abandoning
Ambivalent
Intrusive
Socialising
Helping


Most of us have been raised in the socialising mode, where we are taught to behave, do as I do - not as I do, dress smartly, say yes sir no sir and so on. With that typically comes continued bribery, emotional blackmail and physical punishment.

What Grille says, if I remember it well, is that moving from the Socialising to the Helping modes, we are learning (as a society) to teach our kids how to behave by example. That is, not by Authoritarian methods, but by Authoritative methods. We show the kids the behaviour that is acceptable, we show them the life skills that work for us, and they emulate them. They develop respect.

I like this piece...

"When we deny the violence of a smack, this simply means that we have become personally de-sensitised to violence at that threshold. Since a smack does not feel violent to the smacker, this seems sufficient justification to carry on smacking. There appears to be an endlessly shifting imaginary line separating 'normative' smacking - a completely arbitrary and subjective definition - from definitive violence. Simply put, we think of something as 'normative' because that's what we grew up with. The hitting we experienced as children has made us insensitive to the pain and humiliation suffered by our own children as we swat them in the name of 'discipline'. So we don't see our blows as 'violent', but our children - who are much more vulnerable and sensitive than ourselves - certainly experience them as violent. (page 183, paperback 2005, ISBN 1 921004 14 2)

I would challenge anyone here to read that book and still say it's OK to smack kids.
I may be pushing treacle uphill considering much of what has been spat out here, but I for one absolutely support the principle that it is not OK to smack your kids.
I also support the principle that society does have a say in that, in what is right and wrong. This is what society is. Otherwise we are all islands of selfish individuals adrift in the breeze.
In the context of helping us to get from Socialising mode to Helping mode (explained in much detail in the book) I support the case for a law, to send the message and to enforce where possible and necessary against violence towards our most vulnerable citizens.

So flame me, what will it achieve?

[crack]

Bikemike & Spman:

For how many years where we given a whack? I was never beaten,by my parents, the odd clip around the ear, but at high school, they use to take delight in caning us, fuck it didn't matter if you were innocent, you still got it, and they talk of abuse:

To this day I would love to meet some of those Fucking teachers!!!!!

We are told we live in a DEMOCRACY, yes/no?

We have parliamentarians that bargin and trade policy other than what their constituants want:

We have a POLL on here that reads considerably in favour of parents choice:

Would you think it fair to say that this would roughly reflect NZer's voice?

Now I understand that the police have always had the power to step in on child abuse "beatings" all it has ever taken is for a child to say my Mum/Dad broke my arm, or beat me with a jug cord, usually by showing a teacher, is or was the first step to police envolvement:

Now you have an awaiting precedent of a good family being torn apart, because junior being a teenager maybe due to peer pressure," Hey my old man walloped me last night with the wooden spoon, what for? he told me to turn the TV off and do my home work, and I answered him back?

Shit junior, he can't hit you, tell your counsellor, you have rights, it is against the law, he can't do that:

Enter the police:

But too equate a "sharp" slap with the "we use to use the wooden mixing spoon", as beating? now if it is going to be a LAW, then why does Sue Bradford state that the BILL will make SMACKING an offence, but it would be TOO TRIVIAL FOR POLICE TO INVESTIGATE: Fuck me.

NZ had better decide if it is a Fucking Democracy or some thing else.

A beautiful country, but severly fucked:

:whocares: :whocares: :whocares: :whocares: :whocares:

[KATWYN]

Now you have an awaiting precedent of a good family being torn apart, because junior being a teenager maybe due to peer pressure," Hey my old man walloped me last night with the wooden spoon, what for? he told me to turn the TV off and do my home work, and I answered him back?

Shit junior, he can't hit you, tell your counsellor, you have rights, it is against the law, he can't do that:

:

...Or decide not to have children at all, under a parental dictatorship.

Enter yet another problem. - hey no more future tax payers being born

[Squeak the Rat]

...Or decide not to have children at all, under a parental dictatorship.


That is something that I have been seriously reconsidering, pending the outcome of this bill....


To anyone who says that no force or smacking is acceptable, i ask you these questions:

1) do you have kids?
2) if so, are they on the whole very well behaved?
3) do you believe the behaviour of a child is 100% due to the parenting they receive?
4) have you ever had to deal with a child who absolutely refuses to do what you tell/ask them?
and finally
5) were you beaten or abused as a child?

[Guitana]

Maybe an organisation like CYFS would be better served being a privately run organisation for the crown,staffed by intelligent people with the skills and qualifications to improve the quality of life for those children in abusive families.
The current organisation is staffed by incompetents who are not acheiving results.This organisation is full of beureaucrats and hangers on, and it's a gross waste of taxpayers money!!!
I had a freind who worked for this organisation for two years and had to leave because he was disgusted with the way these people conducted themselves!!!!!
Now he runs a private company that assists wayward teenage boys and their success rate is huge!!! This was acheived because they didnt have the ever present Beureaucrats breathing down their necks telling them what they can't do!
He's happy and doing something that benefits the community and helps these young men acheive their goals and live a successful life! But they continually struggle to get funding why? Because large bloated organisations like CYFS take huge amounts of funding to acheive fuck all!!!!
Don't get me wrong not all staff are incompetents at CYFS there are some who try really hard to serve their community but continuosly find themselves banging their heads against a brick wall due to the Beureaucratic red tape and PC bullshit that is constantly put in their way!

[jrandom]

I know that you know what I mean.

Mrs Fish likes to say that, although sometimes she has to retreat all the way to "Well, I know what I mean..."

My point remains relevant. Your language confused social policy with unrelated political issues. That sort of approach is what gets debates fucked up and off track.

Personally, I support this legislation. People seem to be missing the fact that this bill is not adding regulation - it's taking it away. Unusual, particularly for anything sponsored by tree-hugging pinkoes.

I like the idea of removing the law from the equation and trusting society and the police not to lay ridiculous accusations against people who don't deserve it. Less law, more trust. Less regulation, more respect.

The kind of society that would allow someone to be charged with a criminal offense for a standard smack would be so terribly fucked up that the presence or absence of this specific legal defence would be the least of our concerns.

I don't see that society around me right now, and I don't see it happening any time soon. But there have been specific instances of parents who have been immorally acquitted of assault charges via the currently-legislated 'reasonable force' defence, and I'm all for removing that shield in those cases.

[35tickets]

A beautiful country, but severly fucked:

:whocares: :whocares: :whocares: :whocares: :whocares:

Couldn't agree more mate!:rockon: :Punk:

[35tickets]

A beautiful country, but severly fucked:

:whocares: :whocares: :whocares: :whocares: :whocares:



Couldn't agree more mate!:rockon: :Punk:

[James Deuce]

Obviously you could.

[candor]

Sp Man - are you sure we have the highest rate of child abuse?

I thought the recent report just said highest rate of child injury death. Child abuse is a minor cause of child injury death in NZ. It kills 1 / 100 000 kids yearly. Falls kill more, drownings may from memory, car crashes kill 4x as many kids as child bashing in NZ and thats what really slanted our stats.

Man Down under says
"The law change is over the top but has a basis in good intention and international trends. Outlaw smacking, watch the levels of reported abuse stay where they are, watch average parents get confused about what their rights are... and are not."

Totaly agree. Banning smacking is in the hope of stopping abuse is like -
banning talking in order to stop verbal abuse or slander
banning sex in the hope of stopping rape
banning diets in the hope of stopping anorexia
banning vehicular travel in the hope of lowering emissions

In some circumstances smacking is the best communication. It is a natural part of raising young for mammals. Yes we are animals, mammals - homo sapiens and must learn from our best guides - dogs.

They are a good role model as they do not eat their young like many humans.
They give babies a harmless clout or an inhibited gentle nip to bring them into line and help them learn the boundaries of acceptability.

Someone talked of smacking breaking a parental bond. The bond needs loosening over time - the umbilical cord must get cut emotionally as well as physically so I don'r se that as a concern. My memory of getting lightly smacked was a deep sulk. In my childs mind I felt my sovereignty (ability to do as I pleased) had been assailed.

That is the general flavour of the sulky mood and resentment I felt for maybe an hour after a ? 2 monthly light smack I must admit, tho as a child I could not have put this into words.

I believe on reflection this was character forming. As it proved parents were not (like the rest of the world) any extension of me I could control. It helped create healthy ego boundaries. And it obviously helped keep my ego in check by making clear I was not a little god who could do as I pleased.

Friends were bought up with the no smacking - and ended up very precocious and bratty.

Others I knew were disciplined too much ie not in proportion to need / offense and using weapons, which I see as abuse

Mentally healthy people can use smacking as one of a range pf tools to raise mentally healthy kids. Noithing is more sane or natural in my book.

Why apply laws to all which will not stop the deviates? Makes no sense.
Just outlaw the deviant stuff - define it, like Chester Burrows suggested.

The UN can go to hell. It can talk about how to address violence - look what they caused in Israel and etc etc

Academic power freak s***stirrers divorced from reality if they promote anti smacking. They too should be candidates for political a************s.

Something needs changing based on real bashers getting off on technicalities. But there is no need for overkill. This legislation misses the mark and as someone said is just a vote catcher for do-gooders as it will not save 1 life. Only culture change among problem families and SERVICES will.

I know kids killed including a 9 year old. I know the killer. Her mum was a drug addict schizophrenic recently released from jail. No one in the family was fit to look afer the kid and family all told CYPs this. They forced the kid on the crazy lesbian mum who did not want her and was obviously unfit as it is "PC" to place people with whanau - especially the MUM.

Kid was abused. Same was reported by wider whanau to CYPs none of whom were any better equipped to look after kid, the little girl was viciously murdered within about 2 weeks of insane placement due to the (aging) street kid mother having delusions about her and crazy on drugs.

Not one word about cyps hit media. The family and killer was crucified. Mum jailed for murder - still there I believe.

Anti smacking bill - ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa. Cheap way to score brownie points and distract middle NZ from what is really going on out there. Statistics show for most kids killed the parents have mental illness.

About which our society does nothing - also closing 12 alcohol drug treatment centres hasn't been a great boon for vulnerable kids either.

CYPs plays a very active role in the kid killings. Cos it (usually) lets the crazies at 'em. Insane policies - insane results.

[Quartermile]

:shit: Imagine if the media got hold of this thread!!!!

Headline: NZ biker community all for 'wallaping' children :killingme

[Guitana]

:shit: Imagine if the media got hold of this thread!!!!

Headline: NZ biker community all for 'wallaping' children :killingme

We'd all be fucked!!!!

[Quartermile]

We'd all be fucked!!!!

Would that be illegal if it included smacking:love:

[avgas]

:shit: Imagine if the media got hold of this thread!!!!

Headline: NZ biker community all for 'wallaping' children :killingme

Wouldnt matter - so long as i dont threaten to kill a politician.......but its so fucken tempting these days

[Quartermile]

Wouldnt matter - so long as i dont threaten to kill a politician.......but its so fucken tempting these days

Threats are empty just do it anyway!!
:ar15: :thud:

no one will 'see' it anyway!!!

[scracha]

1) do you have kids?

Hell no.


2) if so, are they on the whole very well behaved?

N/A. Most of the neighbours kids are little $hites if that helps. Some of the kids I used to teach were $hites too. What's your point?



3) do you believe the behaviour of a child is 100% due to the parenting they receive?

Umm...mostly. Not 100%...maybe 85%



4) have you ever had to deal with a child who absolutely refuses to do what you tell/ask them?

Used to every day in the classroom. My little sister was easier, I could just threaten her and back it up with a kick up the arse.



5) were you beaten or abused as a child?
Well that's really two questions. I was beaten as a child, mostly by other bigger boys but sometimes by my mother.
I wasn't abused as a child though. Unless you count the Mrs Robinson type lady when I was 15.

[crack]

I am at work until the 1st, I have emailed this, when I get ashore I will post by land mail, I sugest any of you that feel like wise enclined to do the same,
No Postage stamp required:

Address:

Sue Bradford
Parliamnet buildings
Wellington:

By Law if you use mail, She is compelled to reply:

Email: has no response requirements.

Attached are my sentiments, I have edited my Name & address:

:whocares: :whocares: :whocares: :whocares:

[soundbeltfarm]

this just my opinion so if you dont agree i couldn't give a toss.

when i was younger i always got a smack or belt and if i swore or answered back i got my mouth washed out with soap.
i do the same with my 2 kids and now i only have to mention the soap and my oldest pulls into line.
my oldest boy has just started school and boy has it changed since i was there.
for rugby they dont tackle and they talk about there feelings and stuff. now im not saying thats wrong at all because i guarantee my schooling seemed pretty soft compared to my dads. he was always geeting the cane across the knuckles for doing F- all.
my boy been at school for 2 and half weeks ( he 5)
and i growled him for answering back at his mother and he just looked at me and said i had hurt his feelings. Blew me away first time he'd said stuff like that.
the country is getting to bloody soft on people thats why i believe there's so many bludgers and crims ( all been said before)
does that Sue Bradford even have kids? and Helen .
I firmly believe im better for the dicipline my parents gave me.
bet i didn't at the time though.
A law will not stop what the government is trying to prevent.
My 2 cents

SBF

[Swoop]

Smacking kids?
Where is the option for smacking sue bradford!!!

An un-elected "politician" forcing her personal views onto the population...

[Quartermile]

Sorry she acts like a kid though so I assumed.........

[paturoa]

What I've found out over the years is that when they were young, a quick smack at the time was the only effective thing.

I tried withdrawing privaleges, time outs, and good adult talking tos, etc etc. These and the other shite I read in mags and books about parenting had little / no effect when they were younger (little shits just ignored me and did it again - lol - I wonder if their attention span was as short as mine is now?)

Obviously I've made mistakes and got the balance wrong at times, to have made these discoveries. So, sometimes I've used a smack when something else would have been better and vise versa.

How does that make me a criminal - I just don't get that?????

As they have gotten older (and more devious - me too!) I have found that other techniques work better. Lately the "well you've let yourself down" is working in conjunction with confiscation of the cell phone or groundings. So the oldest spawn (13) hasn't had a smack for years.

Buggered if I know what the next technique will be..... wish me luck.

Anyway, the real thing here for me, is bringing up children is about trial and error, and us, their parents, learning as we grow too. Smacks are sometimes appropriate and sometimes not.

On a slightly different angle, I rekon that Sue B's bullshite about smacking not becoming a criminal offence is the same as the Japanese BS about whale research. Why fucking lie????? It totaly undermines her already limited credibility. Zealots are dangerous to uinme

(does anyone wonder how many of the anti-smacking zealots are into S&M? - ...now just visualise Sue naked, bent over, and getting a gee up spanking from Michael Cullen.... - uuurrggghhhh - sorry I just lost my dinner all over my keyboard)

[scumdog]

Ok so here we go what is your opinion on smacking kids ??

Personally I don't see making it illegal making a huge difference as it will be hard to stop the ones whe get serious hidings, and some almost innocent average person is going to get slammed for a slight tap on the hand.

It's a 'feelgood fuck up', won't affect the 'beat them to death' brigade..

It's equal to the dumb-arse pommy gun laws.

Joe Lunchbox can't have a gun.

But 15 year-old bottom-feeder Barry from the London gang has no trouble getting one to blast his 16 year old rival.:yes:

Ooh yes, tough laws will really sort them out. (Tuis moment)

[Quartermile]

It's a 'feelgood fuck up', won't affect the 'beat them to death' brigade..

It's equal to the dumb-arse pommy gun laws.

Joe Lunchbox can't have a gun.

But 15 year-old bottom-feeder Barry from the London gang has no trouble getting one to blast his 16 year old rival.:yes:

Ooh yes, tough laws will really sort them out. (Tuis moment)

Like this:

[pixc]

Im sorry if this has already been mentioned but theres 7 pages to catch up on and I couldnt wait to put my opinion in.

Those 'Nanny' shows work because it is an OUTSIDER coming in to 'retrain' the kids and family. I dont know about other parents here, but I know that my kids refuse to eat certain foods I cook, and my boy is very very trying almost every day (ADD). Now, when these two angels of mine go to nana's or grandma's for a for a holiday, they eat the same things they refuse to eat from me, and they are very well mannered. How ever, I believe all the bullshit the would have given me in that time is saved up for when they get home because the shit hits the fan for a day or so and its a battle to re-establish whos the bloody boss!!

As for smacking, yes I smack my kids. I havent smacked my daughter for 3-4 years because she know the rules through and through and when I say no I MEAN NO!!

As for the boy, well, he is like a little pit bull and on the go. He is always always testing his boundries. I havent smacked him for 1-2 years ..except for yesterday. I took to the littel shit with the wooden spoon. Boy was my name mud and I had all the threats spat out at me as well as some pretty choice words. I remainded quite calm I feel in my dealing of punishment but I felt it had to be done after grounding, and removel of privilages didnt work. The boy has taken to sumersulting of a 10-15 meter high pile of sawdust thats at the back of the property. 3 times I found him there. And 3 times he was growled and told how dangerous it was and that he was not to go there. IT WAS OUT OF BOUNDS. The fourth time I took to him with the wooden spoon. My message was loud and clear, as is my role as being a mean bitch. But fark it. Arrest me for punishing my boy, for protecting him from himself. He is a very strong willed little man, and he needs a firm hand to maintain his boundries.

[Quartermile]

Yea it has been mentioned but oh well:whocares:

I'm currently not having alot of faith in TV alot of these 'real life' shows seem to be a bit scripted like the nanny show which oh as their starting to loose popularity come up with something like, 'ok you parents need to fight back for ratings!!'

Oh Sh!t:shit: I just jacked my own thread :weep:

[scumdog]

. IT WAS OUT OF BOUNDS. The fourth time I took to him with the wooden spoon. My message was loud and clear, as is my role as being a mean bitch. But fark it. Arrest me for punishing my boy, for protecting him from himself. He is a very strong willed little man, and he needs a firm hand to maintain his boundries.


Has he stayed away from the saw-dust pile since then??

[Harry33]

And now for another spin....

I not sure why everyones so worried, they way I see the future if you want to buy a house in NZ you won't be able to afford to have/smack kids anyway. Like dropping to a single incomes going to pay for the fuckin house.

[pixc]

Has he stayed away from the saw-dust pile since then??

So far so good. :yes:

[pixc]

the way I see the future, if you want to buy a house in NZ, you won't be able to afford to have/smack kids anyway. Like dropping to a single incomes going to pay for the fuckin house.

Sad but seems to be true.

[mstriumph]

An occasional light smack can be very effective when all else fails.

It's effectiveness, however, generally diminishes with constant use.

it's a bit like puppy training

the rebuke, accompanied by a stern "no" ............. after a coupla times just the "no" works, all by itself


anything else is a failure to communicate :sunny:

[Motoracer]

Mrs Fish likes to say that, although sometimes she has to retreat all the way to "Well, I know what I mean..."

My point remains relevant. Your language confused social policy with unrelated political issues. That sort of approach is what gets debates fucked up and off track.

Yea OK OK, point taken.

The rest of your post confuses me. Simply because I don't know enough about the bill or the legislation that the debate is about. All I have been doing is voicing my opinion on smacking or not smacking in general. I have a good position to do so because I was smacked or lightly slaped once and that was probably it from my parents in my whole life. I never really knew I was such a minority until this debate and poll started.

To further discuss in this topic, I'll have to educate myself with a bit more research...

[doc]

Who cares smacking is for PC correct wally's. My kids never stopped with a simple smack it was when I beat them senceless that it stopped and then I felt I was in control again . My kids are very curteous when I speak to them. They are very busy and aren't able to visit often but I'm sure they miss me cos I miss having them around .

[jonbuoy]

Some kids need a good hiding and some don't. Like dogs - some dogs you never need to hit - a shout and a look is enough. Some need a good wallop to keep em in line. Shouldn't be done with any feeling by you though, a cold calculated measured slap, not a you've pissed me off and I'm having a bad day wallop. Thats bullying.

[SPman]

Sp Man - are you sure we have the highest rate of child abuse?
Not the highest, but its up there with the worst of them - needs to be a whole lot lower!

[jrandom]

The rest of your post confuses me. Simply because I don't know enough about the bill or the legislation that the debate is about.

Go forth and learn (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/).

Interwebs r teh awesome.

[Guitana]

Not the highest, but its up there with the worst of them - needs to be a whole lot lower!

What about Rwanda or does hacking kids up with a machete not count?????

[crack]

What about Rwanda or does hacking kids up with a machete not count?????

There it is about POWER, and MONEY, TRIBE against TRIBE,WARLORD against ?????, and the GOVT, trying to hold its position:

Add into that UNEDUCATION,HUNGRY,IMPOVERISHED,???????.

Not the same thing at all, and certainly not equatable:

:Offtopic: :Offtopic: :Offtopic: :Offtopic: :nono: :nono:

[ajturbo]

i will smack luke any time i think he needs a wack!.. and some times i will do it just to keep him on his toes!!!
and all you fuckin tree huggers can get fucked!!
i do beat him IF he deserves it!!! and if i use a stick.. he had better run faster!!

hahahahahahahaha

[RT527]

I heard on the News today something that made my blood boil....Sue Bradford was going on about the recent rape case and that the Public should be listened too because a majority of people said that the police are all rapists and need to be brought to justice( or something like that, was too angry to get all of what was said) .....WTF nearly 90 % of the public dont want her to bring in the anti smacking law....is she listening to the Public ....dont think so, And she should apologise to the police for all the spitting, verbal abuse etc etc that went on when she broke the law....I mean come on!.

Oh and what percentage of the Police force are women ....now we Know for sure that Sue Bradford is a true blood man hater.

[imdying]

Yep, someone should definitely rape that Bradford women with a PR24, just before they beat her to death with it...

[crack]

Yep, someone should definitely rape that Bradford women with a PR24, just before they beat her to death with it...

Beat her with a BIG MEET STICK:trouble is she in all likelyhood has never had a decent dose of fornication, it would be wasted on her.

:shutup: :shutup: :shutup: :shutup: :shutup: :shutup:

[Squeak the Rat]

It turns out that Helen Clarke actually thinks that light smacking is acceptable, and that this has been the intention of the bill all along!

FFS Helen, do you think the country is going to forget that you have been a staunch supporter of Sue Bradford and her bill, and that all involved have stated that the purpose is to completely eliminate smacking?

Oh, yeah you're right. A lot of kiwis are as stupid as you are dishonest. No doubt you'll come out as the good guy...

[James Deuce]

Don't forget that Helen originally said she wasn't going to support the bill. Then she did. Now she supports light smacking. Because she's secured the Green Party vote.

Here's a challenge for you all. Any time you even feel like smacking your kids, ring the cops and dob yourself in. That should keep the courts bound up and the rapists on the street.

Might stop a few speeding cases making it to court as well. Maybe even keep some drunks on the road.

[imdying]

I can feel Helen's tounge up my arse, and it doesn't feel good :no: Hell no we're gonna forget this.

[Finn]

Putting politics aside for a moment, lets look at what this bill is actually about... our children's wellbeing. I don't think you should have to smack your kids to educate them on what's right and wrong. I was never smacked and I turned out to be an angel. :innocent:

[ghost]

Heres my five cents. It is currently illegal to smack anyone, thats assault. Section 59 allows the use of reasonable force for the diciplining of children, if that what you want to do, your not breaking the law under this act. Bradford says that the bill to repel the act is not an "anti smacking bill", but has admitted that once it is repealed smacking for diciplining children will be illegal, but thats not the point of the bill. She is either increadibly stupid or thinks the rest of New Zealand is.

How ever she has worded the bill and what ever it is suppost to stop it is an anti smacking bill.

She says that the police will use discretion but she fails to admit that the police will have to investigate any complaints of assault, and lay charges if evidence supports that.

So depending on which side of the debate that you sit, for or against smacking, this bill is either a very poorly concieved amendment that will do nothing to prevent child abuse and criminilize a large portion on society, or another form of the socilist engineering that continues to pervade NZ under this goverment.

And before you say that the greens arent part of the goverment, a few years ago steve smarmy mahary attempted to get this moving thru parliment but the pupet master realised how damaging it could be so let it go at the time.

Now the greens are doing the work again..............

[ghost]

Putting politics aside for a moment, lets look at what this bill is actually about... our children's wellbeing. I don't think you should have to smack your kids to educate them on what's right and wrong. I was never smacked and I turned out to be an angel. :innocent:

And thats your right to chose not to. What is the youngest memory that you have. How do you know you were'nt? Maybe after a few smacks when you were two or three you didnt need it when you got older.

I was smacked when I was young, and I turned out ok as well. Different people, different dicipline, my parents arent criminals for doing either.

And dont think that if I may chose to smack my child that I dont care about his well being, if I didnt care about him I would just let him run free. You can come and try to reason with him someday ( he's two) when he insists that playing with the power point is the only thing in the whole world to do.:nono:

[MSTRS]

Pain is a great teacher....
Smacking is not abuse. In fact, applied judiciously, it shows the greatest love and concern for a child's long-term wellbeing. When "No!" isn't enough, a smack establishes a boundary in no uncertain terms.
I am glad my child-rearing days are behind me, because otherwise I would foresee a large amount of legal trouble ahead for me personally. Instead, I see an even larger amount of trouble ahead for the whole country.
When Parliament stops listening to the people, it is but a small step to far-Left/far-Right Totalitarianism...

[Squeak the Rat]

Stuff.co.nz is reporting that Sue Bradford is now saying that light smacking is ok under her bill.

Ignoring the labour/greens u-turn, the fact is that (some) lawyers and police believe that people smacking children will be criminals under the act. And now that it has public attention, do-gooders will dob in parents who smack their kids. And police have indicated they will investigate and prosecute.

I like J2's suggestion. Dob yourself in.

[MSTRS]

Stuff.co.nz is reporting that Sue Bradford is now saying that light smacking is ok under her bill.


She is just obfuscating...she will still withdraw her bill if 'teh' amendment is ratified.
Too many laws in this country are poorly worded, whereby the original intent is lost when 'tested' through the courts.
IMHO if her bill is to be given any credence, it should state categorically that a smack with an open hand on a particular part (or parts) of the child's anatomy is OK. Which is what the proposed amendment is trying to achieve (see first sentence).

[Indiana_Jones]

Does that fat cow Sue Bradford have children?

I know Glorious comrade Clark doesn't, but then again she's a male monkey who's been put in a suit and then strategically shaved.

-Indy

[shafty]

I heard 1 talk back caller say (before he was cut off) that Bradford lost a kid to suicide, - is that right does anyone know?

[James Deuce]

Putting politics aside for a moment, lets look at what this bill is actually about... our children's wellbeing. I don't think you should have to smack your kids to educate them on what's right and wrong. I was never smacked and I turned out to be an angel. :innocent:

And that is the most incredibly rude argument I keep hearing.

It is assumed, just like motoracer did, that those that disagree with the bill disagree with creating a safe loving environment for their children.

Just for the record I am taking names. I do not like being insulted like that.

Not all children are the same. 1 of mine needs corrective action via time out. He is very social and being removed is the worst thing that can happen to him. Number 2 will use time out to plot his revenge. A light tap fixes the problem without histrionics RIGHT NOW. Number 3 just needs a special look and he'll do everything he can to get back in the good books.

Parenting by numbers DOES NOT WORK.

[cowpoos]

It won't stop "child abuse" will it - E.g. Kahui twins.

It will however make criminals of parents who spank their kids (like most of us were spanked without destroying us psyhcologically or emotionally ?), despite Sue's reassurances that Cops won't ever kow about that sort of thing...we know that a lot of the time the cops will prefer to charge someone and leave it up to the courts to decide..........

My opinion has changed somewhat after watching the 'nanny' programs with problem children - it seems that 'time out' and honest, up front communication seems to work....I could be wrong...will try it with my kid when he ? arrives.

Sue Bradford - she doesn't come across well though does she ? Wasn't she a dole bludger before becoming an MP ? Talks like Lynn of Tawa...LOL

I tell ya something though - if at teenage years my kid ever tries to strike me or the missus, they won't know what hit em. Might make sure thay realise this before that ever possibly arises.
I'm not really for or against at this stage because I havn't read the proposed bill in detail...only heard some of what the media have put forward....

But...how many times while at school was there people who would not let he teacher's have the last say...or will just tell them where to go...I would presume they would be the same types of persons that at home or away from school,etc they would react the same way...tell there parents where to go...you know... "YOU CAN'T F#?K@%G MAKE ME' etc etc... how do those kids get dealt with?? can't stick them in time out because it will become a physical excersize making them stay there!!! what do people do with those types??? normal everyday kids seem to have good morals and know wrong from right...and can accept being 'told' and timed out,etc as punishment...still some can't

[Damon]

My personal view is that over the last few generations, parents have become softer and more protective of their kids which is having a negitive effect on them later in life,
i think most people will agree that children in general are more out of control today than they were in say the 60's 70's or even 80's, sure there have always been bad kids but it's much more previlent today.
Perhaps if kids learned the difference between right and wrong and there were real life concequeces to their actions rather than a parent counting to 5 or being sent to the naughty corner to reflect like the Sue wants then they wouldn't be throwing bricks off bridges onto the motorway and torturing animals.

As for Sue Bradford, wasn't she convicted for assult a few years back? and she has no kids, i hardly think she's the person to tell the country how to raise children.

[Squeak the Rat]

Come on guys, don't hassle sue. She is competent, sane and completely capable of dealing with the stresses and intellectual requirements of an MP.

[Damon]

And that is the most incredibly rude argument I keep hearing.

It is assumed, just like motoracer did, that those that disagree with the bill disagree with creating a safe loving environment for their children.

Just for the record I am taking names. I do not like being insulted like that.

Not all children are the same. 1 of mine needs corrective action via time out. He is very social and being removed is the worst thing that can happen to him. Number 2 will use time out to plot his revenge. A light tap fixes the problem without histrionics RIGHT NOW. Number 3 just needs a special look and he'll do everything he can to get back in the good books.

Parenting by numbers DOES NOT WORK.

Bling! here's a parent with his head screwd on right and Sue wants to make him a criminal, F@#K Sue Bradford

[kiwifruit]

F@#K Sue Bradford

hmmmm i dunno....
maybe a few hundred beers later

[Finn]

Just for the record I am taking names. I do not like being insulted like that.

Oh so you're angry? So what are you going to do about it Jim2, smack me?

[imdying]

Oh so you're angry? So what are you going to do about it Jim2, smack me?Puts hand up for the job :shifty:

[Damon]

Oh so you're angry? So what are you going to do about it Jim2, smack me?

:shit: Sweet Sophie doesn't sound so Sweet anymore, i feel so mislead

[MisterD]

..and another thing.

According to at least one legal opinion, once the protection of "reasonable force" is removed, you won't even be able to physically force a child into time out.

This bill is just the straight out result of some very woolly-headed thinking indeed.

[Squeak the Rat]

..and another thing.

According to at least one legal opinion, once the protection of "reasonable force" is removed, you won't even be able to physically force a child into time out.

This bill is just the straight out result of some very woolly-headed thinking indeed.

No no no, that's not what it means according to doctorate of law Sue Bradford.

[MSTRS]

Come on guys, don't hassle sue.

Indeed. She read a book once (by Dr Spock, I think it was) and she knows so much better than real parents....

[Finn]

:shit: Sweet Sophie doesn't sound so Sweet anymore, i feel so mislead

I was just trying to get my point across... didn't mean no harm. Sorry Jim2 :love:

[Damon]

I was just trying to get my point across... didn't mean no harm. Sorry Jim2 :love:

feew! my world has returned to normal again :apint:

[MisterD]

No no no, that's not what it means according to doctorate of law Sue Bradford.

Well she knows more about the law than me, I've never been arrested, have no convictions against my name and have never seen the inside of a prison.

[James Deuce]

Oh so you're angry? So what are you going to do about it Jim2, smack me?

Haha. Left-wing feminazi alert (if we're going to go down the name calling route).

Did you read my post and understand, or do you think that it is optional and that you should do your best to make mileage out of non-contextual quotes?

Try to turn up to a battle of wits with a full load please, not a political agenda.

[James Deuce]

I was just trying to get my point across... didn't mean no harm. Sorry Jim2 :love:

Sarcasm is a tactic employed in desperation.

[Finn]

Haha. Left-wing feminazi alert (if we're going to go down the name calling route).

Did you read my post and understand, or do you think that it is optional and that you should do your best to make mileage out of non-contextual quotes?

Try to turn up to a battle of wits with a full load please, not a political agenda.

Hmmmm angry NZ male with a short temper. I wonder if this is the cause of your troublesome child?

I'm not a feminist nor am I a left winger. I just don't agree with smacking kids - full stop. While I am against any government playing god as is the case here perhaps this bill may cause parents ruling with an iron fist to think twice about how they discipline their children. Can't be that bad can it?

[Squeak the Rat]

While I am against any government playing god as is the case here perhaps this bill may cause parents ruling with an iron fist to think twice about how they discipline their children. Can't be that bad can it?

That part isn't. The problem is the part that affects the 95% of NZ parents who are doing a good job.

You cannot make laws that are open to interpretation. Well, you can, but you need to be prepared for the courts to interpret them which may be different than the original intention.

Most people arguing against the bill would be perfectly happy to have a line drawn in the sand so that the people who beat their kids do get prosecuted. It appears that those arguing for the bill either don't have kids or are lucky enough to have kids that respond positively to time-out.

[MSTRS]

Hmmmm angry NZ male with a short temper. I wonder if this is the cause of your troublesome child?

I'm not a feminist nor am I a left winger. I just don't agree with smacking kids - full stop. While I am against any government playing god as is the case here perhaps this bill may cause parents ruling with an iron fist to think twice about how they discipline their children. Can't be that bad can it?

You really think that?

[Finn]

You really think that?

I did say perhaps and may. I can only hope.

[buellbabe]

Its pretty obvious that the majority of us share the same view...

I was smacked as a child and it never did me any harm...there is a big difference between discipline and abuse as we are all aware ( well most of us I hope! ).

As already said, the intention behind the bill is a good one but unfortunately its as misdirected as the whole stupid dog chipping bill.

Personally I don't think this law is gonna make a ounce of difference to the children its trying to protect.

[MSTRS]

I did say perhaps and may. I can only hope.
A forlorn hope....making good parents into 'criminals' in the hope that abusive parents will stop. Sound realistic to you?

[MSTRS]

.... its as misdirected as the whole stupid dog chipping bill.


Quite. Put about that once in place, it would stop dog attacks. Yeah right. Like the dog would know that chip meant 'behave'.

[Damon]

Personally I don't think this law is gonna make a ounce of difference to the children its trying to protect.

Exactly, an abusive parent in an alcohol fuelled rage is not going to stop and think "hmmm this might get me in trouble" they've already gone past the "hmmm this may seriously injure my child" stage and it's all down hill from there

meanwhile some nice lady will get arrested in the middle of the supermarket for giving Timmy a smack on the bum or hand to stop him screaming

[James Deuce]

Hmmmm angry NZ male with a short temper. I wonder if this is the cause of your troublesome child?

I'm not a feminist nor am I a left winger. I just don't agree with smacking kids - full stop. While I am against any government playing god as is the case here perhaps this bill may cause parents ruling with an iron fist to think twice about how they discipline their children. Can't be that bad can it?

So you've categorised me as an angry child basher on the basis of some Internet posts?

Who said I had a troublesome child? I said I had a management plan.

Things that work with one child do not work with others. Children, despite what some childless experts would have us believe, do not arrive in this world without form or shape to their personality.

[MisterD]

I just don't agree with smacking kids - full stop. While I am against any government playing god as is the case here perhaps this bill may cause parents ruling with an iron fist to think twice about how they discipline their children. Can't be that bad can it?

Why remove from the toolbox of parenting something that has proved an efficient and efficacious method of discipline since the dawn of time?

As to your second point, the whole problem with this bill is that it will criminalise the parents who do actually think about disciplining their children and do bugger all about those who don't...

Personally, this will be a law that I hit the "Ignore" button on, I wouldn't dream of telling Bradford and her ilk that they must feed their kids meat regardless of their beliefs, becuase it's better for them, so I reject their attempt to interfere with how I bring up my kids.

[ManDownUnder]

hmmmm i dunno....
maybe a few hundred beers later

WHOAAAAA - that's a maybe????

[kro]

Hmmmm angry NZ male with a short temper. I wonder if this is the cause of your troublesome child?

I'm not a feminist nor am I a left winger. I just don't agree with smacking kids - full stop. While I am against any government playing god as is the case here perhaps this bill may cause parents ruling with an iron fist to think twice about how they discipline their children. Can't be that bad can it?

I cannot begin to explain how many boundaries you crossed with this post, but let me try get a few covered.

The smacking of a child has little if anything to do with being "angry" as a parent. I think it was extremely rude to make that comment. I was smacked as a child, and I was not a trouble child at all, and certainly not an angry man/dad.

Watching all our friends raise their kids, the non smackers ended up with angry, shitty, hellion children, every single time..... no exceptions. The "smackers" raised kids I would welcome in my own home.

The government is applying yet another band-aid to a social issue it refuses to address, and in the process, it is taking the last bastion of hope ( I firmly believe), for parents, who want to be able to raise respectful, obedient, well rounded children.

The generation of troubled teens we have today, are the result of 2 major demographics in this country... one of which is soft cock parents, who both worked non stop, and felt guilty about their kids in full time day care, and subsequently let their kids do anything, and have anything, and have little if any discipline, all out of sheer guilt.
The child has no boundaries, is easily bored, and angry. A great cocktail for a hormone ridden teen too I might add.

[The_Dover]

I say beat the little shits into submission.

Especially if they refuse to get you another lion red from the fridge in the garage.

[Grahameeboy]

I say beat the little shits into submission.

Especially if they refuse to get you another lion red from the fridge in the garage.

Geeze, didn't take you long as a Father did it??

[Finn]

I cannot begin to explain how many boundaries you crossed with this post, but let me try get a few covered.

The smacking of a child has little if anything to do with being "angry" as a parent. I think it was extremely rude to make that comment. I was smacked as a child, and I was not a trouble child at all, and certainly not an angry man/dad.

Watching all our friends raise their kids, the non smackers ended up with angry, shitty, hellion children, every single time..... no exceptions. The "smackers" raised kids I would welcome in my own home.

The government is applying yet another band-aid to a social issue it refuses to address, and in the process, it is taking the last bastion of hope ( I firmly believe), for parents, who want to be able to raise respectful, obedient, well rounded children.

The generation of troubled teens we have today, are the result of 2 major demographics in this country... one of which is soft cock parents, who both worked non stop, and felt guilty about their kids in full time day care, and subsequently let their kids do anything, and have anything, and have little if any discipline, all out of sheer guilt.
The child has no boundaries, is easily bored, and angry. A great cocktail for a hormone ridden teen too I might add.

I just don't agree with smacking and I certainly won't apologise for it. As for me being rude, I've been a member for 3 days and so far I've been called a slut, been invited to group sex, had a proposal from a 1080 inch dildo and been called a femanazi.

[kro]

No one was fishing for an apology, but rude is rude.

[Skyryder]

I find the pro 'smacking' arguments pretty baseless. Their number one arguement is that the state should have no say in how parents bring up their children. The state has every right to protect 'all' of it's citizens from anyone who is intent on inflicting pain on others for whatever reason.

The pro smacking lobby complain that their opponents refer to smacking as hitting. What they fail to realise is that smacking is hitting albeit in a very minor form.

They maintain that smacking is a form of discipline and punishment. I find this argument to be both cowardly, and lacking somewhat in integrity. The purpose of the 'smack' is to teach. It is used as a method to inform the child that a certain action or behavour will not be tolerated. The infliction of pain as a method of teaching and learning I personaly find abhorrent.

Good one Sue. Bout time some one in this country stood up in support of our children. No one else seems to care enough to.


Skyryder

[crack]

I just don't agree with smacking and I certainly won't apologise for it. As for me being rude, I've been a member for 3 days and so far I've been called a slut, been invited to group sex, had a proposal from a 1080 inch dildo and been called a femanazi.

Now then! a Slut I can deal with, I am not biased, group sex, I can deal with as long as I am invited, BUT I am lost with a 1080 inch Dildo,and what is a Femanazi, is it Italian for group Love sessions? or is it German and should it have died 62 years ago.:love::love: :love: :love:

[crack]

A previous post, I was laughing at the Irony of history!

Here there has to be a certain Irony that the Guy who may potentially save the day is a so called Disgraced MP???

Now I just wonder if the Maori party have played both sides of the fence here?

IE: Come on Tito, come and work with us, stand as an independant? (he has)

Tito we are doing a deal for XXXXX with the Greens, in exchange for our vote for the anti smacking bill.

Look Tito,don't worry matey, if you table all these ammendments at the 11th hour, it will create a shitstorm with Aunty Helen and the Greens:

And we already have their assurances with our "FUTURE" XXXXXX bill.

I wonder what the Maori Party will propose??????.

If I was Aunty Helen I would be rather worried about now.

:shutup: :shutup: :shutup: :shutup:

[SPman]

I say beat the little shits into submission.

Especially if they refuse to get you another lion red from the fridge in the garage.
[quote=GB[Geeze, didn't take you long as a Father did it??[/quote]

He's just stacking his case early - and more power to his elbow.........

[cowpoos]

I just don't agree with smacking and I certainly won't apologise for it. As for me being rude, I've been a member for 3 days and so far I've been called a slut, been invited to group sex, had a proposal from a 1080 inch dildo and been called a femanazi.



You don't have to agree with anyone on here :) ....and you certianly don't have to apologise to anyone on here ;) ....[sounds a little bit like paliament]....and you certianly don't have to spell or punctuate properly :whistle: [and a lot of people post with tounge in cheek]


Dispite the serious subject on debate this isn't a case of one side being wrong and the other being right....there are good points from both sides....and some interesting insights...

but like a few are saying on this thread...its been forced on a majority of people who don't agree with it...the bill has good merit and started off with good intent...the idea that this is going to stop child abuse though...which its original intent was...is crazy...child abusers will abuse their children no matter what laws there are.

there is a big difference between a pat on the bum [like I got when I was a weeee laddie..didn't hurt...ya just shit ya self and cryed because you got a fright!!] and a full on adult power wack!!!

There is no doubt that child abuse is a big problem in New Zealand [and around the world] but most people myself included can't see the point of this bill...it is NOT going to help the real problem...

Maybe we should be debating ideas that could help fix the real issuse??

[kro]

I find the pro 'smacking' arguments pretty baseless. Their number one arguement is that the state should have no say in how parents bring up their children. The state has every right to protect 'all' of it's citizens from anyone who is intent on inflicting pain on others for whatever reason.
Why is the state not protecting me from the children?. There are 9 yrs olds committing atrocites, 12 year old boys preying on our daughters, there are 14 year olds hurling lumps of freaking concrete through our windscreens for God's sake, and we are to protect the children.......... wrong answer pal. I have always fought against the idea that children are the centre of the famly. they are part of the family, not the centre. Too much damn time is taken up worrying about what the children need, and sweet fuck all is given to what the parents may need, in order to keep their family together, and happy.


The pro smacking lobby complain that their opponents refer to smacking as hitting. What they fail to realise is that smacking is hitting albeit in a very minor form.
I don't really care about the semantics, I will call smacking hitting if need be, but I will not change my stance on whether or not I should be allowed to use a corrective punishment, irrespective of what stigmatic word is placed on the action.



They maintain that smacking is a form of discipline and punishment. I find this argument to be both cowardly, and lacking somewhat in integrity. The purpose of the 'smack' is to teach. It is used as a method to inform the child that a certain action or behavour will not be tolerated. The infliction of pain as a method of teaching and learning I personaly find abhorrent.
Pardon me for caring, but my darling 8 year old daughter used to have a rather unhealthy fascination for 3 pin power sockets, and would make a bee line for them anytime she had a chance. We tried everything, but in the end, we had to smack her, in order to drive the point home. Problem solved in an instant.

If you find pain as a teaching method, "abhorrent" you live in a very idealistic world. As an 11yr old boy, I was being bullied mercillesly by one of the neighbourhood kids, and this went on for about 9 months, and we tried every damn thing we could with this kid, to make him stop. In the end, I got so fucked off, I took the matter in hand, and one day, as he was following me home, taunting me, he went too far, and ankle tapped me. I got up, turned round, and smacked him full on in the face, and decked him. The kid not only left me alone from that day on, but he stopped bullying full stop. He became a lot more involved in school in a positive way, and ended up playing beside me on the softball team.
In your world, that kid would be the same today, if not in jail, or dead.


Good one Sue. Bout time some one in this country stood up in support of our children. No one else seems to care enough to.

Thanks Sue, we took corporal punishment off our teachers, and further crippled the states ability to manage schools, and now we find it hard to get teachers. Now we are going to chop society off at the knees, and remove the parents right to discipline. Watch this space Sue, in 15 years, lets revisit this, and see how fucked up your bill really was.

We are legislating like mad to compensate for out of control kids in cars, tearing up our roads, and killing innocent fpeople/amilies, and you want to tell me that "smacking is abhorrent". The rights we gave these kids 20 years ago, when we decided corporal punishment was bad, is making it's presence known today. Thanks Sue, you're a real pal.

[stify]

You don't have to agree with anyone on here :) ....and you certianly don't have to apologise to anyone on here ;) ....[sounds a little bit like paliament]....and you certianly don't have to spell or punctuate properly :whistle: [and a lot of people post with tounge in cheek]


There is no doubt that child abuse is a big problem in New Zealand [and around the world] but most people myself included can't see the point of this bill...it is NOT going to help the real problem...

Maybe we should be debating ideas that could help fix the real issuse??

with you there mr poos

me i got wacked a few times as a child, the last i remember dearly, the object used got smashed over my knee, at which point i started laughin,
It is not fine with me to disipline this way, and didn't stop me being a cunt when i wanted,now being a step dad to three very cool kids for a few years , it isn't something i've needed to do of which i'm glad,(we sit down and talk about what is ok for them to do, and let them understand,i take as long it needs for them to get it) each to ther own on this suject

[avgas]

The law wont work - those that beat the shit out of their kids cant read anyhow

[kro]

The law wont work - those that beat the shit out of their kids cant read anyhow

To some degree, this may prove truthful, and it's social issues like this that perhaps we should be taking in hand, and not whether smacking is right/wrong.

[Guitana]

Do you think an anti bullying bill might go before parliament soon???
If it does I think uncle Helen might be out of a job!!!! Most labour pollies dont want to vote yes on this one but the greenies have got them by the BALLS!! A bunch of tax wasting tree hugging lentil swilling no hopers with nothing better to do than force the country to bend to their will.
It's about time the politicians kept their fucken noses out of family buisness and let them do their job without having to worry about being arrested at the shops when you've smacked little Timmy for being a right little cunt and demanding everything in the lolly aisle!!!! Can't wait for the Armed offenders to storm some poor bastards house cos he whacked Johnny on the arse with a wooden spoon!!!!!
This has to be the nail in the coffin for the labour party passing bills on Joe public when 70-80% of the country dont want it!!
Just another reason to overload the NZ Police when they've got enough shit on their plates to deal with let alone worrying about all the 111 calls about a spoilt brat getting a backhand for being a prick at the playground.Never mind the P problem and the home invasions!!!
If we as parents are not responsible enough to raise our children then it's a pretty sad day for society!!!
If this happened in Aussie there would be such a fucken shitfight!! But Kiwi's seem quite content to let Uncle Helen and her rug munching cronies treat us like a bunch of special needs kids!! I sent a letter of protest to my politician and then rang the National party and asked for a membership form!!!!!
FUCK YOU HELEN FUCK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hurricane_r]

its against human nature not to smack,

abuse is not smacking
smacking teaches you wrong/right,

i was smacked and look how i turned out *cough *cough

[stify]

theres still hope motu............"then over the hill came with chickens with guns "



"chickens in choppers".........from the "cows with guns" tune

kinda funny song if ya look it up i like the denis leary version

bit off topic but hey

[Quartermile]

I just don't agree with smacking and I certainly won't apologise for it. As for me being rude, I've been a member for 3 days and so far I've been called a slut, been invited to group sex, had a proposal from a 1080 inch dildo and been called a femanazi.

Yea thats pretty much how we roll on here:D


do I dare..........:shifty:.....:bleh:

[terbang]

Well I've just sprung one of my daughters (15) fucking her 18 year old boyfriend in the back of my car.. I feel like smacking someone, and he knows it too. Trouble is thats someone elses kid..

[Finn]

Well I've just sprung one of my daughters (15) fucking her 18 year old boyfriend in the back of my car.. I feel like smacking someone, and he knows it too. Trouble is thats someone elses kid..

I'm flattered but I completely understand. It's the shaved hair that makes me look 18.

[RT527]

Well I've just sprung one of my daughters (15) fucking her 18 year old boyfriend in the back of my car.. I feel like smacking someone, and he knows it too. Trouble is thats someone elses kid..

just do it ....when the judge asks ...he was raping her...

[imdying]

just do it ....when the judge asks ...he was raping her...

Well technically, that is rape.

[Guitana]

Well I've just sprung one of my daughters (15) fucking her 18 year old boyfriend in the back of my car.. I feel like smacking someone, and he knows it too. Trouble is thats someone elses kid..

Hmmm well you want to put the willies up the little fucker she sounds like she's under age!!!!!

[Guitana]

I just don't agree with smacking and I certainly won't apologise for it. As for me being rude, I've been a member for 3 days and so far I've been called a slut, been invited to group sex, had a proposal from a 1080 inch dildo and been called a femanazi.

Well you're doing extremely well!!!! Lets face it this site would be rather boring if we all behaved and did what we were told!!
After all it's a forum and you're entitled to your say!!!
Don't take it personal just give it back with interest!!!

[semaj]

History has shown this government doesnt listen to polls and referendums anyway.
The only poll will matter is on Election day were we get to show them we dont have short term memories.
Vote out every one of the MPs that didnt have the guts to oppose this stupid bill.
This is thinly disguised social engineering that will be just the start of state control of our families lives.

[crack]

Why is the state not protecting me from the children?. There are 9 yrs olds committing atrocites, 12 year old boys preying on our daughters, there are 14 year olds hurling lumps of freaking concrete through our windscreens for God's sake, and we are to protect the children.......... wrong answer pal. I have always fought against the idea that children are the centre of the famly. they are part of the family, not the centre. Too much damn time is taken up worrying about what the children need, and sweet fuck all is given to what the parents may need, in order to keep their family together, and happy.


I don't really care about the semantics, I will call smacking hitting if need be, but I will not change my stance on whether or not I should be allowed to use a corrective punishment, irrespective of what stigmatic word is placed on the action.



Pardon me for caring, but my darling 8 year old daughter used to have a rather unhealthy fascination for 3 pin power sockets, and would make a bee line for them anytime she had a chance. We tried everything, but in the end, we had to smack her, in order to drive the point home. Problem solved in an instant.

If you find pain as a teaching method, you live in a very idealistic world. As an 11yr old boy, I was being bullied mercillesly by one of the neighbourhood kids, and this went on for about 9 months, and we tried every damn thing we could with this kid, to make him stop. In the end, I got so fucked off, I took the matter in hand, and one day, as he was following me home, taunting me, he went too far, and ankle tapped me. I got up, turned round, and smacked him full on in the face, and decked him. The kid not only left me alone from that day on, but he stopped bullying full stop. He became a lot more involved in school in a positive way, and ended up playing beside me on the softball team.
In your world, that kid would be the same today, if not in jail, or dead.



Thanks Sue, we took corporal punishment off our teachers, and further crippled the states ability to manage schools, and now we find it hard to get teachers. Now we are going to chop society off at the knees, and remove the parents right to discipline. Watch this space Sue, in 15 years, lets revisit this, and see how fucked up your bill really was.

We are legislating like mad to compensate for out of control kids in cars, tearing up our roads, and killing innocent fpeople/amilies, and you want to tell me that "smacking is abhorrent". The rights we gave these kids 20 years ago, when we decided corporal punishment was bad, is making it's presence known today. Thanks Sue, you're a real pal.

Kro; well said, very well said, well done.

:whocares: :whocares: :whocares: :whocares:

[Fub@r]

This is thinly disguised social engineering that will be just the start of state control of our families lives.

What do you mean start??????????? Its been going on for years!

Comeon lets face it, what does childless Helen expect people to do when your kid shoves knifes in power points etc? Put the child in to timeout, so they can sit in their room and shove something else in to another one? The caring parents of this world won't use bats, jug cords etc on their kids but because we care we are classed in law as being no better than the scumbag Kahui family now

All we need now is the follow up bill where parents will be held legally liable for their kids actions until age 18. So therefore the socailist government will hold us accountable for our kids actions whilst removing our abilities to control and discipline kids. You may laugh but this will be on their agenda. The State knows best according to Helen.........look at the surplus and how we can't get a tax cut because nanny State knows best!

This Bill wont stop the Kahui's of this world.......they will continue to make a mockery of the system whilst caring parents are strung up!

Hell look at the past few days, Labour and Bradford are now blaming the hype on the media for calling it "anti smacking bill" when they now claim it isn't. General public is being treated with contempt by a Labour governement that is more interested in keeping its power through a Green vote than what is good for society.

People like Bradford need to piss off back on to a benefit........when is this country going to wake up and get rid of this MMP where minority fringe groups can hold the power against the greater majority!

[The_Dover]

Well I've just sprung one of my daughters (15) fucking her 18 year old boyfriend in the back of my car.. I feel like smacking someone, and he knows it too. Trouble is thats someone elses kid..

do you want me to take him for a ride bruce?

[Quartermile]

Or a nice drive there you can have a chat about his behavior:

[Street Gerbil]

One thing the bill is going to achieve is to turn ALL parents into 3 categories of child abusers: the scum that beats the crap out of their kids, those formerly known as good parents, abusing their kids by disciplining them, and those law-abiding citizens, abusing their kids by not disciplining them.
Catch 22 if you ask me.

[Skyryder]

Why is the state not protecting me from the children?. There are 9 yrs olds committing atrocites, 12 year old boys preying on our daughters, there are 14 year olds hurling lumps of freaking concrete through our windscreens for God's sake, and we are to protect the children.......... wrong answer pal. I have always fought against the idea that children are the centre of the famly. they are part of the family, not the centre. Too much damn time is taken up worrying about what the children need, and sweet fuck all is given to what the parents may need, in order to keep their family together, and happy.


I don't really care about the semantics, I will call smacking hitting if need be, but I will not change my stance on whether or not I should be allowed to use a corrective punishment, irrespective of what stigmatic word is placed on the action.



Pardon me for caring, but my darling 8 year old daughter used to have a rather unhealthy fascination for 3 pin power sockets, and would make a bee line for them anytime she had a chance. We tried everything, but in the end, we had to smack her, in order to drive the point home. Problem solved in an instant.

If you find pain as a teaching method, "abhorrent" you live in a very idealistic world. As an 11yr old boy, I was being bullied mercillesly by one of the neighbourhood kids, and this went on for about 9 months, and we tried every damn thing we could with this kid, to make him stop. In the end, I got so fucked off, I took the matter in hand, and one day, as he was following me home, taunting me, he went too far, and ankle tapped me. I got up, turned round, and smacked him full on in the face, and decked him. The kid not only left me alone from that day on, but he stopped bullying full stop. He became a lot more involved in school in a positive way, and ended up playing beside me on the softball team.
In your world, that kid would be the same today, if not in jail, or dead.



Thanks Sue, we took corporal punishment off our teachers, and further crippled the states ability to manage schools, and now we find it hard to get teachers. Now we are going to chop society off at the knees, and remove the parents right to discipline. Watch this space Sue, in 15 years, lets revisit this, and see how fucked up your bill really was.

We are legislating like mad to compensate for out of control kids in cars, tearing up our roads, and killing innocent fpeople/amilies, and you want to tell me that "smacking is abhorrent". The rights we gave these kids 20 years ago, when we decided corporal punishment was bad, is making it's presence known today. Thanks Sue, you're a real pal.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlboroughexpress/3992657a6520.html

Read and learn. Not much else to be said.

[MSTRS]

Read and learn. Not much else to be said.


...a well-intentioned piece of legislation...
"The road to Hell is paved...etc"\. Oh...Don? (McLean) I can see him too....

[kro]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlboroughexpress/3992657a6520.html

Read and learn. Not much else to be said.

It's still mutton dressed as lamb.

[Phurrball]

*Sigh*

I'm sorry, I couldn't be arsed reading more than the first and last pages of this thread, as I've a nasty feeling I know the sorts of rant I'm likely to read.

Some legal points:

1) This is not an 'Anti smacking' bill. I'm pretty sure that it is silent in regards to any specific method of physical discipline of a child. It may have an anti smacking effect, but that is not what the bill does. I know this might seem like splitting hairs, but accuracy is important in legal matters.

What it does, is to repeal the defence in s59 of the Crimes act that allows physical discipline of a child. Yanking your kid off the road, or smacking their hand as they reach for a plug are NOT physical discipline - they are preventative measures to avoid serious harm. (Yes, I know these may fit into the broad interpretation of 'discipline' for some purposes, but they are NOT the same as a smack after the fact.)

If those that gnash and wail knew how inconsistently the section was applied in courts (ie reasonable to beat a child with a riding crop and a litany of other woeful examples in judgments), they might see why the current state of the law is not a happy one - and why change is needed.

2) This will not criminalise parents that use minimal force to discipline their child.

This is called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis">de minimis</a> approach, and is already used effectively in the enforcement of many laws. Essentially (for those that can't be arsed with the link) the law is not concerned with trifling breaches of laws that are in force.

Yes, this will not prevent cases like Lillybing, the Kahui twins etc - but they are abuse, and culpable honicide cases, and are breaches of different parts of criminal law and part of a broader societal problem.

What it may do is make us think about how we discipline our children - which is no bad thing IMHO. Such sections have been repealed in a number of countries already, and their respective societies have not crumbled.

There are a number of constitutional reasons why NZ often leads the world in the law reflecting changes in society: Short terms of parliament, a unicameral legislature, and an MMP electoral system.

I can't be faffed saying more, but FWIW, that's my legalistic view, and IMHO it corrects a number of misconceptions.

PS: I was smacked occasionally as a child, and it isn't my business how anyone else parents their children (unless they are abusing them). That said, I'm in favour of this Crimes Act ammendment.

Rant over.

[The_Dover]

as long as they don't ban smacking hippies we're all good

[MSTRS]

Said it before and will say it again...
No matter what one thinks of repealing the reasonable force section, the effect WILL be one of removing the 'right' of parents to physically disipline their own children.
Unless the repeal includes a clause that says (eg open-handed slap on buttocks, or hand) smacking IS legal, then Bradford's bill is going to cause all kinds of shit down the track.

[Quartermile]

*Sigh*
1) This is not an 'Anti smacking' bill. I'm pretty sure that it is silent in regards to any specific method of physical discipline of a child. It may have an anti smacking effect, but that is not what the bill does. I know this might seem like splitting hairs, but accuracy is important in legal matters.


Yea true but thats how the media explains it, and we are supposed to trust the media:rolleyes:

[Fub@r]

Some legal points:

1) This is not an 'Anti smacking' bill. I'm pretty sure that it is silent in regards to any specific method of physical discipline of a child. It may have an anti smacking effect, but that is not what the bill does. I know this might seem like splitting hairs, but accuracy is important in legal matters.


But then Bradford last November said in a press conference that smacking of a kid in any form will be illegal with this bill............its only now that she is saying that it won't. Don't even think the politicians know.

[Quartermile]

But then Bradford last November said in a press conference that smacking of a kid in any form will be illegal with this bill............its only now that she is saying that it won't. Don't even think the politicians know.

yea like thats a first:rolleyes:

[crack]

*Sigh*

I'm sorry, I couldn't be arsed reading more than the first and last pages of this thread, as I've a nasty feeling I know the sorts of rant I'm likely to read.

Some legal points:

1) This is not an 'Anti smacking' bill. I'm pretty sure that it is silent in regards to any specific method of physical discipline of a child. It may have an anti smacking effect, but that is not what the bill does. I know this might seem like splitting hairs, but accuracy is important in legal matters.

What it does, is to repeal the defence in s59 of the Crimes act that allows physical discipline of a child. Yanking your kid off the road, or smacking their hand as they reach for a plug are NOT physical discipline - they are preventative measures to avoid serious harm. (Yes, I know these may fit into the broad interpretation of 'discipline' for some purposes, but they are NOT the same as a smack after the fact.)

If those that gnash and wail knew how inconsistently the section was applied in courts (ie reasonable to beat a child with a riding crop and a litany of other woeful examples in judgments), they might see why the current state of the law is not a happy one - and why change is needed.

2) This will not criminalise parents that use minimal force to discipline their child.

This is called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis">de minimis</a> approach, and is already used effectively in the enforcement of many laws. Essentially (for those that can't be arsed with the link) the law is not concerned with trifling breaches of laws that are in force.

Yes, this will not prevent cases like Lillybing, the Kahui twins etc - but they are abuse, and culpable honicide cases, and are breaches of different parts of criminal law and part of a broader societal problem.

What it may do is make us think about how we discipline our children - which is no bad thing IMHO. Such sections have been repealed in a number of countries already, and their respective societies have not crumbled.

There are a number of constitutional reasons why NZ often leads the world in the law reflecting changes in society: Short terms of parliament, a unicameral legislature, and an MMP electoral system.

I can't be faffed saying more, but FWIW, that's my legalistic view, and IMHO it corrects a number of misconceptions.

PS: I was smacked occasionally as a child, and it isn't my business how anyone else parents their children (unless they are abusing them). That said, I'm in favour of this Crimes Act ammendment.

Rant over.

But where is your proof, thousands of years of bringing up kids, and now we have this TREND, in social engineering from the liberal and more educated than me, telling me how to bring up my kids.
No one on here as asked what sort of kids we want for our future .
I am raising mine to just be BLOODY GOOD HUMANS, DO unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Yes one we have had to use the wooden spoon on occassion,
The other, a look or a growl, is more damaging than a smack, where as a growl to the other one means nothing.

They are both very special kids, and we tell them daily we love them.

As Dr KRO stated we have a society where kids can committ murder, throw bits of concrete from over pass's, etc etc, .

You read one page at the begining, and one at the end, and you form an opinion, I think you are a F---wit.

The poll states that over 70% favour the deterent, but what you favour is fuck democracy.

The fact that this is a Party vote, and not a conscience vote leaves a lot to be decided, like who is trading votes for support.

Matey your kind are dangerous.

Now I have never meet you, wouldn't know you from Adam, I don't need to meet you, I form my opinion of you from as you have written.

And matey I have told my kids that I WILL GO TO FUCKING JAIL FOR THIS IF NEED BE, the bread winner taken out, the mortgage forclosed, a family torn apart because of a belligerent child.

I have mailed Bradford of my concerns, and as yet I am yet to recieve a reply, i think it will never come.

In the 80s I sent 99 letters to 99 MPs about the increasing interest rates and not being able to sell my assets,the result being that we lost our farm and business, I still have 97 replies, the two missing are from Messers Lange and Douglas.

It goes to show the FU 2 attitude the politicians have for the general population today.

Rant over.:whocares: I do. very very much.

Again to you and your kind a big F U 2.

[Phurrball]

Crack, I was correcting some common misconceptions that I am in the fortunate position to understand by dint of my chosen career. My post was supposed to be helpful and informative, but if you only want to see it from your side, that's your prerogative.


But where is your proof, thousands of years of bringing up kids, and now we have this TREND, in social engineering from the liberal and more educated than me, telling me how to bring up my kids.

10 European countries have moved to a similar legislative position. Is Europe going to the dogs?? Can't say I see proof in your post either, just anecdotal opinions masquerading as fact and pointless invective. If you can point to factual errors in my post, please do.


No one on here as asked what sort of kids we want for our future .
I am raising mine to just be BLOODY GOOD HUMANS, DO unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Yes one we have had to use the wooden spoon on occassion,
The other, a look or a growl, is more damaging than a smack, where as a growl to the other one means nothing.

Emphasis added. Can you see the hypocrisy that might have made me highlight the emphasised passage?


They are both very special kids, and we tell them daily we love them.

Good. I'm sure your kids will turn out fine. But ask them in 20 years whether they remember any discipline events from their early childhood, and how they feel about those memories...you may be surprised by the answers. I remember my terror at around age 4, watching a friend down the road being chased with a belt by his grandfather. I remember that fear when I do not remember much else from that age. I don’t think that event had a positive impact on my friend or myself. It didn’t show anything other than grandad was bigger, and stronger than us kids – leaving a nasty memory for life.


As Dr KRO stated we have a society where kids can committ murder, throw bits of concrete from over pass's, etc etc, .

Show me a society where these things don’t happen occasionally…There will always be bad eggs, and I’d be very interested which of those young offenders came from backgrounds containing ‘hidings’ or other physical discipline. I can’t answer this, but as you seem to have total insight, and complete understanding of all the factors and participants in those cases, I’ll leave the comment to you…


You read one page at the begining, and one at the end, and you form an opinion, I think you are a F---wit.

Are you seriously telling me that you formed your opinion just from this thread? Like me, your opinion was likely formed before you even saw this thread. Like me, you probably know the general shape of argument of those with whom you disagree…I doubt you’d sit through pages of anti-smacking rhetoric. You do have a weak point though. I’ll read through the entire thread, and see if there is any gold-plated, eloquent prose that sways me in favour of physical discipline of children. I’ll tell you if there is.



The poll states that over 70% favour the deterent, but what you favour is fuck democracy.

A self-selecting poll from within a small target demographic isn't worth the paper it's written on (Or the 1's and 0's of cyberspace that compose it). No statistical safeguards of accuracy = a worthless poll. I'm sorry, but democracy has nothing to do with the poll at the start of the thread.



The fact that this is a Party vote, and not a conscience vote leaves a lot to be decided, like who is trading votes for support.

On this, we absolutely agree.


Matey your kind are dangerous.

Do you mean that people who disagree with you are dangerous?? I am no more dangerous than any other person in that my vote is worth the same as yours in this representative democracy. Please expand, as I’d dearly love to be all dangerous and scary…sadly, I’m neither of those things (But being dangerous and scary could come in handy on the bike when cars do daft things near me – so I’d love for you to expand)


Now I have never meet you, wouldn't know you from Adam, I don't need to meet you, I form my opinion of you from as you have written.

You'd be happy if I judged you based on this mere, tiny glimpse of your beliefs and opinions? Really?? That seems a little shortsighted, and likely to have you alienating yourself from all sorts of people worth knowing on a modicum of disagreement. I'm happy to disagree with people, quite vehemently sometimes, and still consider them worth knowing.


And matey I have told my kids that I WILL GO TO FUCKING JAIL FOR THIS IF NEED BE, the bread winner taken out, the mortgage forclosed, a family torn apart because of a belligerent child.

Just as well you won't go to jail, and that I outlined the De Minimis approach to enforcing laws for you that means you’ll stay free as a bird. Phew, that’s a relief?! Hooray, everybody's happy :yes:


I have mailed Bradford of my concerns, and as yet I am yet to recieve a reply, i think it will never come.

Good. More people should participate in this important aspect of democracy.


In the 80s I sent 99 letters to 99 MPs about the increasing interest rates and not being able to sell my assets,the result being that we lost our farm and business, I still have 97 replies, the two missing are from Messers Lange and Douglas.

As above. Good onya.


It goes to show the FU 2 attitude the politicians have for the general population today.

In your humble opinion of our representative democracy… You've done your bit by writing in, so you arguably have more right to this opinion than most.


Rant over.:whocares: I do. very very much.

Good that you care. So do I.


Again to you and your kind a big F U 2.

Why thank you, take a bow for falling back to invective when a reasoned and polite argument fails you. Res ipsa locquitur. See, I wrote that whole post without resorting to nasty words and abuse once - you should try it sometime :yes:

[Ixion]

Unfortunately, Mr Phurrball, your position, though doubtless well intentioned, fails to recognise the practical realities of the situation.

Firstly, the principle de minimus, though valid in law, has no applicability to real world policing.

The Police Family Violence Policy is clear that ANY violence (and if Ms Bradford's Bill is passes, smacking will be violence), no matter how minor , will result in the arrest of any male implicated (women are very seldom arrested in family violence situatiuons, even when they are the violent ones).

Quote from the Police Family Violence Policy


19 Given sufficient evidence, offenders who are responsible for family
violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested.
In the rare case where action other than arrest is contemplated, the
member's supervisor must be consulted.
Police Bail and Custody
20 Where an arrest has been made, the offender should be kept in
custody until the next available court hearing.



So, if Mrs Grundy sees Junior being givem a smack for being naughty and rushes to call the police, someone WILL be arrested and locked up .

Moreover, in such situations it is an invariable condition of bail that the bailee shall not associate with the "victim" ie dad won't be able to go back home.

This may seem stupid. And it is. but it is the inevitable reality.

[MSTRS]

Unfortunately, Mr Phurrball, ...
This may seem stupid. And it is. but it is the inevitable reality.

Correct. The Law is an Ass. And it is created by 61 asses....to the eternal delight of several thousand lawyers

[Squeak the Rat]

This is called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis">de minimis</a> approach, and is already used effectively in the enforcement of many laws. Essentially (for those that can't be arsed with the link) the law is not concerned with trifling breaches of laws that are in force.


The definition you linked to rightly says that the courts will not uphold minor breaches. This, and recent comments from the police, imply that the police will investigate & prosecute complaints [edit: what ixion said] and that the courts will decide if de minimis applies. Surely it isn't up to the cops to be judge, jury and executionsers. Cyfs will also no doubt poke their nose in. Which is a lot of hassle hanging over the heads of some great parents who get a complaint from busy body ms Maple next door.

Will the police press charges if I report the neighbours smacking their kids? If not, what kind of training and guidelines are being given to those officers?

So why make these people technically criminals (or whatever the term is for someone who does something illegal) in the first place when a simple clause could be added to say that a light smack won't be illegal (which is what sue and helen are now saying is ok).


Thats all irrespective of wether anyone believes smacking is ok or not. I do challenge any one who believes that no smacking is acceptable to detail how to deal with a kid who refuses to go to time out or to do what you tell them and cant be reasoned with. I think most supporters believe these kids are a myth.....but i'm happy to let you baby sit my nephew which will change your mind.

[Guitana]

Maybe there will be a sharp rise in Busy Body bashings and they will have to pass another bill to curb the violence!!!!!

[Skyryder]

*Sigh*

I'm sorry, I couldn't be arsed reading more than the first and last pages of this thread, as I've a nasty feeling I know the sorts of rant I'm likely to read.

Some legal points:

1) This is not an 'Anti smacking' bill. I'm pretty sure that it is silent in regards to any specific method of physical discipline of a child. It may have an anti smacking effect, but that is not what the bill does. I know this might seem like splitting hairs, but accuracy is important in legal matters.

What it does, is to repeal the defence in s59 of the Crimes act that allows physical discipline of a child. Yanking your kid off the road, or smacking their hand as they reach for a plug are NOT physical discipline - they are preventative measures to avoid serious harm. (Yes, I know these may fit into the broad interpretation of 'discipline' for some purposes, but they are NOT the same as a smack after the fact.)

If those that gnash and wail knew how inconsistently the section was applied in courts (ie reasonable to beat a child with a riding crop and a litany of other woeful examples in judgments), they might see why the current state of the law is not a happy one - and why change is needed.

2) This will not criminalise parents that use minimal force to discipline their child.

This is called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis">de minimis</a> approach, and is already used effectively in the enforcement of many laws. Essentially (for those that can't be arsed with the link) the law is not concerned with trifling breaches of laws that are in force.

Yes, this will not prevent cases like Lillybing, the Kahui twins etc - but they are abuse, and culpable honicide cases, and are breaches of different parts of criminal law and part of a broader societal problem.

What it may do is make us think about how we discipline our children - which is no bad thing IMHO. Such sections have been repealed in a number of countries already, and their respective societies have not crumbled.

There are a number of constitutional reasons why NZ often leads the world in the law reflecting changes in society: Short terms of parliament, a unicameral legislature, and an MMP electoral system.

I can't be faffed saying more, but FWIW, that's my legalistic view, and IMHO it corrects a number of misconceptions.

PS: I was smacked occasionally as a child, and it isn't my business how anyone else parents their children (unless they are abusing them). That said, I'm in favour of this Crimes Act ammendment.

Rant over.

Those that have another political agenda will fail to see by your post what Bradfords bill is really about; the removal of reasonable force as a defence for assualt of siblings.

Skyryder

[RT527]

The definition you linked to rightly says that the courts will not uphold minor breaches. This, and recent comments from the police, imply that the police will investigate & prosecute complaints [edit: what ixion said] and that the courts will decide if de minimis applies. Surely it isn't up to the cops to be judge, jury and executionsers. Cyfs will also no doubt poke their nose in. Which is a lot of hassle hanging over the heads of some great parents who get a complaint from busy body ms Maple next door.

Will the police press charges if I report the neighbours smacking their kids? If not, what kind of training and guidelines are being given to those officers?

So why make these people technically criminals (or whatever the term is for someone who does something illegal) in the first place when a simple clause could be added to say that a light smack won't be illegal (which is what sue and helen are now saying is ok).


Thats all irrespective of wether anyone believes smacking is ok or not. I do challenge any one who believes that no smacking is acceptable to detail how to deal with a kid who refuses to go to time out or to do what you tell them and cant be reasoned with. I think most supporters believe these kids are a myth.....but i'm happy to let you baby sit my nephew which will change your mind.

Wether the Courts up hold it or not , if its gotten to the Court stage its too late for the father/mother...cyfs will be notified wether you are charged or not, wether you go to court or not...if they are notified , and they will be you can expect your child to be removed from care and placed in care of the state or foster home, (which will cause more kids to be adversely affected than if they had got a corrective smack).

Ironically this bill of hers will backfire on her at some stage ...but by then it will be too late and Bradford wont care because she probably wont be in Parliament anymore...its more about her saying look at me and What i passed into law....

[crack]

Crack, I was correcting some common misconceptions that I am in the fortunate position to understand by dint of my chosen career.

What misconceptions?


10 European countries have moved to a similar legislative position. Is Europe going to the dogs??


Having spent some years working in the "Aluminium & Rivets Transportation Industry" through out Europe, and working with Europeans and Brits, they are equally concerned with the education Liberalisations, Parenting Laws, and the youth violence problems, just read the odd time magazine.


Emphasis added. Can you see the hypocrisy that might have made me highlight the emphasised passage?

Isn't Hypocrisy subjective?



Good. I'm sure your kids will turn out fine. But ask them in 20 years whether they remember any discipline events from their early childhood, and how they feel about those memories...you may be surprised by the answers. I remember my terror at around age 4, watching a friend down the road being chased with a belt by his grandfather. I remember that fear when I do not remember much else from that age. I don’t think that event had a positive impact on my friend or myself. It didn’t show anything other than grandad was bigger, and stronger than us kids – leaving a nasty memory for life.


There is a huge difference between a "SMACK" and correction done in "LOVE" and some worthless peice of shit that beats the shit out of their kids.


I’d be very interested which of those young offenders came from backgrounds containing ‘hidings’ or other physical discipline. I can’t answer this,


I was CANED at school for stuff I did not do, I felt Humiliated and I would gladly thrash the perpetrators even if they are 80 years of age.

As for my Mum and Dad, Dad never ever hit me, and he should have, Mum did, and we faired Mum more than Dad, but it was always the wooden spoon, or open palme of her hand on our rump.


Are you seriously telling me that you formed your opinion just from this thread? I’ll read through the entire thread, and see if there is any gold-plated, eloquent prose that sways me in favour of physical discipline of children. I’ll tell you if there is.


No doubt you are more EDUCATED than me, but I wonder if you have or ever will do or contribute as much as I have.


A self-selecting poll from within a small target demographic isn't worth the paper it's written on (Or the 1's and 0's of cyberspace that compose it). No statistical safeguards of accuracy = a worthless poll. I'm sorry, but democracy has nothing to do with the poll at the start of the thread.

Well then what do you call it, Shows that 70% think the proposals of Bradford are Shite, can't look at it any other way, Numbers are Numbers my friend.



Do you mean that people who disagree with you are dangerous?? I am no more dangerous than any other person in that my vote is worth the same as yours in this representative democracy.


I mean people such as you with your UNEMOTIONAL RATIONAL and POLITICALY CORRECT THINKING are DANGEROUS, we have as a society lossing very fast the EMOTION in our Speech.

You'd be happy if I judged you based on this mere, tiny glimpse of your beliefs and opinions?

Yes because I am what I say I am, nothing else, I have beliefs that I will die for, go to Jail for, do you?


Just as well you won't go to jail, and that I outlined the De Minimis approach to enforcing laws for you that means you’ll stay free as a bird. Phew, that’s a relief?! Hooray, everybody's happy :yes:

Others on here have contradicted you, as I have.


In your humble opinion of our representative democracy… You've done your bit by writing in, so you arguably have more right to this opinion than most.

Thank you Sir.

Good that you care. So do I.

Thank you again Sir.


Why thank you, take a bow for falling back to invective when a reasoned and polite argument fails you. Res ipsa locquitur. See, I wrote that whole post without resorting to nasty words and abuse once - you should try it sometime :yes:

Now you again prove that you and your kind have lost the EMOTION with speech, or writing of your beliefs, you think it ABUSE if I call you a F---Wit?
You are portraying yourself to me as one of societies soft cocks.
(means liberal)

Operor non existo an erudio fossor, Ignarus redimio nos per parcus dies erudio probus.

Qualis adversarius es vos?

[knight rider]

when I have kids & they're naughty too right I'm gonna smack em. I ain't gona beat em half to death or anything in that extreame. i think kids need to feel pain to realise it's wrong. it's better than them living a life of crime from not being punished. Just wait 15 years time crime rates will be up we will need more prisons more jobs to look after them...... well ok maybe thats a bit over the top.

They're my kids & I'm gonna bring them up the best way I can & if some f#@* head don't like that well thats 2 bad cause they ain't your kids & they ain't your responsability


just my 5c ohh woops have to round it up now 10c he he he

[knight rider]

when i was younger i got the jug cord, the belt, the broom handle you name it I got it. It brought out the best in me. Before I had left school I had a job, I never been on the dole I have worked hard all my life & never been without a job. I never had kids before my time.... I've never had any problems with police never even had a speeding tcket.... well not yet anyway :). My mum was hard on me when i was young just one wrong move & *smack* my dad was always warning me first but I always tried his pateince & on the 3rd or 4th warning I would get a *smack* now I'm much older (26) I'm much more closer to my mum then I am with my dad. I felt mum punished me because she wanted me to be good & always be a good boy :) so from my experiance I feel *smacking* made me a better person. My brother who was not punished like I was has not had such a hassle free life as I have had

[MSTRS]

Those that have another political agenda will fail to see by your post what Bradfords bill is really about; the removal of reasonable force as a defence for assualt of siblings.

Skyryder

As with all well-intentioned ideas, there is a (not unforeseen) downside...
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=46407

[Phurrball]

Unfortunately, Mr Phurrball, your position, though doubtless well intentioned, fails to recognise the practical realities of the situation.

Firstly, the principle de minimus, though valid in law, has no applicability to real world policing.

The Police Family Violence Policy is clear that ANY violence (and if Ms Bradford's Bill is passes, smacking will be violence), no matter how minor , will result in the arrest of any male implicated (women are very seldom arrested in family violence situatiuons, even when they are the violent ones).

Quote from the Police Family Violence Policy

19 Given sufficient evidence, offenders who are responsible for family
violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested.
In the rare case where action other than arrest is contemplated, the
member's supervisor must be consulted.
Police Bail and Custody
20 Where an arrest has been made, the offender should be kept in
custody until the next available court hearing.



So, if Mrs Grundy sees Junior being givem a smack for being naughty and rushes to call the police, someone WILL be arrested and locked up .

Moreover, in such situations it is an invariable condition of bail that the bailee shall not associate with the "victim" ie dad won't be able to go back home.

This may seem stupid. And it is. but it is the inevitable reality.

Thank you for pointing out that policy, and the hypothetical situation to me Ixion - it would be wise for the police to ammend that policy in light of this Crimes Act ammendment. You are right that de minimis is applied after policy has been triggered, rather than before.

I have added emphasis to what I think points to an extant discretion, which I think would not lead to a low-grade smacker being arrested.

As I understand it, the police (if the prosecuting authority) or the crown solicitor have discretion whether or not to charge a person with an offence - you rightly point out the possible problem with mandatory arrest upon sufficient evidence, I have my doubts whether Mrs Grundy's evidence would clear that bar. Perhaps I am just hopelessly optimistic...

[Phurrball]

Now you again prove that you and your kind have lost the EMOTION with speech, or writing of your beliefs, you think it ABUSE if I call you a F---Wit?
You are portraying yourself to me as one of societies soft cocks.
(means liberal)

Operor non existo an erudio fossor, Ignarus redimio nos per parcus dies erudio probus.

Qualis adversarius es vos?

Would you prefer that the law started concerning itself with EMOTION, rather than being a dispassionate arbiter?

I am quite happy being socially liberal - my vote is worth the same as yours buddy, and I will exercise it according to my beliefs. Why is it that everyone that you disagree with is a soft cock or fcukwit? Do you think that calling someone those things is not abuse?:whocares:

[jrandom]

Well I've just sprung one of my daughters (15) fucking her 18 year old boyfriend in the back of my car.

You did call the cops, right? The little shit needs this on his criminal record. There are good reasons for 'age of consent' laws.

I wouldn't hesitate for a minute.

[Ixion]

Thank you for pointing out that policy, and the hypothetical situation to me Ixion - it would be wise for the police to ammend that policy in light of this Crimes Act ammendment. You are right that de minimis is applied after policy has been triggered, rather than before.

I have added emphasis to what I think points to an extant discretion, which I think would not lead to a low-grade smacker being arrested.

As I understand it, the police (if the prosecuting authority) or the crown solicitor have discretion whether or not to charge a person with an offence - you rightly point out the possible problem with mandatory arrest upon sufficient evidence, I have my doubts whether Mrs Grundy's evidence would clear that bar. Perhaps I am just hopelessly optimistic...

Well, Mrs Grundy's statement would quite likely be supported by Junior . "Did Daddy (or Mummy as case may be) smack you ? Yes. Right".

Whether such an arrest would lead to a court case is doubtful. Judges (and even more, juries) tend to have some residuum of common sense. But that is not the problem. The problem is that, court case or no, Junior will have been whisked away by CYPS. Who do not need a conviction to act.

So, we have Dad locked up , at least overnight, maybe longer, and bailed on the condition that he does not return home. And Junior whisked away to a foster home. With a CYPS notation that he comes from a violent and abusive family.

That de minimums seems quite maximus to me.

EDIT: Incidenatlly the situation referred to in the highlighted text is not really a discretion, more of a rule of thumb. The police , faced with determining who is "right" and who is "wrong" in a domestic argument (admittedly a task taxing the wisdom of Solomon), have opted to make no attempt to determine who is the instigator, but instead will invariably arrest the male party. A policy that may perhaps be justified by practical necessity, but none the less conducive of much injustice.

[Phurrball]

That de minimums seems quite maximus to me.


I just don't believe it would pan out that way in fact - but we're both speaking in hypotheticals, so I could be wrong. Cheers for some well informed posts.

[crack]

Would you prefer that the law started concerning itself with EMOTION, rather than being a dispassionate arbiter?

Why is it that everyone that you disagree with is a soft cock or fcukwit? Do you think that calling someone those things is not abuse?:whocares:

WHo cares I thought we both did:

Why is it that something so basic needs to be addressed, it is because the law has been contaminated by the new breed of politically correct modern day liberal
I bet you are under 40 years of age, Yes/No.

Why has the court lost the ability to determine what is reasonable force.

No person in their correct mind should allow the defence of reasonable force when a kid has been hit by an enraged parent with a 4x2, whip, jug cord, etc etc, surley we have always had the power to prosecute what is Assult to a child.

Mate I am 50, call me what you want but "ALL" of my friends and family around my age or older are lost by the modern liberalisations, and interpretations, we are frustrated when what was once common sense is fat becomming lost.

IE: the lady in the USA that Sued McDonalds after burning herself with hot coffee, because the cup did not have "CAUTION CONTENTS MAY BE HOT"
Who created these laws, certainly I gaurantee the law makers never thought that this law could be interpreted to allow such.

The Law is an ARSE, a arse.

Example:

We use to go to Motorcycle races and we would have on our ACU licence that the competitor realised and understood that motorcycle racing could be fatal, and was a dangerous sport.( Is it still on such a thing if it exists today)

We see now some poor sod down south ( RIP Brother) killed when he crashed his Quad bike, shit what he is not allowed to lose control, look on the TV we have the police swarming the track and measuring this and that, what does that cost.

On the flip side, one could think if he did not die, maybe he could be prosecuted for losing control, Shit !

I saw in the Aviation industry where we started to get corporate MISSION STATEMENTS, and CORE VALUES, what an unmittigated crock of shit, absolute shit.

We are worse off for it, and as employees we are weaker for it.


But it is I guess the likes of your generation that thinks they are doing something worthwhile, where as to my generation that are having to change it is shit, we are being dictated to by those more educated than ourselves, that have F---All experiance in a field they just do a degree in a particular field, then enter an industry and tell us how we should do our jobs and live our lives, and raise our kids.

Matey wake up, "please wake up".

:whocares: :whocares: I fucking well do.

[Squeak the Rat]

I bet you are under 40 years of age, Yes/No.
.....snip......
Mate I am 50, call me what you want but "ALL" of my friends and family around my age or older are lost by the modern liberalisations, and interpretations, we are frustrated when what was once common sense is fat becomming lost.

IE: the lady in the USA that Sued McDonalds after burning herself with hot coffee, because the cup did not have "CAUTION CONTENTS MAY BE HOT"
Who created these laws, certainly I gaurantee the law makers never thought that this law could be interpreted to allow such.
.......snip.......
But it is I guess the likes of your generation that thinks they are doing something worthwhile, where as to my generation that are having to change it is shit, we are being dictated to by those more educated than ourselves, that have F---All experiance in a field they just do a degree in a particular field, then enter an industry and tell us how we should do our jobs and live our lives, and raise our kids.


Bahahaha what a crock, who's generation is responsible for all these PC laws and "mission statements"? From my memory they were started happening back in the 80's if not before........... The McDonalds incident was in 1993. Today's under 40's wouldn't have been anywhere near involved in making or those laws or setting precedence.

[crack]

Bahahaha what a crock, who's generation is responsible for all these PC laws and "mission statements"? From my memory they were started happening back in the 80's if not before........... The McDonalds incident was in 1993. Today's under 40's wouldn't have been anywhere near involved in making or those laws or setting precedence.

As I said "Example" do we want to go there, we are 10-15 yrs behind good old uncle sam.

As for the under 40, I am refering to the way of thinking.
:whocares: :whocares:

[crack]

I just don't believe it would pan out that way in fact - but we're both speaking in hypotheticals, so I could be wrong. Cheers for some well informed posts.

One one hand you say something and make a statement, then Ixion states something else to correct you, and you conceed, now you talk about hypotheticals:
When it doesn't work as you think we get stuck with it.

[Squeak the Rat]

One one hand you say something and make a statement, then Ixion states something else to correct you, and you conceed, now you talk about hypotheticals:
When it doesn't work as you think we get stuck with it.

That's how the legal system works when an ambiguous new law is passed. It gets tested against other laws and case histories and the court needs to decide on how to interpret it. This system has been in place for ages. It's interesting stuff, and there are good reasons why it is not clear cut black and white all the time.

So should you be blaming the lawyers, or the people who make the laws (like Sue Bradford, age 55)?

[Phurrball]

Quick reply:

Crack, yes, I'm under 40, I'm 28.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of legislators, and judges (Shaping statute and common law respectively) would be between 45-60.

Nice intergenerational inequity going on between that generation and mine too - student loan millstones round our necks, and a property market we've not got a shit-show in.

How the fuck are we even supposed to become parents when the only way to get a house is for both partners to work? That is a more pressing concern for current children than any anti-smacking bill - parents can't even be around to spend time with their kids FFS - no matter how they decide to discipline them!!!!!

Ixion and I were having a cool-headed, reasoned discussion - I'm not scared to be wrong, and Ixion is a clever fella with more life experience and general knowings about the world than my meagre 28 years on the planet allow me to accumulate - he mas made many salient points, some of which I was unaware of, or hadn't thought of. I value that sort of contribution to the discussion over the hot-headed empty rhetoric you seem to employ.

You seem to have no idea of the woeful litany of cases where patent abuse has been found to be acceptable - that's a necessary consequence of s59 as it stands. My ex did a dissertation on child manslaughter, and I was horrified at the number of cases where beating with all sorts of implements were deemed reasonable force. The Borrows ammendment wouldn't have helped matters. We may have to agree to disagree on that one.

I agree that the law is an ass (With apolgies to Hitcher and BDOTGNZA), but can you show me a donkey that will get us there another way? The inquisitorial system that anti-smacking Europe has?? As it is, our common law is becoming increasingly 'civilised' (excuse the pun *cough*, actually, I mean codified...)

Ah fekkit, I can't be faffed going on - you don't seem willing to listen and contribute in a constructive way. I agree to disagree vehermently with you.

Oh, and just so you hate me more, if you hadn't already guessed, I'm a final year law student...ooh, I can smell the bile from here...

[candor]

Crack,

10 European countries have moved to a similar legislative position. Is Europe going to the dogs?? :

But don't those Euro countries have a provision for light smacking thrown in to guarantee an open hand on leg or butt is still ok? I was told they do.

If so then our legislation will be the crappiest in the world all and all because of one extremist (possibly the lowest IQ pollie ever) supported by the mad childs commissioner and some idealists with no reality compass.

[crack]

Quick reply:

Crack, yes, I'm under 40, I'm 28.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of legislators, and judges (Shaping statute and common law respectively) would be between 45-60.

Nice intergenerational inequity going on between that generation and mine too - student loan millstones round our necks, and a property market we've not got a shit-show in.

How the fuck are we even supposed to become parents when the only way to get a house is for both partners to work? That is a more pressing concern for current children than any anti-smacking bill - parents can't even be around to spend time with their kids FFS - no matter how they decide to discipline them!!!!!

You seem to have no idea of the woeful litany of cases where patent abuse has been found to be acceptable -

I agree that the law is an ass

Ah fekkit, I can't be faffed going on - you don't seem willing to listen .

Oh, and just so you hate me more, if you hadn't already guessed, I'm a final year law student...ooh, I can smell the bile from here...

Matey lets get one thing straight, I DO NOT HATE YOU.

Take a bit of time and have a look at my postings, all of them, then get back to me.

You are correct with the ages of Judges etc etc, the reference to your age is and was noyt derogatory, mearly as a reference to a changing system that is LETTING PEOPLE SUCH AS YOUR SELF DOWN WOEFULLY.

Now if the law stated an open hand, or an approved WOODEN SPOON?
IE under age "one" no smacking at all,
Age 1-3 a single light tap on the top of the hand.
Age 3-5 a maximum of TWO UNBRUISABLE strikes, with a wooden spoon on the Buttocks, or backs of the legs:
Age 5-12 a Maximum of FOUR UNBRUISABLE ----as above.

Why does a LAWYER defend a parent under the reasonable force law,when they have clearly demonstrated it is assult, or murder, attempted murder, what ever.

Answer me this.

NO MATEY I DO NOT HATE YOU, READ MY POSTINGS:

I learnt to fly in the 70's, I held down a job, I worked bars (Under age) at nights, I did my studies by correspondance:

I hold Airline Transport Pilot licences for 5 different countries:
my age is 50 (feel 99) and I never had a student loan.
My mates son is 25, has a fresh Commercial Licence and Instrument rating, has all his Airline Transport Pilot subject passes, is working part time as a C category Instructor, driving a Truck durring the day, owes the Govt $116K
His girl friend is a final year Vet student, and Owes $ 85K.

Now I think we are more in agreement than we think, but a word of advice my young learned and smarter than me FRIEND, if you are PASSIONATE about the LAW, BE THE BEST FUCKING LAWYER IN YOUR FIELD, USE YOUR EMOTION,HOLD ONTO YOUR HUMANITY, NEVER EVER RISE ABOVE IT, AND DONT BE AFFRAID TO USE CHOSEN EMOTION:

Subsisto verus ut vestri.

:whocares: :whocares: We obviously do!:yes: :yes: :yes:

[Phurrball]

You are correct with the ages of Judges etc etc, the reference to your age is and was noyt derogatory, mearly as a reference to a changing system that is LETTING PEOPLE SUCH AS YOUR SELF DOWN WOEFULLY.

We'll have to agree to disagree there.




Now if the law stated an open hand, or an approved WOODEN SPOON?
IE under age "one" no smacking at all,
Age 1-3 a single light tap on the top of the hand.
Age 3-5 a maximum of TWO UNBRUISABLE strikes, with a wooden spoon on the Buttocks, or backs of the legs:
Age 5-12 a Maximum of FOUR UNBRUISABLE ----as above.

Unfortunately any allowable force in a statutory provision leaves statutory interpretation arguments open. Trust me, it does. I think most people would be shocked by the shades of grey in the law - even in statutes! After all, it has all the inherent problems of language (Ah, jurisprudence...) I believe that the best way is that proposed - ie repeal s59 of the Crimes Act - and have that as a quasi-aspirational goal, by having a de minimis approach to enforcement. Ixion has astutely pointed out potential problems here, and it will be interesting to see how it pans out in the end.


Why does a LAWYER defend a parent under the reasonable force law,when they have clearly demonstrated it is assult, or murder, attempted murder, what ever. Answer me this.


You've hit the nail on teh head with regards to the problem in the current law. The duty of zealous advocacy is the answer to the question you pose (With an overlay as an officer of the court to avoid dishonesty and disclose all that you must). We all get to do legal ethics (I can hear the guffaws at the preceding oxymoronic statment), thanks to those clowns at Renshaw Edwards.

You'd be pretty pissed if you hired a lawyer, and they didn't put forward the best case they were able to. Lawyers will stop you if you're about to open your mouth and tell them something they don't want to know (Like - I did it) Lawyers don't like getting the guilty off...although some propaby see high-level criminal advocacy as a high-stakes game to a certain extent due to the adversarial common law system we possess.




Now I think we are more in agreement than we think, but a word of advice my young learned and smarter than me FRIEND, if you are PASSIONATE about the LAW, BE THE BEST FUCKING LAWYER IN YOUR FIELD, USE YOUR EMOTION,HOLD ONTO YOUR HUMANITY, NEVER EVER RISE ABOVE IT, AND DONT BE AFFRAID TO USE CHOSEN EMOTION:

Subsisto verus ut vestri.

:whocares: :whocares: We obviously do!:yes: :yes: :yes:

I wasn't quite correct in saying that emotion doesn't have a place at all - it does in Jurisprudence (Philosophy of law), in pleas in mitigation/aggravation etc, but it's place is narrow. I won't be practising in the criminal field.

Thanks for cooling the discussion and making some valid points.

[crack]

EXAMPLE:

I use to help out at a primary school, helping kids to develope reading skills, IE the poorer readers.

One day I hear this lady teacher QUOTE: "STEVIE PLEASE DO NOT DO THAT, IT IS NOT NICE"

This was a controlled, slightly raised voice, but well in control, and certainly enough for a "NORMAL" child to understand to stop what they where doing.

The REPLY form a 6-7 year old>

YOU FUCKING OLD CUNT, DONT YOU TELL ME WHAT TO DO, I HATE THIS FUCKING SCHOOL I HATE YOU YOU FUCKING OLD CUNT YOU BITCH-------- form a room full of kids, The teacher Stevie come with me please, NO, Bang crash, -------- Swearing -------- more swearing, she had to grab him and take him outside.

Now as I witnessed this, the force required by her was considerable, this brings inot Q excessive force?????

The teacher had no means with which to deal to this little shit, and he went off in front of a bunch of well behaved kids.

This little shit is going to be one of our future citizens????.

Matey we have to do better, there has to be some other way, even a Lioness uses reasonable force to discipline her cubs, Elephants, Monkeys, etc etc, they all use reasonable force.

Now if Nature does it, and Humans have done it since time, what they are proposing goes against nature, and what is natural.

We don't have to discipline "our" kids anymore, they are good little humans.

I understand more from reading your thread, and I thank you for the insight, but there has to be a basic uncontestable law, something, that is not going to bring the police into our home if I need to discipline my kids, and I pray that we do not have to.

:whocares: :whocares:

[Phurrball]

EXAMPLE: *snip*
I understand more from reading your thread, and I thank you for the insight, but there has to be a basic uncontestable law, something, that is not going to bring the police into our home if I need to discipline my kids, and I pray that we do not have to.

:whocares: :whocares:

We're on the same page there - I would be unhappy if parents were criminalised (or even detained or investigated in any more than a cursory way) for a very low level of physical force used against a child.

I would hope that as a society we could aspire towards correction of children without force - rather like aspirational human rights doctrines - there is an implicit recognition that the world is not an easy place and is full of shades of grey, but that regardless, that is the level we shold be striving for.

Most parents aren't experts - the blighters don't come with instructions fekkit! But academic research does point to ways that children can be raised effectively without physical force.

I am not the person to ask about that, my partner is interested in child education, development and psychology, and knows a power more than I do in that field. I have tried to get her on KB in her own right (she's more of a firebrand than I am).

I appreciate what you're saying re the animal example, but humans are different in that we have the power to reason (Opposable thumbs and walking upright also help a tad...). [Don't get me started on the way humans relate to animals - that's a whole other debate where the stinking hippie in me comes out!!]

I also hear where you're coming from with the example of the little shit at primary school - it's unavoidable that force is needed to remove the child from the classroom - but that force is not applied by way of punishment or correction, and the subsequent application of punishment or correction can be done without force. It can be done without force - education is required, but I believe it can be done. We've got a long way to go to get to that ideal, but repealing s59 is the first step in the equation IMHO.

Sadly, there is no such thing as an uncontestable law (we don't have a written constitution, and even if we did, there is always interpretation possible) The more you learn, the more indistinguishable the shades of grey.

Right, that's quite enough from me. :scooter:

[Albino]

It is the parents duty imho to teach their children that there are boundaries to what they can get away with. Most kids these days do not seem to have any understanding of boundaries at all.

I'm all for a decent whack to be administered to kids, not in anger but as punishment.

I would love it if Sues bill created a backlash of support for bringing back corporal punishment.

[Albino]

Ooops double post.

[MSTRS]

It is the parents duty imho to teach their children that there are boundaries to what they can get away with. Most kids these days do not seem to have any understanding of boundaries at all.

I'm all for a decent whack to be administered to kids, not in anger but as punishment.

I would love it if Sues bill created a backlash of support for bringing back corporal punishment.


Ooops double post.

T'were worth it just for that suggestion :niceone:

[slowpoke]

This whole situation is just...just....SURREAL.
How the hell did we arrive at this point? It all just seems bizarre beyond belief that with all the obvious problems and deficiencies in both NZ and throughout the world that so much time, effort and energy is put into such a head in the sand band aid solution.

A couple of thoughts:

1) Which is the greater crime: striking someone or depriving them of liberty? (assault or kidnapping) for without the former we have no choice but to use the latter.

2) It's NOT ok to physically discipline our kids but it IS ok to kill thousands of people when the world's most powerful (economically, militarily, sociologically) country violently invades another country and hang someone as punishment (with the the action endorsed by many other countries). So, how do we reconcile these state sanctioned actions which are at opposingly extreme ends of the violence scale?

Admittedly NZ was not the state doing the invading, but the country(s) in question are definitely classed as our "friends" so their actions can't have been TOO offensive.

In this media age it just seems ludicrous to preach the "violence is not the answer" sermon when we are bombarded with TV, internet, newspapers, movies etc etc that show that it most definitely IS the answer. Sue Bradford is attempting to plug an infinitesmal hole in the dike as the rest of the dike is crumbling around her. In an ideal world I think what she is saying is probably true and correct: it should be illegal to hit kids.....but this world is far from ideal and until it is there are are far more important and effective ways for our pollies to spend their/our time.

Which brings me to another point: why is this even on the agenda? At every workplace I've ever had the dubious pleasure of chasing the elusive "increase in productivity" there has been a planned set of priorities. You know, all those maintenance, modification, HSE or debottlenecking (only an engineer could come up with that word...) issues that are sorted into order of importance usually based on investment versus return. So why doesn't parliament run the same way? Is this really the most pressing matter for consideration? The health, education, telecommunication, law enforcement, transport dramas etc affect huge numbers of the population on a daily basis with issues that need to be addressed NOW. Instead Christ knows how much time is being wasted on an issue that affects only a minute number of parents who, in the heat of the moment, are going to disregard it anyway.

[crack]

[QUOTE=slowpoke;986949]

I agree , remove the warning labels:

What about removing the politicians, and coming up with a national constitution, agreeing on our values, and the way we want to be governed, and rules against the abuse of RUSHING through legislation as they now want to.

F--k it I want another beer,( have to wait another week)

:whocares:

[crack]

Those young ones will be lost with the Claytons terminology:

Read on:

Also worth a read is Sir Kenneth Keith, google it and have a read.

New Zealand has a constitution, but it is not set out in one all-inclusive document – it consists of a series of formal legal documents, decisions of the courts and the practices we describe as conventions. It increasingly reflects the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi is regarded as a founding document of government in New Zealand.
The Constitution Act 1986 is the principal formal statement of the constitution.
This Act recognises that the Queen, the Sovereign in right of New Zealand, is the Head of State of New Zealand and that the Governor-General appointed by her is her representative. Each can, in general, exercise all the powers of the other. The powers of the Governor-General are described in the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor-General of New Zealand, most recently revised in 1983. Other relevant statutes are the State Sector Act 1988, the Electoral Act 1993 and the Judicature Act 1908, relating in turn to the three branches of government (the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary), as well as the Ombudsmen Act 1975, the Official Information Act 1982, the Public Finance Act 1989 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
New Zealand is an independent sovereign nation. Because we are a monarchy, our country is styled a “Realm”. The Realm of New Zealand comprises New Zealand, Tokelau and the Ross Dependency, and the self-governing states of the Cook Islands and Niue.
As Head of State, Queen Elizabeth’s formal New Zealand title is “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”.
The Queen’s personal representative in New Zealand is formally styled “The Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over New Zealand”. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the New Zealand Government, usually for a term of five years
The Sovereign and the House of Representatives together make up the Parliament of New Zealand. The Governor-General signs into law (gives Royal Assent to) bills that have been passed by the House of Representatives. The Constitution Act empowers the Governor-General to summon and dissolve Parliament. The Governor-General also presides at meetings of the Executive Council (Council members are Ministers of the Crown) and signs regulations (as Orders in Council).
By convention, the Governor-General is, in general, bound to act on the advice of Ministers who have the support of the House of Representatives. It is the duty of Ministers to keep the Governor-General informed about government business. As well as having the right to be informed, the Governor-General may also encourage, warn and offer suggestions to Ministers.
In addition, and again on the advice of Ministers, the Governor-General appoints members of the judiciary and Justices of the Peace; may exercise the royal prerogative of mercy; and signs the commissions of officers in the New Zealand Defence Force and the warrants for Royal Commissions.

According to this, we can be dictated to, a government can do what ever they want, it stops with the intervention of the Gov Gen, but he is appointed by the Queen, on Recommendation of Aunty Helen.

[Phurrball]

According to this, we can be dictated to, a government can do what ever they want, it stops with the intervention of the Gov Gen, but he is appointed by the Queen, on Recommendation of Aunty Helen.

The LEGISLATURE is sovereign ie all the members in parliament. The executive (~cabinet) does have some limits on its power - see Fitzgerald v Muldoon where an ordinary citizen took Muldoon to court based on his actions being at odds with parliamentary sovereignty - Mr Fitzgerald won too as Muldoon was improperly exercising prerogative power. In theory all three arms of government are supposed to keep each other in check (The third arm being the judiciary).

We have an interesting constitution made up of many narrow threads, start diddling with any of them and the whole thing might unravel.

Whether we'd be better with a written constitution as supreme law is a moot point. Sir Geoffrey Palmer has a lot to say about that - he wanted the NZ Bill of rights act to be supreme law, but had to settle for a "Clayton's" entrenchment.

Mine will have to be a "Clayton's" when I get home, sadly I have school work to do...Mmmmm:beer: Dammit! Dammit!

[candor]

I'm thinking. We cringe as the law is passed to appease misguided well intended nutters led by feminists with all their feet way off the ground.

They feel good and victorious and like they have taken a giant step for mankind and kahui families everywhere.

Meanwhile life carries on exactly the same as the day before. And any cop who shares in Bradfords philosphy and becomes a bounty hunter of smackers will not be able to hold their head up as excitedly they throw the latest smacker in the cells.

They will get taken some dark place (the cop) that is and given a good tune up, after which they will chose to leave the force. Also their membership of the Sensible Sentencing Trust will be revoked for not being fit or proper.:shutup:

Let Bradford spend a day in uniform PLEASE.

[Quartermile]

I'd rather see her Tazered:yes: they could sell it on Sky box office:devil2:

[kro]

What is the common factor among a huge percentage of troubled children, especially young males, who also end up criminals?. No father in the family. Single parent families consisting of Mum and children are an escalating demographic, which incidentally, have been on a sharp increase since the 1970's, when our government took on a welfare system, known globally, to breed a rise in criminal activity.

Coupled with the adoption of this welfare system, the government was taking a huge part of the responsibility of parenthood off the male parent, making the act of getting a woman pregnant, something that the state would then "take care of". As the social sciences have shown us, the children raised with little discipline, and no father figure, have spawned generations of troubled children, a large portion of who, ended up criminals.

So, what we will see with this bill coming into force is, fathers who are present, letting their children get away with "murder", for fear of getting a criminal record, whilst the fatherless children, stay the underlying foundation statistic for criminal activity.

Family violence, and smacking, are NOT synonymous Sue Bradford. By all means, add yet another law to our system, which then has police racing all over the show, dealing with "smacked children", whilst they get bad press for unsolved murders, and escaped criminals. If some doped up gang member, high as a kite, is beating the crap out of a 10 year old, that spilled milk, what has that got to do with smacking?. Deal with the underlying issue head on you spineless politicians. I've done it before, and I am just one man.

[jetboy]

anyone watch the news last night? they had a poll similar to this one, and only 23 percent said they agree with the legislation.

you'd think that, as a public servant, they would listen to this aye.

[SPman]

I think it's horrifying that the TV news continually refer to the Bill as "the anti-smacking Bill". when its clear intention is to prevent "parents" getting away with beating and abusing their children - with fists, steel capped boots, hosepipes and most firmly in my memory a 4x2 - all of which the law in its current form allows as "discipline". It would be more rightly called the anti-child abuse Bill. But I guess that would be too boring for the media.

And thats my opinion as well!

More media inspired mass hysteria!

Why would anyone think the police are going to spend all their time prosecuting responsible parents who SMACK their child occasionally,when they can't handle the massive load of real violence thats going on out there, as it is! If you BEAT your kid and get arrested - I've got no sympathy! You deserve everything you get.

Of course there will be the usual initial episodes, which the media will emblazon the heavens with, of little Jonny trying to take his parents to the police and unscrupulous lawyers and politicians trying to use the legislation to their own advantage and self agrandisement, but I think the basic thrust behind the bill is GOOD.
All this hand wringing, wailing and gnashing of death, quite frankly, makes me wonder where most peoples heads are at!

[Fub@r]

In saying that though how can someone actually claim reasonable force in disciplining their child when using an object etc? WTF are the judges doing to accept that in the first place as a defense.

Why is there a need to change the law when as far as I'm concerned a slap in the bum is reasonable force, using a crowbar is not. Why do we need the Poly's to remove the word "reasonable" when it seems pretty simple to me.

Yes there will be a quite a few cases coming up if this law passes where average joe bloggs has to spend thousands defending themselves because someone witnessed them smacking their kid until the incompetent judges that allowed beatings with a crowbar which they somehiow ruled was "reasonable" set a precident in law to what is allowed.

The only people that will benefit out of this is once again the lawyers, meanwhile the "kahui" cases will still happen

[candor]

yep that sums it up Fubar.

If the Judges weren't such losers who have a problem understanding what IS reasonable force all of this could be avoided. Rant to follow - so disengage now if you are sympathetic to the upper echelons of the legal profession - which is the only group I can say I deeply despise (based on much experience).

I think if we looked at the harm and consequences wrought on the population by Judges we would have to rank them as (in general) the most dangerous psychopaths on the State payrole. Paid abundantly to destroy society.

They make dangerous decisions, issue dangerous trial summarys and directions to juries, exert excessive control over important trials, make heinous common laws based solely on their whims and sit on the Parole Board. These are extremely guilty c***suckers who should never have been allowed to cut free from Privy Council supervision.

The first thing they did was make filing fees exorbitant putting civil case Justice out of the reach of anyone not on such a good wicket as themselves.

If there is a devil he'll take them first I hope and extinguish for ever their eternal essence so they can not even hope to return even as maggots.

No law - anti-smacking, anti-abuse or whatever can sort them out if they have done such idiot judgments as Bradford et al are saying. They will simply allow other defenses than reasonable force - wait and see, nothing is as devious as Judicial scum.

Even today I had to threaten to sue the parole board headed up by some jerk off judge as it wrote me a letter to tell me (without first consulting me per my victim rights) that it was releasing my Mums still dangerous killer on Monday 2nd one year into a 3 year sentence 'per his rights'!

Well I put a stop to that as they had excluded as from their secret parole hearing so now they are having to have another one in 2 weeks. See how sneaky and untrusty these slime are, but luckily due to Burton they feared our threats to go public etc and did a quick backtrack today.

Without common sense on the bench (it's absent) we're all screwed - never trust a Judge (lips moving = lying) and do assume everything they touch is perverted because power corrupts and most are divorced from normality.

I can tell you as a previous psych nurse that a few very senior barristers were involved in paedophile rings / criminal connected in the 1980s - as we nursed the messed up adults that resulted. And we wonder why those now at the top may be unconcerned about abuse!!!

I just hope the children that got bashed and had a Judge decide a 4x2 was reasonable force to use on them, track down these Judges... much later... when they are frail and defenseless in rest homes. And give them a dose of their own medicine - of reasonable force.

We have too many freaks on the bench. They divorced their brains in some ivory tower long ago. If they truly are letting child bashers off as they stand accused they deserve to be exposed. Thats kinda worse even than being a uniformed rapist. Why hasn't the media outed these unnatural freaks?

The Police corruption is nothing against the Judiciaries. I hope to live to see the day it is exposed.

[Quartermile]

Ooops double post.
How does that happen cos you gotta wait 30sec to post again?

Anyway you can always delete posts rather than just editing them:yes:

[Skyryder]

I just hope the children that got bashed and had a Judge decide a 4x2 was reasonable force to use on them, track down these Judges... much later... when they are frail and defenseless in rest homes. And give them a dose of their own medicine - of reasonable force.

We have too many freaks on the bench. They divorced their brains in some ivory tower long ago. If they truly are letting child bashers off as they stand accused they deserve to be exposed. Thats kinda worse even than being a uniformed rapist. Why hasn't the media outed these unnatural freaks?

The Police corruption is nothing against the Judiciaries. I hope to live to see the day it is exposed.




It is not the Judge who decided what was reasonable force but the Jury. If you can not understand the fundamental differences between the roles of judge and jury it is not surprising that you have such a bad attitude towards them.

And incidently it is precisely because 'socieity' can not protect children from abusive parents that Bradford's bill is necessary. She has never claimed that her bill will stop violence but at least the perpertrators of violence agaist their children will not get away with it so easily as they have in the past.


Skyryder

[The Pastor]

anyone watch the news last night? they had a poll similar to this one, and only 23 percent said they agree with the legislation.

you'd think that, as a public servant, they would listen to this aye.

Whats that a new tui billbord? Very funny.


I'm thinking. We cringe as the law is passed to appease misguided well intended nutters led by feminists with all their feet way off the ground.

They feel good and victorious and like they have taken a giant step for mankind and kahui families everywhere.

Meanwhile life carries on exactly the same as the day before. And any cop who shares in Bradfords philosphy and becomes a bounty hunter of smackers will not be able to hold their head up as excitedly they throw the latest smacker in the cells.

They will get taken some dark place (the cop) that is and given a good tune up, after which they will chose to leave the force. Also their membership of the Sensible Sentencing Trust will be revoked for not being fit or proper.:shutup:

Let Bradford spend a day in uniform PLEASE.

I remember reading on some website (so unsure if its true or not) that countrys that have the anti smacking law, most of the people pros-i-cuted (sp) are of the situation where the kid is angry at his parents for disapling them (no kid wants to be smacked) and rings up the cops saying his dad hit him or when the wife wants to get back at her husband or somthing unrealising that if a complaint is made they will get arrested.


The thing I don't understand is what has smacking got to do with child abuse?

The people who are going to beat kids arnt the law abiding type are they? whats one more law for them to break?

Isnt it illgal to assult somone in nz anyways?

WHERE IS MY TV REMOTE!

[NotaGoth]

like most of us were spanked without destroying us psyhcologically or emotionally

I dunnooooooooooo..... I'm pretty fucked in the head.... lol Then again maybe the punishment of being made sit in the firewood shed being munched by sandflies is what did it.. *twitch* Thats what ended up happening when smacking my arse stopped working...



All I can see that its gonna do is make criminals out of those who "smack" while those who "beat" their children still get away with it... There is a HUGE difference between smacking and beating....

[oldrider]

And incidently it is precisely because 'socieity' can not protect children from abusive parents that Bradford's bill is necessary. She has never claimed that her bill will stop violence but at least the perpertrators of violence agaist their children will not get away with it so easily as they have in the past.
Skyryder

Yeah right!

Like their "Dangerous Dog" legislation stops dangerous dogs from doing their business! What a load of bullshit!

Non of the real child beaters could hide behind the current legislation, its just the grey areas that get all emotionally f**ked up by do gooder wankers.

That will always be the case in marginal situations.

The proposed new legislation will just make things even worse the other way!

Bradford's bill is just a waste of time, energy and money. :yes: John.

[Skyryder]

There will always be cracks in the system. No legislation will stop anything completly. At best it might reduce a problem. Bradford's bill will not stop seriouse abuse and 'seriouse abusers' can not hide behind section 59 of the Crimes Act. Bradford's bill is the result of juries unable to agree as to what constitutes reasonable force. When a child is 'smacked' by a piece of 4x2 that leaves bruising and a jury believes that this is reasonable force then what does that say about NZ society? It seems to me that the hostility against Bradford and her bill is that she is right and the majority of kiwi's don't like that.

Skyryder

[oldrider]

When we (me and my siblings) were kids we got really thrashed by our old man with a piece of rubber conveyor belt.

He (as did people of that time) believed in the adage, "Spare the rod and spoil the child".

As I was considered to be a "difficult" child I received more than my share of anti spoiling treatment.

So much so that on one occasion I took my brother's CMT 303 service rifle, loaded it, hid in a wardrobe and threatened to shoot my father if he came near me again.(and I would have done it)

Obviously that did not happen and things took a change following that event.

I would gladly turn that gun on anyone who tried to interfere with my fathers rights and attempts to bring us up the way he saw fit because I would rather live my life as a result of his mistakes than have to live my life as a result of the mistakes of any phony interfering government advocate like Sue Bradford or Helen Clark.

The children do not belong to the state, the state belongs to the children but socialists and communists just can't get that through their thick heads.

My father was a good father who was influenced by the trends of the times and now that we have escaped those influences (Christian) I for one do not want to see them replaced by another (the state) such as Bradford and Clark are trying to do.

I did not nor did my wife ever beat our children but we did discipline them when the need arose and they (the children) bare witness today that there is no need or no place for the "State" in the privacy of the home unless a crime is committed and there "is" adequate legislation in place covering that now.

What is missing today is an adequate suitably equipped and manned Police force to carry out the task of policing the laws that we have already.

Full praise to the police for the work they do under such difficult conditions when all the "good work" they do gets undermined by piss weak judicial, corrections and social services!

Clark and her power mad dictatorial cronies should focus on governing for the people by the people or step aside and have new election for representatives that can.

There are so many urgent and "real" issues for government to be concentrating on without wasting time money and energy on this anti-smacking rubbish just so Clark can stay in power with the "Green vote" by supporting this bill!

I agree with not smacking but this legislation is not required to get that across, education and good leadership is, I don't see any in parliament right now from this government and their pathetic state control cronies.

Time to cut the crap and get real before every last vestage of freedom is lost forever.

Nanny state knows best! yeah right! :shit: John.

[Skyryder]

Clark and her power mad dictatorial cronies should focus on governing for the people by the people or step aside and have new election for representatives that can.

There are so many urgent and "real" issues for government to be concentrating on without wasting time money and energy on this anti-smacking rubbish just so Clark can stay in power with the "Green vote" by supporting this bill!

I agree with not smacking but this legislation is not required to get that across, education and good leadership is, I don't see any in parliament right now from this government and their pathetic state control cronies.

Time to cut the crap and get real before every last vestage of freedom is lost forever.

Nanny state knows best! yeah right! :shit: John.



Proposed replacement o f
sec t i on 59
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).


This has nothing to do with the nanny state, power mad politicians, communists, socialists etc.

It is about children who can not defend themselves agaist parents who abuse their responsibilities. Perhaps if as a society we were to convict those parents who take a piece of 4x2 and 'smack' their kids with it, this sort of legislation would not be neccessary. Unfortunately as a society we do not seem capable of that. Instead the Christian Right see this as a direct attack on their God given right to 'smack' their children in any manner that they see fit. They have conned NZ into beliveing that good prarental control requires smacking. It does not.

Skyryder

[candor]

It is not the Judge who decided what was reasonable force but the Jury. If you can not understand the fundamental differences between the roles of judge and jury it is not surprising that you have such a bad attitude towards them.

And incidently it is precisely because 'socieity' can not protect children from abusive parents that Bradford's bill is necessary. She has never claimed that her bill will stop violence but at least the perpertrators of violence agaist their children will not get away with it so easily as they have in the past.

Skyryder

Can't agree with you that the perps will not get away with it so easily as in the past. Not without knowing who got away with what in the past.

They have failed to sell this bill as they have not 'shared' whats broke in a concrete way. I follow medisa reasonably closely and am not aware of hearing about one case of somneone 'getting away with it' (kid bashing) on a technicality like 'reasonable force'.

And also... what I understand of the current system is that people can elect to just go before a Judge or to go before a jury.

The anti smcking brigade would win my ear a lot more if they would actually tell us about any / all these cases of 4x2 use in which the offender is getting off on 'reasonable force' defence. Do they exist these cases or are they mythic.

Dates, details, barbaric community location and Judges names please.

And yes. if it is a jury trial most blame must still go on the Judge if they jury getsit wrong. As the Judge doctors the whole trial by deciding how to slant things via inclusion or excluision of evidence. he Judge also guides and advises the jury in his/ her summing up.

The Judge is a HUGE influence on the verdict as referee and if you don't think so I think maybe it is you who does not understand the legal system well.

[Skyryder]

Can't agree with you that the perps will not get away with it so easily as in the past. Not without knowing who got away with what in the past.

They have failed to sell this bill as they have not 'shared' whats broke in a concrete way. I follow medisa reasonably closely and am not aware of hearing about one case of somneone 'getting away with it' (kid bashing) on a technicality like 'reasonable force'.

And also... what I understand of the current system is that people can elect to just go before a Judge or to go before a jury.

The anti smcking brigade would win my ear a lot more if they would actually tell us about any / all these cases of 4x2 use in which the offender is getting off on 'reasonable force' defence. Do they exist these cases or are they mythic.

Dates, details, barbaric community location and Judges names please.

And yes. if it is a jury trial most blame must still go on the Judge if they jury getsit wrong. As the Judge doctors the whole trial by deciding how to slant things via inclusion or excluision of evidence. he Judge also guides and advises the jury in his/ her summing up.

The Judge is a HUGE influence on the verdict as referee and if you don't think so I think maybe it is you who does not understand the legal system well.


http://www.youthlaw.co.nz/default.aspx?_z=128


I've been following this thread with some interest. At least there is one here who knows and it's not you Candor

[oldrider]

http://www.youthlaw.co.nz/default.aspx?_z=128


I've been following this thread with some interest. At least there is one here who knows and it's not you Candor

Section 59 with clear definition of "Reasonable force" is all that's required!

The only real argument here is what is reasonable force, currently so many men so many opinions, take your pick.

The proposed bill will only continue that argument with even worse consequences.(IMHO)

I am not for unnecessary smacking and I am not for stupid unnecessary legislation, especially those that probably cant be policed effectively either. John.

[Quartermile]

Here is a link to a properly organised ballot/petition. You may vote either way, and will be resented to government once 100,000 votes registered or something like that anyway.
So far it is 90% No and 10% yes, to supporting Sue Bradfords Anti-Smacking Bill.

LINK (http://www.antismackingvote.co.nz/)
Haha, done :D

[Indiana_Jones]

wtf is going on with this bill?, aint seen nothing in the news.

-Indy

[oldrider]

Don't usually dally with petitions but this one is just too much to ignore!

Voted "NO" and sent it on to friends and relatives.

Problem is not with current law, problem is with:

Policing, Judiciary, Corrections and Social Services, if these were made to operate correctly the current laws would suffice.

If these services are unable to cope with the current legislation, they will never ever hope to cope with what Bradford's bill will produce! (IMHO) John.

[kro]

Instead the Christian Right see this as a direct attack on their God given right to 'smack' their children in any manner that they see fit. They have conned NZ into beliveing that good prarental control requires smacking. It does not.

Whose rights need to be considered first?. If you put the childrens "right" not to be smacked before the parents "right" to discipline their children, then you have the tail wagging the dog. This is a doctor Phil quote, and sums it nicely.

Oh, and Sky, how bout stopping with the "thrashing with a 4x2" comments, noone here condones that sort of carry on, we are talking slap across the back of the hand/bottom with a hand only, and its annoying every time you use that gross exaggeration.