Get ready to hit your kids... [Archive]

Tank

22nd August 2008, 14:20

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4665501a6160.html

Opponents of the anti-smacking law change are celebrating after collecting enough signatures to force a referendum.

Kiwi Party leader and petition organiser Larry Baldock said today that the petition had been certified by the Clerk of the House as having enough valid signatures.

"This is great news and a huge victory," he said.

When the petition was originally handed to the Clerk on February 29, 285,027 valid signatures were needed. It failed because too many were ruled to be invalid.

This time, around 310,000 signatures were valid - 25,000 more than required to force a referendum.

The referendum will be on the question: "should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Mr Baldock called for the refendum to be held with this year's election.

"None of the reasons being given by the Prime Minister for delaying it make any sense at all, and are simply a tactic for her to try and avoid this being an eleKiwi Party leader and petition organiser Larry Baldock said today that the petition had been certified by the Clerk of the House as having enough valid signatures.

"This is great news and a huge victory," he said.

When the petition was originally handed to the Clerk on February 29, 285,027 valid signatures were needed. It failed because too many were ruled to be invalid.

This time, around 310,000 signatures were valid - 25,000 more than required to force a referendum.

The referendum will be on the question: "should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Mr Baldock called for the refendum to be held with this year's election.

"None of the reasons being given by the Prime Minister for delaying it make any sense at all, and are simply a tactic for her to try and avoid this being an election issue. She will not drown out the voice of the people and should realise there is no point further angering everyone by delaying the inevitable."

In June, Helen Clark said it was unlikely the referendum could be held with the election.

"Just in terms of sheer organisation I don't think that is possible."

Awesome - Im off home to smack the kids up a bit just to get some practice in - I dont want to be rusty when they overturn this silly legislation

MIXONE

22nd August 2008, 14:22

Shit the dog will be happy about that.I will be able to hit the kids again rather than kick his arse.

FJRider

22nd August 2008, 14:35

Shit the dog will be happy about that.I will be able to hit the kids again rather than kick his arse.

The outcome of the referendum does NOT guarantee ANY laws will be changed after the election. The number of signatures, compared to number of potential voters, will not guarantee their desired outcome.

ManDownUnder

22nd August 2008, 14:43

yeah na... I wish it worked that way but the might of the UN ("THOU SHALT NOT SMACK") outweighs that of 310,000 kiwi citizens.

Govt policy to appease both opposing requirements is therefore
1) Duck dodge and avoid said topic till they leave office (however long that takes)
2) Blame the new govt for not taking action.

ManDownUnder

22nd August 2008, 14:44

Shit the dog will be happy about that.I will be able to hit the kids again

Sue Bradford lives at your place???

MIXONE

22nd August 2008, 14:47

Sue Bradford lives at your place???

If she did she'd be fighting the dog for something to eat and somewhere to sleep.

nodrog

22nd August 2008, 14:52

if they change it i would like to see it be made equal for all New Zealanders. i dont have any kids, but somtimes i would like to be able to walk down the street and smack over other peoples.

mstriumph

22nd August 2008, 15:03

love it!!
i am already drawing up a list of other people's kids to chastise ----- ohhhh the sweet anticipation :spanking:

Devil

22nd August 2008, 15:14

I'm warming up already! :devil2:

FJRider

22nd August 2008, 15:20

ManDownUnder

22nd August 2008, 15:27

love it!!
i am already drawing up a list of other people's kids to chastise ----- ohhhh the sweet anticipation :spanking:

I'll be childish if you promise to put me across your knee...

Colapop

22nd August 2008, 15:30

Oooo goody - a referendum. We've had those before, right? And they did about as much good as this one will do...

BTW - you've never been legally allowed to beat up your kids, why did we need another law to tell us that it's not ok?

spookytooth

22nd August 2008, 15:41

i am going to have to find other ppls kids to beat on. Mine have gotten way to big now

jrandom

22nd August 2008, 15:42

BTW - you've never been legally allowed to beat up your kids, why did we need another law to tell us that it's not ok?

It's about whether using 'reasonable force' for the purpose of correction is a defence to a charge of assault against one's kid(s).

Right now, it's not. Anything that's an assault against another adult is an assault against your own child, regardless of whether you were doing it to the kid to punish them for bad behaviour or not.

And it's a bloody hard question to answer as to whether that should or shouldn't be the case.

I was walloped a bit as a kid, as most of our generation were, and I can tell you for sure it never did me any good. Just made me loathe authority even more.

Whereas some folk swear with hand on heart that being smacked now and then did them a world of good.

I think the variable is parents, not the methods applied, to be honest. Good parents will always raise good kids, whether or not they use physical pain as a deterrent, and useless parents will always raise fuckups, whether or not they ever lay a hand on them.

Personally?

I remember how I felt being beaten as a kid, and I don't think any other child should ever have to feel that way.

So I support the law in its current form, inconvenient as it may be for well-intentioned-but-frustrated parents.

Colapop

22nd August 2008, 15:48

jrandom

22nd August 2008, 15:51

The term 'reasonable force' is subjective. What is reasonable? The goalposts change according to social concience at any particular time.

A very good point.

And given that in this case 'reasonable' is always going to be determined by people other than those affected by the violence in question, I don't think it's a fair defence to open to subjective judgment.

An assault is an assault. If you can't control your kids without the threat of retributive violence, you suck as a parent. Sorry, it's just true.

Patrick

22nd August 2008, 15:54

The outcome of the referendum does NOT guarantee ANY laws will be changed after the election. The number of signatures, compared to number of potential voters, will not guarantee their desired outcome.

Referendums mean othing. The silent majority get to have a say, and the gubbermint still do what they want.

Remember the referendum on harsher penalties for crims? Over 90 per cent said hell yeah.

What do we get? Murderers on bail, Home detention and a seven step policy to go through before anyone gets close to being sent to jail - seven strikes and off to jail you go. FFS.

BuellBunny

22nd August 2008, 15:57

BTW - you've never been legally allowed to beat up your kids, why did we need another law to tell us that it's not ok?[/QUOTE]

Theres a difference to beating up ya kids and smacking them on the arse when they deserve it....
:spanking:

jrandom

22nd August 2008, 15:59

Referendums mean othing...

Remember the referendum on harsher penalties for crims? Over 90 per cent said hell yeah.

That's the problem with woolly ill-conceived referendums.

A referendum on whether a particular clause should be added back into a particular section in a particular Act (as this one presumably will be) would be a lot harder for a Government to wriggle away from, in terms of taking action, than a referendum on what people thought of some general principle like 'harsher penalties'.

jrandom

22nd August 2008, 16:00

Theres a difference to beating up ya kids and smacking them on the arse when they deserve it...

That's entirely subjective.

And, with all due respect, if I were your kid, I think I'd prefer that you not be given the option to exercise your judgement on the matter.

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 16:13

That's entirely subjective.

Hence why the law is an arse

jrandom

22nd August 2008, 16:15

Hence why the law is an arse

Well, no, the law is no longer an arse, following Bradford's bill, is the point.

This is supposed to be a referendum about whether we should reinstate that particular arsey part of the law.

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 16:21

Well, no, the law is no longer an arse, following Bradford's bill, is the point.

This is supposed to be a referendum about whether we should reinstate that particular arsey part of the law.

They should ban 'time out' as a form of psychological abuse

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 16:42

Hence why the law is an arse

Why is it......

P38

22nd August 2008, 16:59

Cant wait

I'd give my youngest a bloody good smacking. :spanking:

Except he's 19years old and 2.05 meters tall and 110kgs. :no:

Maybe I'd give his three older brothers a good smacking instead. :spanking:

They are shorter, not much though.

But they dont mind a bit of a scrap if theres one going. :no::no:

Shit either way I'm gonna loose. :yes:

Maybe I just give em a hug instead, :hug:

After all they are gonna pick my retirement home for me :doctor:

22nd August 2008, 17:29

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4665501a6160.html

Opponents of the anti-smacking law change are celebrating after collecting enough signatures to force a referendum........

Awesome - Im off home to smack the kids up a bit just to get some practice in - I dont want to be rusty when they overturn this silly legislation

So what you are saying is that the reason people, including yourself, bash Kids is dependent on what is written on a piece of paper by Parliament.

There I was thinking it was caused by people who can't control their anger and despite whatever the laws are they hit kids. How come that same principle hasn't put an end to rape and murder?

We did't need this silly law. Assault, grievious bodily harm and murder - against any age, were already illegal in NZ.

What next? Shall we make it illegal to frown at a child, fart in their general direction.

Alas the passing of common sense. He got lightly smacked on the bum and died of multiple injuries as a result.

MisterD

22nd August 2008, 17:41

Well, no, the law is no longer an arse, following Bradford's bill, is the point.

Any law that most people ignore, is a stupid law. What did Alan Clark say about trying to "defy human nature" before she went back on her word not to criminalise smacking for the purposes of correction?

I don't care what the right-on social engineers say, smacking is a valid, useful and effective component of the parental toolbox.

devnull

22nd August 2008, 18:05

Our kids still get smacked if necessary... regardless of a ridiculous law that even HC declared would never happen because "it defies human nature", introduced by a Maoist and known criminal.
Who the hell think she's a model parent??

If the lefties can't differentiate between a smack and assault, then they need to be forcibly sterilised - problem solved.

I can't be bothered citing the stacks of psych research that shows Bradford was wrong from the start - I think her supporters are too inbred to be capable of reading anyway

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 18:10

Any law that most people ignore, is a stupid law. What did Alan Clark say about trying to "defy human nature" before she went back on her word not to criminalise smacking for the purposes of correction?

I don't care what the right-on social engineers say, smacking is a valid, useful and effective component of the parental toolbox.

People are good judges of Laws are they....mmm...so they are objective when ignoring then...

Do you really think that smacking is the most effective component of the parental toolbox...funny how we don't apply adult v adult tools to our kids and set an example...

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 18:11

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 18:13

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 18:15

He said A tool, not "the most effective" tool

and he said "effective"...

devnull

22nd August 2008, 18:16

People are good judges of Laws are they....mmm...so they are objective when ignoring then...

Do you really think that smacking is the most effective component of the parental toolbox...funny how we don't apply adult v adult tools to our kids and set an example...

What a bullshit argument...
It is a valid and effective tool - only you said most effective

See Millchamp (Otago Uni 2006) for info on effectiveness
See "Child Deaths in Sweden: The Swedish Myth" (Beckett, British Journal of Social Work) for examples of the anti-smacking fallacy.

Bottom line - the law is crap - they didn't want to target the real risk indicators, because it would upset core Labour supporters

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 18:17

and he said "effective"...

which is completely different to "the most effective"

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 18:18

What a bullshit argument...
It is a valid and effective tool - only you said most effective

See Millchamp (Otago Uni 2006) for info on effectiveness
See "Child Deaths in Sweden: The Swedish Myth" (Beckett, British Journal of Social Work) for examples of the anti-smacking fallacy.

Bottom line - the law is crap - they didn't want to target the real risk indicators, because it would upset core Labour supporters

To you, yes.

Studies are for a reason, not always a good ones

devnull

22nd August 2008, 18:19

To you, yes.

Studies are for a reason, not always a good ones

Ah, so any research that doesn't conform to your opinion is automatically wrong?

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 18:20

which is completely different to "the most effective"

Okay, my lazy English...apologies but the reality is that parents tend to treat kids different to the way the treat adults which I don't agree with.

Now I cannot smack Nats amd I just use chat and reason and it works so to me smacking is 100% not necessary

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 18:21

Ah, so any research that doesn't conform to your opinion is automatically wrong?

No I did not say that but say you did a study into smacking it is likely that it would have a biased slant on it...human nature...

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 18:22

Okay, my lazy English...apologies but the reality is that parents tend to treat kids different to the way the treat adults which I don't agree with.

No -that's not lazy english, it's a total misquote of a post to suit your argument.

I do agree with your point above though. Corporal punishment for adults

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 18:24

No -that's not lazy english, it's a total misquote of a post to suit your argument.

I do agree with your point above though. Corporal punishment for adults

Nope, was lazy English and I apologised for that.

devnull

22nd August 2008, 18:24

No I did not say that but say you did a study into smacking it is likely that it would have a biased slant on it...human nature...

Neither of those papers are smacking specific - before claiming bias, I suggest actually reading them.

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 18:25

Neither of those papers are smacking specific - before claiming bias, I suggest actually reading them.

Fair enough............

MisterD

22nd August 2008, 18:35

Okay, my lazy English...apologies but the reality is that parents tend to treat kids different to the way the treat adults which I don't agree with.

My esteemed friend Flatcap has done most of the follow up arguing for me but I set my own standards for how I treat my kid, I abide by society's standards for how I treat other adults and other people's kids.

I believe the authorative research says that kids need the following:

1) Love
2) Boundaries and
3) Consequences for crossing those boundaries

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 18:38

My esteemed friend Flatcap has done most of the follow up arguing for me but I set my own standards for how I treat my kid, I abide by society's standards for how I treat other adults and other people's kids.

I believe the authorative research says that kids need the following:

1) Love
2) Boundaries and
3) Consequences for crossing those boundaries

Societies standards?? That is interesting...

Agree with 1 and 2 and 3...although I guess I have a different personal perspective...just don't think that consequences = smacking...

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 18:40

Agree with 1 and 2 and 3...although I guess I have a different personal perspective...just don't think that consequences = smacking...

Consequeces <= smacking.

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 18:42

Consequeces <= smacking.

less than??..........

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 18:44

less than??..........

Clearly I was being too subtle.

Consequences do not always have to be smacking, however this should remain an option

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 18:49

Clearly I was being too subtle.

Consequences do not always have to be smacking, however this should remain an option

I agree with first point, not second...if a parent cannot sort their kid out in a non-smacking way then there is a problem...I know there is no manual, however, smacking is not necessary...it is low level violence which some parents excuse for discipline

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 18:52

I agree with first point, not second...if a parent cannot sort their kid out in a non-smacking way then there is a problem...I know there is no manual, however, smacking is not necessary...it is low level violence which some parents excuse for discipline

OK - define smacking from your viewpoint.....

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 18:53

OK - define smacking from your viewpoint.....

From what I have seen a sharp slap of the hand...still not necessary

RDJ

22nd August 2008, 18:57

The term 'reasonable force' is subjective. What is reasonable? The goalposts change according to social concience at any particular time. The punishment I was subjected to as a child is neither here nor there right now. Right now it is a determining the future

Reasonable is indeed very difficult to define. But we can agree can we not with utmost certainty that the Lillybings and Kahuis were never subjected to reasonable force.

And none of the Bradford-inspired sophistries that (in summary) attempt to convince us all that there is an inevitable and irresistible continuum from smacking your child for playing with matches or running across the street and risking their death (to illustrate two common uses of the palm of the parental hand to canalise the cortex of the child of the 50s for the child's own protection and benefit), to murdering your child as per the above examples, have any basis in fact or logic.

Pain is an effective way of learning. If you don't know it hurts - it you don't feel it hurt / learn that it hurts - you leave your skin in the sun till it turns red and your fingers in the fire till they char.

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 18:58

From what I have seen a sharp slap of the hand...still not necessary

So what do you think a slap on the hand does to a child?

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 18:59

Reasonable is indeed very difficult to define. But we can agree can we not with utmost certainty that the Lillybings and Kahuis were never subjected to reasonable force.

And none of the Bradford-inspired sophistries that (in summary) attempt to convince us all that there is an inevitable and irresistible continuum from smacking your child for playing with matches or running across the street and risking their death (to illustrate two common uses of the palm of the parental hand to canalise the cortex of the child of the 50s for the child's own protection and benefit), to murdering your child as per the above examples, have any basis in fact or logic.

Pain is an effective way of learning. If you don't know it hurts - it you don't feel it hurt / learn that it hurts - you leave your skin in the sun till it turns red and your fingers in the fire till they char.

You think physical pain is an effective way of learning?

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 19:01

So what do you think a slap on the hand does to a child?

Only the child can answer that??

I have the advantage that I cannot smack Nats and know that you don't need to either...even when she is driving an 85kg wheelchair heading towards you!!

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 19:05

Only the child can answer that??

I have the advantage that I cannot smack Nats and know that you don't need to either...even when she is driving an 85kg wheelchair heading towards you!!

Come on - thats a cop out.

You are arguing against smacking, yet you are telling us you have no conception of what the impact of smacking is on a child?

RDJ

22nd August 2008, 19:08

You think physical pain is an effective way of learning?

What I think is not as relevant here, as are the facts of neurophysiology and behaviour modification. Pain (as in developing a reflex aversive / avoidance response to stimuli previously experienced to be unpleasant, noxious and therefore worth avoiding) is indeed an effective teacher. Now people may reasonably disagree about whether pain should be administered by parents, as a way to develop risk aversion in children; but one surely cannot ignore the fact that the experience of pain is an effective modifier of future behaviour.

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 19:12

Come on - thats a cop out.

You are arguing against smacking, yet you are telling us you have no conception of what the impact of smacking is on a child?

No, I don't have a choice...

Nope, whether or not smacking has an impact or not to me is irrelevant, I just don't agree with the need to smack

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 19:17

No, I don't have a choice...

Nope, whether or not smacking has an impact or not to me is irrelevant, I just don't agree with the need to smack

So you are applying dogma rather that reasoned opinion.

Perfect

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 19:17

What I think is not as relevant here, as are the facts of neurophysiology and behaviour modification. Pain (as in developing a reflex aversive / avoidance response to stimuli previously experienced to be unpleasant, noxious and therefore worth avoiding) is indeed an effective teacher. Now people may reasonably disagree about whether pain should be administered by parents, as a way to develop risk aversion in children; but one surely cannot ignore the fact that the experience of pain is an effective modifier of future behaviour.

I don't agree....simple as that...sorry

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 19:20

I don't agree....simple as that...sorry

You forgot to say "SO THERE!"

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 19:20

So you are applying dogma rather that reasoned opinion.

Perfect

Correct...that is my belief...it works for me...

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 19:21

You forgot to say "SO THERE!"

But if I did you might smack me....

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 19:23

Correct...that is my belief...it works for me...

Hmm - the problem with dogma however is it tends to get applied to others.

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 19:24

But if I did you might smack me....

Would you prefer I gave you a big hug and told you I love you?

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 19:25

Hmm - the problem with dogma however is it tends to get applied to others.

As you will have gathered from Religious Ravings, my beliefs stay personal...but one could argue that a person's or society's reasoned opinion is also applied to others

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 19:26

Would you prefer I gave you a big hug and told you I love you?

Well in a manner of speaking "yes"

Ocean1

22nd August 2008, 19:30

You think physical pain is an effective way of learning?

Pain taught me everything I know about riding bikes... OK, might have been less than perfectly effective in my case... BUT

Of course it's effective you twat, the reason we feel pain in the first place is to prevent us damaging ourselves, it's the first lesson any of us learn.

Children are, almost by definition, not able to reliably make safe decisions, sometimes their behaviour is dangerous and yet there may be no immediately painful concequences to teach them that. Any parent who fails to take any opportunity to teach their kids safe behaviour frankly doesn't deserve to have them. My son probably wouldn't be alive today if I hadn't "assaulted him" on one particular occasion.

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 19:32

Pain taught me everything I know about riding bikes... OK, might have been less than perfectly effective in my case... BUT

Of course it's effective you twat, the reason we feel pain in the first place is to prevent us damaging ourselves, it's the first lesson any of us learn.

Children are, almost by definition, not able to reliably make safe decisions, sometimes their behaviour is dangerous and yet there may be no immediately painful concequences to teach them that. Any parent who fails to take any opportunity to teach their kids safe behaviour frankly doesn't deserve to have them. My son probably wouldn't be alive today if I hadn't "assaulted him" on one particular occasion.

Pain from mistakes is fine...

Ocean1

22nd August 2008, 19:40

Pain from mistakes is fine...

It wasn't enough to keep the puppy he was chasing across the road alive.

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 19:41

It wasn't enough to keep the puppy he was chasing across the road alive.

That's life eh??

Oakie

22nd August 2008, 19:51

Shit the dog will be happy about that.I will be able to hit the kids again rather than kick his arse.

I worked with a guy who kicked his dog once and broke his own leg in doing so. Solid dog!

raftn

22nd August 2008, 19:57

I am from a splt marriage situation , and my kids have been well educated by the x that under no circumstances is "Dad allowed to hit them other wise he will go to jail"......I am sorry, but i think the law is a peice of shit and has caused a lot of grief for men , and probably women in my sitaution, just like the law about healthy food in schools, but they still send my kids home with choclate to sell...go figure! Personally I have had enough of labour telling me how I can live my life, where I can smoke, where I can drink, what disciplyn i can issue to my kids, what food they can eat at school, and now they are going to make it illegal to use light bulbs that are not envoirmental friendly....i have had a guts full of the whole lot. I am a proud father of two, I like to think that I knowwhat is best for them, not some pot smoking fuckling liberal green party fucking wiedo feminist! ...........rant over, but i am sure other people must feel the same way.

RDJ

22nd August 2008, 20:24

Children are, almost by definition, not able to reliably make safe decisions, sometimes their behaviour is dangerous and yet there may be no immediately painful consequences to teach them that. Any parent who fails to take any opportunity to teach their kids safe behaviour frankly doesn't deserve to have them.

Well said, and straight to the heart of the debate.

Tank

22nd August 2008, 20:25

So what you are saying is that the reason people, including yourself, bash Kids is dependent on what is written on a piece of paper by Parliament.

There I was thinking it was caused by people who can't control their anger and despite whatever the laws are they hit kids. How come that same principle hasn't put an end to rape and murder?

We did't need this silly law. Assault, grievious bodily harm and murder - against any age, were already illegal in NZ.

What next? Shall we make it illegal to frown at a child, fart in their general direction.

Alas the passing of common sense. He got lightly smacked on the bum and died of multiple injuries as a result.

No - I smacked my kids when they were little if they were bad. (Smack defined as a light smack on the ass that actually dosnt hurt) As a result they learned that there are consequences to actions and as a result I have 3 well behaved, kids that Im a great friend with and they have caused me (or society) no grief.

If I had another kid - Id smack that one as well. I couldn't give a fuck what the legislation says - I'm right - and they fucked up.

Skyryder

22nd August 2008, 20:42

Children are, almost by definition, not able to reliably make safe decisions, sometimes their behaviour is dangerous and yet there may be no immediately painful concequences to teach them that. Any parent who fails to take any opportunity to teach their kids safe behaviour frankly doesn't deserve to have them. My son probably wouldn't be alive today if I hadn't "assaulted him" on one particular occasion.

And the law allows for the above. It is very specific on this.

Skyryder

CB ARGH

22nd August 2008, 20:47

Smacking works. That's the truth.

I can't see myself ever whacking/smacking somebody smaller than me, they're helpless. A simple smack on the bottom will do no harm. However what we need to stop is people giving their children a hiding.

There is no way to stop that. Even though I wish there was.

Ocean1

22nd August 2008, 20:50

And the law allows for the above. It is very specific on this.

Skyryder

All law is very specific, that's not the point.

I don't allow any dissenting opinion in matters concerning my children's safety. Not the children's and not anyone else's.

awayatc

22nd August 2008, 21:08

No, I don't have a choice...

Nope, whether or not smacking has an impact or not to me is irrelevant, I just don't agree with the need to smack

Don't worry,we don't want smacking being made compulsory......
But most of us like to have a choice though....

BTW..where do you base your self proclaimed expertise on ...?
Raised a few sons have ya..?

Same as the pope going on about birth control.....
Dont make up rules If you don't play the game......

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 21:13

Don't worry,we don't want smacking being made compulsory......
But most of us like to have a choice though....

BTW..where do you base your self proclaimed expertise on ...?
Raised a few sons have ya..?

Same as the pope going on about birth control.....
Dont make up rules If you don't play the game......

I have not said I am an expert..just my beliefs plus I am raising my Daughter as a single parent and her disability gives me a different perspective on things.

I don't consider the Pope as having any authority...

RDJ

22nd August 2008, 21:13

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 21:19

And while the law may allow for what you say Skyryder in the sense that reasonable parents have not been convicted, considerable numbers of reasonable parents have been accused. More to the point perhaps, there has been no repeat no reduction in the amount of unreasonable violence, which Ms Bradford was emphatic would naturally follow from the legislation she so strongly promoted.

Reasonable people get accused all the time, not just parents...that is life...the key is that those parents were not convicted...

It was not the Law that accused them...suspect the numbers accused has not risen much...perhaps we just hear of the cases more due to the new Laws presence...

awayatc

22nd August 2008, 21:29

I have not said I am an expert..just my beliefs plus I am raising my Daughter as a single parent and her disability gives me a different perspective on things.

You are entitled to have a different perspective.....

Just like I am to mine.

I however will not forcefully try to convert you or people who think like you...

Wonder who the real bully is......

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 21:33

You are entitled to have a different perspective.....

Just like I am to mine.

I however will not forcefully try to convert you or people who think like you...

Wonder who the real bully is......

I agree although I would say that my perspective is probably not understood...but nor am I trying to convert you or other people or being a bully...no idea where you got that from but that's h=ow you see things which is fine

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 21:34

I agree although I would say that my perspective is probably not understood

I think it is perfectly understood - dogma

Grahameeboy

22nd August 2008, 21:39

I think it is perfectly understood - dogma

Like I said "not understood"...definitely not dogma...to be honest..and this is not an offence...you are not in my position so would not be expected to understand....

awayatc

22nd August 2008, 22:04

Reasonable people get accused all the time, not just parents...that is life...the key is that those parents were not convicted...

verbal diarrhea at its worst.....

Lets make ridiculous laws to tie up police resources, and then hope the judge throws it out without convivtions.........

You get used to everything, even hanging,
doesn't make it right though.
That is not life , not as we know it........

Grahameeboy

23rd August 2008, 06:43

verbal diarrhea at its worst.....

Lets make ridiculous laws to tie up police resources, and then hope the judge throws it out without convivtions.........

You get used to everything, even hanging,
doesn't make it right though.
That is not life , not as we know it........

What is life then...surrounded in cotton wool?

Life as we know it is a lot easier than it has been going by history when Laws were administered at whim without justice..at least we do have justice.

23rd August 2008, 09:26

Grahameeboy

23rd August 2008, 09:34

Hearing Sue Bradford on the radio this morning sums up why I object to her and her silly law. The deceiving bitch always uses words in front of the media that carry a different meaning when she talks about her anti-SMACKING bill. I've heard her use bash and beat plenty of times but she cleverly avoids using the word smack.

She said today "the people of NZ need to decide if they want to make it legal again to beat Kids" You stupid bitch. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ILLEGAL TO BEAT CHILDREN. You didn't pass an anti- BEATING Bill, You didn't pass an anti-BASHING Bill. Why, because they have always been covered by assault and GBH laws.

Some people need to use a Dictionary.
Beat= vb, to strike with a series of violent blows
Bash = vb, to strike violently or crushingly
Smack= vb, a sharp blow or slap with something flat

There is a diffence and our Police have for years charged adults for violence against children.

It seems that Bradfords stupidity could be masking people's view of the Law.

I think the ideal is great but the name sucks and is a very unintelligent name too...if it had been named Protection of Children Act for example I wonder if the Law may have been viewed differently.

Does seem that the old Law had some loopholes and the new one was introduced to fill the holes...but it has ended up being attacked instead

MSTRS

23rd August 2008, 10:43

It seems that Bradfords stupidity could be masking people's view of the Law.

Don't forget the stupidity of nigh-on the whole of Parliamet in voting through the repeal. When every poll held on the subject showed the public did not want to see this change. And it was supposed to be a conscience vote...:wacko:

devnull

23rd August 2008, 10:53

And the law allows for the above. It is very specific on this.

Skyryder

The law specifically prohibits "the use of physical force for the purposes of correction"

alanzs

23rd August 2008, 10:54

I however will not forcefully try to convert you or people who think like you...

Wonder who the real bully is......

To me, that is the issue. Where did the government think they have the authority to tell me how to raise my child? Again, who is the bully?

devnull

23rd August 2008, 11:03

Why is it that socialists always target children?

Stalin did it, so did Hitler, to name but a few... Is it because adults are less likely to cave to subversion?

The anti-smacking religion seems to be very much like Benjamin Spock's permissive parenting dogma of the '70s...
The end result was kids that resented their parents as they grew older

Perhaps Bradford is a model parent, and all her kids are perfect angels, so she knows best. Could that be it?

Nope. One dead, others gone off the rails, and she herself was a sickness beneficiary who wasn't too unwell to be out protesting, assaulting cops & getting arrested, all at the taxpayer's expense

Perhaps Voltaire was right, and it's past time this govt was tempered by assassination :dodge:

A govt is meant to act as our representatives, not our rulers.
Since when did a bunch of childless lesbians know what is best for my kids?

Bradford lied and got caught out (Swedish statistics), Clark said they would never pass this law.
Now, FamilyFirst is left keeping a tally of the numbers of people adversely affected

Robbo

23rd August 2008, 11:04

Very interesting debate on this issue and i'm sure that everyone is genuine in their own beliefs regarding this and their own parenting skills no matter what side of the fence that they sit on. But can someone please explain to me why we have so many little arseholes out there in society today who have such bad attitudes and absolutely no respect for anyone or other peoples property. This never used to be the case several decades ago so what has gone wrong.
I beleive that a lot of this has come from softer parenting techniques in the home and no discipline in the schools and no fear of the law or any consequences. Much of this has come about as a result of politicians with no guts or balls trying to tell us how we should live our lives and then legislating accordingly. Perhaps we should dump all the out of control kids on their doorsteps and let them sort it out.
Good parents have never "beaten" their children, they probably have "smacked" them as part of their discipline and i guarantee that these kids have turned out to be fine and upstanding citizens. It sure worked very well a few years ago.
If some parents feel that their disciplining without a need for "smacking" is working for them, then i applaud them if the end result is a well mannered and respectful child.
"Beating" a child is a totally different situation and anyone who engages in this activity should feel the full force of the law as a result. Unfortunate this current law (which i do not agree with) will never stop people of this mentality.
So "Butt Out Politicians" and let all the good parents get on with the job of raising their own children without your interference. We do not want or need it. :mad:

devnull

23rd August 2008, 11:15

who will you trust with your vote this year??

Helen Clark: A lot of people aren’t comfortable with beatings but they don’t want to see, you know, stressed and harassed parents, you know, pulled in by the police because they, they smacked a child.

Bob McCroskie: So you do not want to see smacking banned?

Helen Clark: Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature.

Grahameeboy

23rd August 2008, 11:19

Don't forget the stupidity of nigh-on the whole of Parliamet in voting through the repeal. When every poll held on the subject showed the public did not want to see this change. And it was supposed to be a conscience vote...:wacko:

Maybe, however, I would not be keen on a Govt who gave into what the Public wanted all the time...almost makes it Anarchy.

In this case, the Public got onto the Media band wagon and as usual blew things out of real proportion.

I mean what is the worst that has happened since the new Law was introduced compared with the old Law.

Grahameeboy

23rd August 2008, 11:21

awayatc

23rd August 2008, 11:26

PC completely unacceptable statement, but dogs and kids do have things in common.

I love my kids and I love my dogs, but they need a fair firm hand.
They need to know who's in charge....Not negotiable

No I have no need to beat my dogs,
But their training includes discipline!!! some need more then others
How would you feel if my 100 pound plus Rotty would be out of control?
So why accept if off kids?
Are they not worth a proper upbringing?

Grahameeboy

23rd August 2008, 11:29

The law specifically prohibits "the use of physical force for the purposes of correction"

Force being the operative description...Force has both magnitude and direction, hardly smacking

awayatc

23rd August 2008, 11:29

I think kids resent their parents when older due to the way their parents treated them and nothing to do with Dr Spock...

Spock from star track?
That explains a thing or 2 Mr Grahameeboy.....
You see we here are talking about things on our planet....
Things are obviously different on yours....

Grahameeboy

23rd August 2008, 11:32

Spock from star track?
That explains a thing or 2 Mr Grahameeboy.....
You see we here are talking about things on our planet....
Things are obviously different on yours....

Well we all see things from our own worlds...I understand that...I also understand that you see things differently...we are on the same planet, just different pages...:cool:

Grahameeboy

23rd August 2008, 11:33

Patrick

23rd August 2008, 11:51

... they didn't want to target the real risk indicators, because it would upset core Labour supporters

But that is who has been targetted by this law as well... and it hasn't changed much with them. Their neighbours still dont see or hear anything....

No - I smacked my kids when they were little if they were bad. (Smack defined as a light smack on the ass that actually dosnt hurt) As a result they learned that there are consequences to actions and as a result I have 3 well behaved, kids that Im a great friend with and they have caused me (or society) no grief.

The problem identified right there. No consequences anywhere any more....

Hearing Sue Bradford on the radio this morning sums up why I object to her and her silly law. The deceiving bitch always uses words in front of the media that carry a different meaning when she talks about her anti-SMACKING bill. I've heard her use bash and beat plenty of times but she cleverly avoids using the word smack.

She said today "the people of NZ need to decide if they want to make it legal again to beat Kids" You stupid bitch. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ILLEGAL TO BEAT CHILDREN. You didn't pass an anti- BEATING Bill, You didn't pass an anti-BASHING Bill. Why, because they have always been covered by assault and GBH laws.

Some people need to use a Dictionary.
Beat= vb, to strike with a series of violent blows
Bash = vb, to strike violently or crushingly
Smack= vb, a sharp blow or slap with something flat

There is a diffence and our Police have for years charged adults for violence against children.

She speaks with forked tongue. As most polititions do. Great post, this one....:2thumbsup We do know the difference between a discipline smack and a beating/bashing. Not a lot has changed actually.... except the paperwork now needed when this type of incident is called in...

The law specifically prohibits "the use of physical force for the purposes of correction"

No correction = no consequences. "Do what you like as nothing will come of it" is another way of putting it.

...why we have so many little arseholes out there in society today ....

1. softer parenting techniques in the home and
2. no discipline in the schools and
3. no fear of the law or any consequences.
4. Good parents have never "beaten" their children, they probably have "smacked" them as part of their discipline and i guarantee that these kids have turned out to be fine and upstanding citizens. It sure worked very well a few years ago.
If some parents feel that their disciplining without a need for "smacking" is working for them, then i applaud them if the end result is a well mannered and respectful child.

Sums it up. Worked for me, no hang ups... nor my familty or friends... nor my neighbours... nor my work mates... Hang on.... we must all be wrong!!!:doh:

Force being the operative description...Force has both magnitude and direction, hardly smacking

"Force" can be as simple as a mere touch.

Quite right about the magnitude, but a smack on a padded butt compared to a beating with a lump of 4 x 2, wrestling moves body slams, shoved in a dryer, whippings and punches to the head and body causing multiple broken bones/internal injuries etc etc doesn't need to have a new law to explain the difference, but sweeping up a smack, (which was deliberately avoided by BRADFORD and Co as above) within the definition does seem OTT.

devnull

23rd August 2008, 12:04

Well said Patrick...

Our kids will still be smacked if necessary - but we're fans of common sense instead of this new-age lefty bullshit

I wonder though... IF one of those tofu-munching social workers turns up in her kaftan because someone saw a smack while at the supermarket, could I claim a defense under S.48 as a lump of lead hit them firmly between the eyes :lol:

devnull

23rd August 2008, 12:07

If they were serious about targeting abuse, they'd address things like:
low maternal age at birth
low maternal education
drug and/or alcohol abuse

to name just a few.... But that would alienate Labour's core voters - Labour has always tried to make voters clients

Boob Johnson

23rd August 2008, 12:53

Colapop

23rd August 2008, 12:55

who will you trust with your vote this year??
The mistake with that question is assumiong that anyone would trust a politician!

devnull

23rd August 2008, 13:30

The mistake with that question is assumiong that anyone would trust a politician!

:spanking:

Two Crocodiles were sitting at the side of the swamp near the Lower Hutt river.
The smaller one turned to the bigger one and said, "I can't understand
how you can be so much bigger than me. We're the same age and we were the
same size as kids. I just don't get it." "Well,"said the big Crock, "what
have you been eating?" "Politicians, same as you," replied the small
'Crock. "Hmm. Well, where do you catch them?" "Down the other side of the
harbour near the parking lot by the Parliament Buildings." "Same here. Hmm..
How do you catch them?" "Well, I crawl up under one of their BMW cars and
wait for one to unlock the car door. Then I jump out, grab them by the
leg, shake the shit out of them and eat 'em!" "Ah!" says the big Crocodile,
"I think I see your problem. You're not getting any real nourishment. See,
by the time you finish shaking the shit out of a Politician, there's
nothing left but an asshole and a briefcase."

MSTRS

23rd August 2008, 13:39

Maybe, however, I would not be keen on a Govt who gave into what the Public wanted all the time...almost makes it Anarchy.

In this case, the Public got onto the Media band wagon and as usual blew things out of real proportion.

I mean what is the worst that has happened since the new Law was introduced compared with the old Law.

Democracy = government of the people, for the people, by the people. And (should) mean that majority rules. Where is the anarchy in that?
Instead, what this particular issue shows is that our 'government' is not acting with a popular mandate. That is diametrically opposed to democracy, and indeed, anarchy. Heard of the term 'dictatorship'? What's the version where there are lots of them, instead of one, imposing their version of what they think is good for us?
Nothing was blown out of proportion by the media, either.
What we have is a lowered benchmark for producing 'criminals' out of otherwise decent parents. And it has, does and will.
The reasonable force clause should have been clarified. Instead we got the 'thou shalt not...blah..blah...inconsequential...' tripe.

Grahameeboy

23rd August 2008, 13:50

"Force" can be as simple as a mere touch.

Quite right about the magnitude, but a smack on a padded butt compared to a beating with a lump of 4 x 2, wrestling moves body slams, shoved in a dryer, whippings and punches to the head and body causing multiple broken bones/internal injuries etc etc doesn't need to have a new law to explain the difference, but sweeping up a smack, (which was deliberately avoided by BRADFORD and Co as above) within the definition does seem OTT.

No so sure...I think the name is the problem really.

Grahameeboy

23rd August 2008, 13:56

Democracy = government of the people, for the people, by the people. And (should) mean that majority rules. Where is the anarchy in that?
Instead, what this particular issue shows is that our 'government' is not acting with a popular mandate. That is diametrically opposed to democracy, and indeed, anarchy. Heard of the term 'dictatorship'? What's the version where there are lots of them, instead of one, imposing their version of what they think is good for us?
Nothing was blown out of proportion by the media, either.
What we have is a lowered benchmark for producing 'criminals' out of otherwise decent parents. And it has, does and will.
The reasonable force clause should have been clarified. Instead we got the 'thou shalt not...blah..blah...inconsequential...' tripe.

As said by Abraham Lincoln who was shot by one of the people excercising their rights...:yes:

You are referring to direct democracy which is only possible with small groups..we are in a representative democracy so your definition is out of place with reality (sorry not being offensive here)...

Skyryder

23rd August 2008, 14:01

The law specifically prohibits "the use of physical force for the purposes of correction"

Ocean 1 post that I responded too was on safety and dangerouse situations that children do not foresee. The law allows a 'smack' for these purposes.

It does not allow a parent to 'smack' their child as a means of forcing them to attend e.g. Sunday school or Bible class. The legislation is one of the most simplistic pieces of statute to understand.

Bottomline on Bradfords bill is that it gives children the same protection from parents as you and I expect for ourselves. What on earth is the problem with that.??

Skyryder

Grahameeboy

23rd August 2008, 14:08

Ocean 1 post that I responded too was on safety and dangerouse situations that children do not foresee. The law allows a 'smack' for these purposes.

It does not allow a parent to 'smack' their child as a means of forcing them to attend e.g. Sunday school or Bible class. The legislation is one of the most simplistic pieces of statute to understand.

Bottomline on Bradfords bill is that it gives children the same protection from parents as you and I expect for ourselves. What on earth is the problem with that.??

Skyryder

Yep it would be simple if it wasn't simple...

The problem is that in this Country there is an amazing amount of moaning on the basis that we live in a far away land and should be able to do what we like...

People think they know how to lead their lives and be parents...funny thing is that there is no manual or google search to do this...

This is why some moan about the Royal Family when they don't do things right...take Princess Anne..was standoffish..why..because she was not told how to be...so if the Royal Family struggle it is not surprising the rest of us sorry bastards struggle and whether we like it or not we do need things spelt out to us...

Blaming the Govt is just removing personal responsibility...am in the middle of a custody battle, yes the system is still not great...I have the choice to moan and get no where, except bitter like many Men's groups or work within the system and play the game...I chose the latter so in my view the system is for the people, just most don't see that.

Off topic a wee bit but just trying to explain the mentality behind the moaning about the anti-smacking Law.

MisterD

23rd August 2008, 14:10

Ocean 1 post that I responded too was on safety and dangerouse situations that children do not foresee. The law allows a 'smack' for these purposes.

Tell that to the fella in Christchurch who was dragged in front of the courts because he gave his son a clip for running across the road pursued by his 2 year old younger brother.

Grahameeboy

23rd August 2008, 14:12

Tell that to the fella in Christchurch who was dragged in front of the courts because he gave his son a clip for running across the road pursued by his 2 year old younger brother.

How were the facts divulged...anyway, nothing is perfect Mr D...you know that...imagine there was no law whatsover that covered this issue...there would be a hell of a lot more issues

devnull

23rd August 2008, 14:15

Ocean 1 post that I responded too was on safety and dangerouse situations that children do not foresee. The law allows a 'smack' for these purposes.

It does not allow a parent to 'smack' their child as a means of forcing them to attend e.g. Sunday school or Bible class. The legislation is one of the most simplistic pieces of statute to understand.

Bottomline on Bradfords bill is that it gives children the same protection from parents as you and I expect for ourselves. What on earth is the problem with that.??

Skyryder

What is wrong?

You are.

Section 59
Parental control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grahameeboy

23rd August 2008, 14:16

What is wrong?

You are.

What is wrong here?

MSTRS

23rd August 2008, 14:17

Off topic a wee bit but just trying to explain the mentality behind the moaning about the anti-smacking Law.

Oh really? How do you explain when you obviously don't understand (the ones who are moaning). That makes you just like certain people who enact laws or whatever cos 'they know what's good for us, whether we like it or not'...

Grahameeboy

23rd August 2008, 14:19

Oh really? How do you explain when you obviously don't understand (the ones who are moaning). That makes you just like certain people who enact laws or whatever cos 'they know what's good for us, whether we like it or not'...

Nope I am not saying that...you are missing my point...I know I am misunderstood...

James Deuce

23rd August 2008, 14:26

The assault laws deal with protecting children as well as adults. This is an additional regulation designed to regulate parental behaviour.

Don't educate, legislate.

No one sees individual law changes as bad until it is too late. Are you people saying that you are happy for the Government to legislate how you relate to your kids? Because you are included in a blanket statement that says you are a potential criminal if you dare to "discipline" your children in a way that any casual observer can interpret as violent with no other witnesses involved.

You now have to prove that you weren't violent, that your bahaviour was in context and the observer has interpreted what they saw incorrectly. I believe there are 6 convictions that have been over turned. I can't imagine that there hasn't been some cost in terms of family relationships, community standing, individual perceptions of character. Apparently it is acceptable to punish people wrongly because "children" are involved.

There's far too much scope for other people to point the finger and judge your performance as a parent. They won't help, but they'll certainly wreck your life quite happily.

You. Can. All. Fuck Off.

devnull

23rd August 2008, 14:43

What is wrong here?

Read it carefully - take particular note of subsection 2

Skyryder

23rd August 2008, 14:54

What is wrong?

You are.

Both of (a) (b) (c) and (d) refer too children, I did not think I would have to state the obvouse.

2 gives children the same protection as our selves. e.g. you may want to 'correct' my behavour, or for that matter any one elses, whatever the reason, but the law prohibits you from doing so. Or more to the point there are legal repercussions if you chose to do so. The same applies in respect of children. Bradford's bill gives them that protection.

Skyryder

avgas

23rd August 2008, 15:32

Yeah it funny aint it.
I recently talked to someone about the anti-smacking bill in NZ. There were supprised but happy - stating they were beat when they were kids, and because of that they only do time out for their kids.
However they fell it is pefectly acceptable to lock their kids in a cupboard, no light. For long periods of time.
They state that it was better than yelling at them. Until the kids broke.
I believe that it is all regardless - but making a special law to stop kids getting beaten is pointless. We all know the laws in NZ. But how many of us exceed 100kph? That is the speed LIMIT - you must NEVER exceed that limit, that is why you have a LIMIT and not a GUIDE.
So i ask again - those kids that were beat badly before the law, are they saved now?

devnull

23rd August 2008, 15:43

Both of (a) (b) (c) and (d) refer too children, I did not think I would have to state the obvouse.

2 gives children the same protection as our selves. e.g. you may want to 'correct' my behavour, or for that matter any one elses, whatever the reason, but the law prohibits you from doing so. Or more to the point there are legal repercussions if you chose to do so. The same applies in respect of children. Bradford's bill gives them that protection.

Skyryder

And yet I refuse to allow any of my kids to be harmed or killed in the name of socialism.
Doing things likely to harm themselves will still be rewarded with a smack.

Our kids must be so terrified - my little boy has just been sitting with me giving dad kisses and hugs...

While the rabid lefties want to play at social engineering, there are parents like myself that will protect our kids from all comers - you lot especially.

The "law" is meant to protect my kids from the monsters you'll no doubt breed as well - the ones that have no sense of personal responsibility or respect.

Yet the police have the role of the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff - because lazy individuals refuse to teach boundaries and such old fashioned things like respect and morals. Truly, this socialism / communism is a disease - some form of mental illness

Grahameeboy

23rd August 2008, 16:18

Read it carefully - take particular note of subsection 2

I did the first time...still don't see the problem

MSTRS

23rd August 2008, 17:27

2 gives children the same protection as our selves. e.g. you may want to 'correct' my behavour, or for that matter any one elses, whatever the reason, but the law prohibits you from doing so. Or more to the point there are legal repercussions if you chose to do so. The same applies in respect of children. Bradford's bill gives them that protection.
Skyryder

The big difference in this scenario is that none of us parents are responsible for you, since you are neither a child, and specifically, our child.
With responsibility goes certain rights.
Now, the parent still has the responsibility, but a certain part of their rights have been taken away by a failed parent and a load of spineless gits who wouldn't stand up to the cow in a place that matters.

Skyryder

23rd August 2008, 18:46

The big difference in this scenario is that none of us parents are responsible for you, since you are neither a child, and specifically, our child.
With responsibility goes certain rights.
Now, the parent still has the responsibility, but a certain part of their rights have been taken away by a failed parent and a load of spineless gits who wouldn't stand up to the cow in a place that matters.

I'd like to think that the child has gained: that if a parent bruises their child in an act of smacking such people can not hide behind section 59 of the crimes act. If you see that as a loss for your self then so be it. Not much more I can say otherwise.

Skyryder

MSTRS

23rd August 2008, 18:53

I'd like to think that the child has gained: that if a parent bruises their child in an act of smacking such people can not hide behind section 59 of the crimes act.

The problem is that the child has not gained. A smack that may or may not leave a red mark for a few minutes (not talking about bruises) is a very effective parental tool in some cases, and without the right to resort to this meaningful correction those parents may in fact be failing in their duty to instill a sense of consequence in their child. Who then grows up with a lack of boundaries, as an earlier poster alluded to.

devnull

23rd August 2008, 19:21

I'd like to think that the child has gained: that if a parent bruises their child in an act of smacking such people can not hide behind section 59 of the crimes act. If you see that as a loss for your self then so be it. Not much more I can say otherwise.

Skyryder

How many times, IN TOTAL, was S.59 ever use successfully as a defense in court?

Hint: it's less than 10...

People could ALWAYS be charged with assault.

As it stands now, if you discipline your child in a shopping mall and a tofu muncher objects, the best course of action is to proclaim in a loud voice that said tofu muncher is a kiddie fiddler, and let the mob that forms have them :msn-wink:

awayatc

23rd August 2008, 19:37

Awe inspiring style.....

Skyryder

23rd August 2008, 23:51

[QUOTE=devnull;1700675]How many times, IN TOTAL, was S.59 ever use successfully as a defense in court?

Hint: it's less than 10...

People could ALWAYS be charged with assault.

As it stands now, if you discipline your child in a shopping mall and a tofu muncher objects, the best course of action is to proclaim in a loud voice that said tofu muncher is a kiddie fiddler, and let the mob that forms have them :msn-wink:[/QUOT

The problem was that prosecutions would not take place because juries would not convict when there was clear evidence of injury.

We can talk, disagree on this untill the cow comes home but neither the Nats or Labour will change the legtislation. The sooner the Christian Right come to realise this the sooner they may be able to put their talents to better use.

Skyryder

devnull

24th August 2008, 08:41

The problem was that prosecutions would not take place because juries would not convict when there was clear evidence of injury.

We can talk, disagree on this untill the cow comes home but neither the Nats or Labour will change the legtislation. The sooner the Christian Right come to realise this the sooner they may be able to put their talents to better use.

Skyryder

There were many convictions, a fact that the left tries very hard to ignore

The lies Bradford told while quoting Swedish stats were appalling, and so easy to spot it was disgusting

This issue has nothing to do with religion
It's about a corrupt regime extending their social engineering experiments to include children, and responsible parents are outraged.

Sweden clearly shows that this doesn't work, and leads to disaster.
Makes you wonder what Bradford's real aim is - it certainly has nothing to do with children.
If it did, they would've taken notice of the over 600% rise in youth crime in Sweden after they went down this road

Clockwork

24th August 2008, 08:52

The problem is that section 1 allows you to "assult" persumably by way of restraint or phisical removal for the purpose of ...
a.) protecting them from harming themselves or others
b.) preventing them from committing a crime
c.) preventing them from being diruptive or offensive
d.) you are allowed to assult them in order to wipe their arse or clean them up.

If however you subsequently smack then to disuade them from future attempts to engage in acts a through d, then uder section 2 you ARE guilty of criminal assult.

Now you may feel that this law simply provides the same protection to children that you as an adult enjoy. Perhaps then we shoiuld also ...
a.) remove the age of consent laws
b.) remove the age limt exemptions from the crimes act
c.) build smaller cars and allow them to drive
d.) let them vote in the next election

Oh and while we are at it, who the hell are we to force children to attend school?

MSTRS

24th August 2008, 09:20

Now you may feel that this law simply provides the same protection to children that you as an adult enjoy. Perhaps then we shoiuld also ...
a.) remove the age of consent laws
b.) remove the age limt exemptions from the crimes act
c.) build smaller cars and allow them to drive
d.) let them vote in the next election

Oh and while we are at it, who the hell are we to force children to attend school?

Quite right, too. They are merely 'little' adults, with all the higher reasoning that goes with years of experience. After all, as I said earlier, with rights goes responsibility.

awayatc

24th August 2008, 09:58

So i don't have to pay for all their needs anymore....?
washing/feeding etc...?
Great!

topher

24th August 2008, 11:16

if they change it i would like to see it be made equal for all New Zealanders. i dont have any kids, but somtimes i would like to be able to walk down the street and smack over other peoples.

Yup. the best sign I saw in shop was "Unattended children will be given an espresso and a free puppy".

Disappointingly my kids are too big for me to thump any more. I've bought them motorcycles as a bribe for reasonable behaviour and that seems to have done the trick!

Skyryder

24th August 2008, 11:16

Parliment is made up of varying degrees of both left and right. The two biggest parties of of each. Both voted to repeal section 59.
This is not a left issue as some maintain nor is not social engineering either.

It is about the removal of a staute that was used as a defence when children were injured by 'smacking.'

Skyryder

devnull

24th August 2008, 16:18

In Sweden now, there are signs in shops banning children - they're totally out of control.

Bradford now wants to bring in a law next term to ban verbal abuse. Hrmmm..
I'm sure it won't affect good parents... oh... wait..

As for National voting for her anti-smacking bill, they didn't have the numbers to block it, but they could negotiate additional changes to try to minimise the impact on good parents. At least they tried

This bill IS social engineering, and copies another socialist country, Sweden.
We're also starting to see the same end result they did - youth crime rates rising, the offenses becoming more serious

Skyryder

25th August 2008, 11:03

All the Nats did was insist that the discretionary powers were written into the legislation. The police already had this in law. It was a sop to those that opposed the repeal. If the Nats were serious in their opposition they would not have voted for the repeal. The best that will happen is that they may bring it up as conscience vote. I’d take a stab in the dark and predict it will not come up on the order paper as the green block will have the numbers to stop it.

But ACT might try just as a political game that is if they get a seat.

Skyryder

Flatcap

25th August 2008, 12:34

In Sweden now, there are signs in shops banning children - they're totally out of control.

Perhaps that could be included in the legislation - you can't smack your kids if you aren't allowed any

Winston001

25th August 2008, 12:51

Yes, it is social engineering. For the good of our descendants. Family violence is largely hidden in society. One of various ways to reduce it is to send a message to parents that if you hit your kids, you better have a good reason. Ultimately it is hoped that the next generation will be less violent.

What's so hard about that? Maybe it won't work, but saying it's wrong to hit children seems a slam-dunk to me.

Decent parents have nothing to fear and I note there have not been a string of cases brought against "decent parents" since Section 59 has been tightened.

Look - I have three kids, approaching teenage-hood. Yes they were smacked - very rarely. We had a policy of not doing it. They are great kids today without a violent bone in them. Most of their friends were brought up the same way and they are great kids too. No fear in their eyes, no lashing out at other people.

You do not need to hit your children to teach them respect and discipline. If you think you do, the day will be reached when they either hit back or leave your home. And you've lost them.

Tank

25th August 2008, 13:23

Look - I have three kids, approaching teenage-hood. Yes they were smacked - very rarely. We had a policy of not doing it. They are great kids today without a violent bone in them. Most of their friends were brought up the same way and they are great kids too. No fear in their eyes, no lashing out at other people.

You do not need to hit your children to teach them respect and discipline. If you think you do, the day will be reached when they either hit back or leave your home. And you've lost them.

So in the first paragraph you say you smacked your kids and they turned out OK. So did all your friends.

Then in the second paragraph you say people DONT need to and if you do they either hit back or leave home?

Have your kids smacked you back or left home? I'm guessing not.

all the PC brigade seem to lose track of the fact that you can punish kids with a smack and they wont turn into parent hating psychopaths. In fact they can be 'more' balanced in some of the cotton wool kids because they learn that there are consequences for actions and that they can be unpleasant.

Winston001

25th August 2008, 14:04

So in the first paragraph you say you smacked your kids and they turned out OK. So did all your friends.

Then in the second paragraph you say people DONT need to and if you do they either hit back or leave home?

Have your kids smacked you back or left home? I'm guessing not.

Fair call Tank, I was being honest and also saying that smacking is not unlawful. Currently Section 59 permits physical force for actions which most people would call discipline. It prohibits physical correction = punishment.

It is a fine line but Section 59 also explicitly says the police have a discretion (which they have anyway - just says it again for public peace-of-mind). They are not required to prosecute for a smack on the bottom. And they don't - which is the point. There is nothing to fear.

Just to clarify my own approach, any smack I ever gave was a pat on the bottom, and the real discipline was the child understanding they had done something wrong. Hey it wasn't easy - there were days when I wanted to throw our oldest across the room. So did my wife.

That's why we need to learn restraint. If the concept of not hitting children is understood, then the moral/ethical strength to resist doing it is greater.

Winston001

25th August 2008, 14:20

So in the first paragraph you say you smacked your kids and they turned out OK. So did all your friends.

Here is where the problem lies - definitions. My smack would barely move a ping-pong ball, but it's a smack. And maybe five times ever - total - among 3 children.

Unfortunately you don't know that so naturally you think it was a normal method of discipline and involved pain. In reality it was similar to a tap on the arm of an adult to ask them to pay attention.

I'm sure you think that now I'm past the smacking stage, people like me are telling other parents how to behave - and therefore are hypocrites. I can assure you that is not the case and I expressed these views long before this issue ever arose in public.

Winston001

25th August 2008, 14:28

MSTRS

25th August 2008, 14:38

Currently Section 59 permits physical force for actions which most people would call discipline. It prohibits physical correction = punishment.

This is where it falls down.
A story...
When I was a kid, I got hold of some matches and made a nice little fire out of dry pine needles. :nono: As kids will (or not) I gave no thought to where this little fire was situated. :doh: I thought I put it out (by dumping a big load of green pine needles on top of it) :eek: Needless to say, a slightly LARGER fire was later discovered by my old man. Yep...:spanking:
Now, in today's brave new world, I wouldn't learn such a sharp lesson, since I could not be smacked except if I was discovered in the commission of starting this fire. Who knows, perhaps I would have gone on to burn down schools and - and - and - and - stuff. But no, the punishment smack saw an end to my firebug career.

MSTRS

25th August 2008, 14:42

Headbanger

25th August 2008, 14:44

avgas

25th August 2008, 15:13

No you dont have to beat your kids....however currently you can get locked up for the alternatives.
Beating kids is a nice simple solution, just like beating dogs. Thats so cruel you ask....but its not. You see if you use it as a threat then nothing happens.
Many kids grew up with the fear of "the woodern spoon" "the belt" "the cane".....even if they were only hit once they remember.
No child remembers "time out" - kids even come out of time out and play up again. No child ever repeat offendeds after a light tap.

Winston001

25th August 2008, 15:42

The other side of the argument, which upsets perfectly ordinary good parents, is they feel like they are being labelled vicious child beaters because they disagree with the change of the law.

There is a strange irony in all this. I have the distinct impression that those of us who argue passionately on one side or the other, are also the type of parents who won't harm our children. We might disagree but I'd trust you with my kids.

This law is pretty unthreatening for us. I suspect the discussion has more to do with the polarising effect of Sue Bradshaw and Helen Clark. Its sort of the end of the tether for Nanny State - enough is enough.

Indoo

25th August 2008, 16:22

.
This law is pretty unthreatening for us. I suspect the discussion has more to do with the polarising effect of Sue Bradshaw and Helen Clark. Its sort of the end of the tether for Nanny State - enough is enough.

Unfortunately thats exactly that mindset people are taking up, its a shame really because I think anyone actually involved in dealing with abused kids and violent families knows that the legislation was long overdue and needed.

And it doesn't stop parents from giving their children a reasonable corrective smack, its aimed at abusive parents who treat kids like property and who beat them for every perceived slight in the name of 'punishment'. Those kids typically then reproduce that violence later in life and its part of the reason why we have such a violent society.

The laws been out for some time now, according to family first there must be hundreds if not thousands of parents who have been prosecuted for giving their children a reasonable corrective smack? has anyone here been charged or can anyone give one example of a parent prosecuted ?

avgas

25th August 2008, 16:26

Yeh it kinda annoying about the whole nana state thing.
Its almost like mums the word

Headbanger

25th August 2008, 17:46

Unfortunately thats exactly that mindset people are taking up, its a shame really because I think anyone actually involved in dealing with abused kids and violent families knows that the legislation was long overdue and needed.

So, The problem is now sorted?, Granted it was illegal to abuse kids before this law change, Now they have outlawed a smack the abused kids living in violent households are saved?

MSTRS

25th August 2008, 17:49

So, The problem is now sorted?, Granted it was illegal to abuse kids before this law change, Now they have outlawed a smack the abused kids living in violent households are saved?

Of course. And vicious dogs don't attack anyone now that they are all chipped...

Winston001

25th August 2008, 18:05

Well murder is unlawful but still happens. Do you suggest we abolish that law? :nono:

Ocean1

25th August 2008, 18:08

Well murder is unlawful but still happens. Do you suggest we abolish that law? :nono:

Could try enforcing 'em.

Just a thought...

Ixion

25th August 2008, 18:31

Hell I don't want to bleat on about this. Just one other point.

If I have the right to physically discipline my child, why can't I do the same to his cheeky 7yr old mate who just threw a stone through my window? A child whose parents couldn't give a toss.

That would be assault and if his parents complained I could be prosecuted. Same if I smacked an adult. But hit my own kid and I'm exempt?? :crazy:

There is simply no logic or consistency in that.

of course there is. The parent is necessarily in charge of the child who is (rightly) assumed to lack the judgement and understanding always to make correct choices.

In like manner: If you child was playing in a park, and you wanted to go home, you could , quite legally tell him to get in the car, and if he refused ("NO. I wanna stay and play"!), pick him up and forcibly put him in the car (even under the new law that would be legal. I wouldn't like to bet on your chances of escaping prosecution though if Mrs Grundy spotted you). But, do the same to the strange kid he is playing with, and you could be up for abduction.

Less dramatically : if you were a health freak and found your child eating a Big Mac, you would be quite legal to seize it from him and throw it away. But it would be decidedly illegal to snatch a strange child's burger.

awayatc

25th August 2008, 18:44

it would be decidedly illegal to snatch a strange child's burger.

dangerous to use "child" "strange" and "snatch" in one sentence.....

pete376403

25th August 2008, 19:10

Fair call Tank, I was being honest and also saying that smacking is not unlawful. Currently Section 59 permits physical force for actions which most people would call discipline. It prohibits physical correction = punishment.

It is a fine line but Section 59 also explicitly says the police have a discretion (which they have anyway - just says it again for public peace-of-mind). They are not required to prosecute for a smack on the bottom. And they don't - which is the point. There is nothing to fear..

So why are the police prosecuting the Christchurch man for flicking has kids ear?
Pity judges cannot fine the police for wasting the courts time.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10528277

Indoo

25th August 2008, 19:28

So, The problem is now sorted?, Granted it was illegal to abuse kids before this law change, Now they have outlawed a smack the abused kids living in violent households are saved?

No, all it does is remove the legal defense abusive parents used to be able to hide behind and allow them to be prosecuted. Unfortunately I think the new section 59 is quite poorly worded and it gives rise to confusion, it looks like every political party wanted to add a clause and thats how its been mashed out with some almost contradicting each other.

Smacking hasn't been outlawed though, name one parent who has been prosecuted for giving their child a reasonable smack? Using weapons, strikes to the head, kicks etc have been unless under certain circumstances.

Indoo

25th August 2008, 19:39

So why are the police prosecuting the Christchurch man for flicking has kids ear?
Pity judges cannot fine the police for wasting the courts time.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10528277

So how long have you know Jimmy Mason for? he must be an upstanding member of the community for you to believe his version of events 100 percent when he claims he is only being prosecuted for flicking his sons ear. Do you reckon the four independent witnesses who are to give evidence against him part of this Sue Bradford led conspiracy as well, she must have brought them off with some carbon credits.

Headbanger

25th August 2008, 19:49

No, all it does is remove the legal defense abusive parents used to be able to hide behind and allow them to be prosecuted.

You seem to be confused and think that smacking has been outlawed, name one parent who has been prosecuted for giving their child a reasonable smack?

There never was any legitimate defence for abuse, Its an illegal act.

Offenders will hide behind whatever crap there lawyers can clutch at, Removing the ability of parents to discipline there children is not the same as addressing the abuse problem.

How about shooting bad parents? They know who most of em are, They are on the books. Hell, A bit of profiling would even tell em what specific demographs to monitor to catch the majority of it.

avgas

25th August 2008, 19:51

Well murder is unlawful but still happens. Do you suggest we abolish that law? :nono:

No beat them........talk about missing the point

Winston001

25th August 2008, 20:40

No beat them........talk about missing the point

Ok I'm thick, so help me out. One of the arguments often raised is that bad parents beat their kids anyway, so the law is ignored - ergo why bother? A law which is easily broken is not good law.

So shall we do away with theft, assault, burglary too? All of these laws are being broken somewhere in NZ as we talk.

Ocean1

25th August 2008, 20:51

All of these laws are being broken somewhere in NZ as we talk.

Because they're not being fucking enforced!!

Enacting more bloody laws we're not going to make work is a type of blindness I just can't understand.

Winston001

25th August 2008, 20:52

There never was any legitimate defence for abuse, Its an illegal act.

No Mets, sadly you are mistaken. The case I can remember is a woman in Oamaru who disciplined her daughter with a horse-crop. The jury decided that was reasonable discipline. :rolleyes:

The previous section 59 defence has been successfully raised in cases where parents has been prosecuted for hitting their child with a bamboo stick, hitting their child with a belt, hitting their child with a hosepipe, hitting their child with a piece of wood and chaining their child in metal chains to prevent them leaving the house. These successful acquittals have all occurred in jury trials, where the jury has found that such actions have been reasonable, and therefore lawful, means of domestic discipline towards children.

That is the reality. That's what the law previously allowed.

17 European countries now restrict physical punishment like NZ does, its not a new idea.

Headbanger

25th August 2008, 21:10

No Mets, sadly you are mistaken. The case I can remember is a woman in Oamaru who disciplined her daughter with a horse-crop. The jury decided that was reasonable discipline. :rolleyes:

If its the same event I heard her talk for a couple hours about it on the radio, I don't remember it being a female child but it was definilty a riding crop.

Anyway, She talked at length about the behaviour and abuse from the child that lead to her lashing at her with the riding crop, It was a sad tale from both sides, And after hearing the details I support the jury that made the judgement. Until then i was all high and mighty about it...but there you go.

Anyhow, They blew it soon after by hitting the child again and then insisting they had the right under the law, at which time I believe further action was taken.

The previous section 59 defence has been successfully raised in cases where parents has been prosecuted for hitting their child with a bamboo stick, hitting their child with a belt, hitting their child with a hosepipe, hitting their child with a piece of wood and chaining their child in metal chains to prevent them leaving the house. These successful acquittals have all occurred in jury trials, where the jury has found that such actions have been reasonable, and therefore lawful, means of domestic discipline towards children.

I'd have to see more details about those cases, Sure sounds rough, But I'd imagine there was some pretty heavy circumstances behind them.

It does remind me that my oldboy whipped me with his belt, And god damn I deserved, Thanks Dad.

Winston001

25th August 2008, 21:16

Because they're not being fucking enforced!!

Enacting more bloody laws we're not going to make work is a type of blindness I just can't understand.

Repression of emotion can lead to inner conflicts so you need to let it out - don't hold back. :doctor: We're here for you :devil2:

Righto, just how do we enforce these laws when a fair few members of society don't think the rules apply to them? Heaps more police, helicoptors, face recognition technology on the roads, ID chips......??? :baby:

Headbanger

25th August 2008, 21:19

Repression of emotion can lead to inner conflicts so you need to let it out - don't hold back. :doctor: We're here for you :devil2:

Righto, just how do we enforce these laws when a fair few members of society don't think the rules apply to them? Heaps more police, helicoptors, face recognition technology on the roads, ID chips......??? :baby:

They are already known to police, nearly everyone that makes the news for there crimes has had a long and illustrias carrerr in crime for many years, Society tolerates them until they perform a crime so heinous they are locked up for good.

The answer is simple, Redraw the line on what we will tolerate.

Break into a house, Month in jail

Do it again, year in jail.

Three times?.....Shoot em.

Ixion

25th August 2008, 21:31

No Mets, sadly you are mistaken. The case I can remember is a woman in Oamaru who disciplined her daughter with a horse-crop. The jury decided that was reasonable discipline. :rolleyes:

The previous section 59 defence has been successfully raised in cases where parents has been prosecuted for hitting their child with a bamboo stick, hitting their child with a belt, hitting their child with a hosepipe, hitting their child with a piece of wood and chaining their child in metal chains to prevent them leaving the house. These successful acquittals have all occurred in jury trials, where the jury has found that such actions have been reasonable, and therefore lawful, means of domestic discipline towards children.

That is the reality. That's what the law previously allowed.

17 European countries now restrict physical punishment like NZ does, its not a new idea.

But that is the very essence of the jury. It is a (roughly) representative cross section of society. And, in each of those cases, the jury felt that what was done was "reasonable".

Now, the law uses 'reasonable" in many places.Police must have "reasonbale" grounds etc. In mosts cases it falls to a jury to declare what is "reasonable", and what is not. And personally I can't think of a better way of getting an opinion on it.

In each case the jury heard all the facts. I don't know all the facts. But 12 people, who had no axe to grind, did, and felt that the actions were reasonable. (And we may be fairly sure that the prosecution would have challenged any fundamentalist Christians or convicted bashers on the jury).

Sue Bradford did not think the actions were reasonable. So she had the law changed, to force her definition of "reasonable" on us all. In case any more juries disagreed with her. Maybe she knew what the jury did, maybe not. But the whole of our judicial system is based on "reasonable" being "reasonable", not to one self appointed governmental zealot, but to society at large. Joe Q Public, that deep and incisive thinker. The man on the Porirua omnibus. The "reasonable man".

If it comes to a choice between a jury defining what is "reasonable" and having it defined by Sue Bradford (or any other politician) I'll take the jury.

It's not a perfect system. But in 1000 odd years, no-one has come up with a better one

awayatc

25th August 2008, 21:39

Only Sue Braedbox would argue with that......

Patrick

25th August 2008, 21:47

....However they fell it is pefectly acceptable to lock their kids in a cupboard, no light. For long periods of time....

The was a little Asian girl on the North Shore recently who this happened to. It wasn't called time out... what did they call that?????

Oh yeah... Kidnapping, punishable by 14 years imprisonment....

Smacked bum or kidnapping. Hmmmm....

Because they're not being fucking enforced!!

Have you been into the Police Cells lately? Any cell block for that matter and seen what customers come through for???

Check out a day at the courts.

"Not being enforced" my arse....

Skyryder

25th August 2008, 22:04

If it comes to a choice between a jury defining what is "reasonable" and having it defined by Sue Bradford (or any other politician) I'll take the jury.

It's not a perfect system. But in 1000 odd years, no-one has come up with a better one

When society allows injury of any kind especialy to a child for whatever reason then in my opinion it has lost it's right to determine what is, or is not reasonble, in respect of child discipline.

Skyryder

Ocean1

25th August 2008, 22:05

"Not being enforced" my arse....

I stand corrected.

Have you been into the Police Cells lately? Any cell block for that matter and seen what customers come through for???

Check out a day at the courts.

They're not being sucessfully enforced.

awayatc

25th August 2008, 22:07

Check out a day at the courts.

"Not being enforced" my arse....

So We need more police cells/jails.....?

I hear there is one planned in the central south island,
one near wellington,
And they are putting a wall around South auckland.....

RDJ

25th August 2008, 22:14

And they are putting a wall around South auckland.....

John Carpenter's "Escape From Mangere" - Snake Plissken where are you...

Clockwork

26th August 2008, 05:55

I stand corrected.

They're not being sucessfully enforced.

I'd suggest that they are being enforced but the punishment is no deterent.

Pehaps we should try flogging.

MSTRS

26th August 2008, 09:08

When society allows injury of any kind especialy to a child for whatever reason then in my opinion it has lost it's right to determine what is, or is not reasonble, in respect of child discipline.

Skyryder

I've said it before. A government is not there to defy the wishes of the people. That's the problem with lefty/green zealots...

Winston001

26th August 2008, 10:03

But that is the very essence of the jury. It is a (roughly) representative cross section of society. And, in each of those cases, the jury felt that what was done was "reasonable".

In each case the jury heard all the facts. I don't know all the facts. But 12 people, who had no axe to grind, did, and felt that the actions were reasonable.

But the whole of our judicial system is based on "reasonable" being "reasonable", not to one self appointed governmental zealot, but to society at large. Joe Q Public, that deep and incisive thinker. The man on the Porirua omnibus. The "reasonable man".

It's not a perfect system. But in 1000 odd years, no-one has come up with a better one

Great post Ix. If we understand the reasonable man on the Porirua unit (as the NZ version goes :yes:) as the average juror, then that man has to apply the law as explained to him by the judge.

So if the law is vague or leaves plenty of room for reasonable doubt, then the jury can be persuaded to vote "not guilty".

Here is the text of the previous Section 59:

"59. Domestic discipline-

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

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

So, what you and I consider is reasonable isn't what an offender parent might consider reasonable. And if - as used to happen, the defence persuades the jury that they have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, then even extreme punishments can be accepted in the circumstances of that family.

The problem with the law was that it was too subjective and juries discharged parents because of doubt as to what the law meant.

Here is the new Section 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) (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/link.aspx?search=ts_act_crimes&id=DLM328291#DLM328291) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3) Subsection (2) (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/link.aspx?search=ts_act_crimes&id=DLM328291#DLM328291) prevails over subsection (1) (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/link.aspx?search=ts_act_crimes&id=DLM328291#DLM328291).

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

As we can see it is much more detailed and much tighter. It still uses the word "reasonable" but defines the limits on where and how force can be used.

Certainly there will still be defended cases and the new law needs to be interpreted in practise but children now have better protection. You'll note the word smacking has never appeared anywhere in the law - that is a pure emotive media beat-up.

Winston001

26th August 2008, 10:09

So why are the police prosecuting the Christchurch man for flicking has kids ear?
Pity judges cannot fine the police for wasting the courts time.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10528277

Its pretty simple to see there is a real case here. The whole purpose of a depositions hearing is to toss out cases which won't go anywhere, to dismiss hopeless charges instead of cluttering up jury trials.

If this guy is such a misunderstood angel, then he'd have had the charges easily dismissed at deps. Funnily enough, that doesn't seem to have happened..... :buggerd:

MSTRS

26th August 2008, 10:44

As we can see it is much more detailed and much tighter. It still uses the word "reasonable" but defines the limits on where and how force can be used.

But it still fails to define 'reasonable'. As far as I and the great majority of NZers are concerned, if a change was necessary, it was that 'reasonable' only needed to be clarified...ie open hand, no implement, LZ limited to hand or buttock.

Clockwork

26th August 2008, 11:14

MSTRS

26th August 2008, 12:53

Jeez what semantic bull!! the crux of the matter is the new Section 2 removes ANY justification for the use of ANY force for the purpose of correction (ie punshment). All further debates about what constitues "resonable force" are rendered irrelevent.
Yep...a parent is not allowed to use any type of force for the purposes of correction (punishment). What makes the State think their form of correction (Dept of -) can do better? Because it is plain that it is not doing a very good job.

Section 4 effectively takes the jury out of the equation and sets up the police as the final arbiters of what is "incosequential", once they choose to prosecute a jury will theoretically have no choice but to convict.A jury can always decide the case is not proven. If it is as you say, why bother with court at all? For any charge the Farce decide to bring?

Winston001

26th August 2008, 13:11

Section 4 effectively takes the jury out of the equation and sets up the police as the final arbiters of what is "incosequential", once they choose to prosecute a jury will theoretically have no choice but to convict.

Understand your point. In reality the police prosecutors, indeed the cop on the spot, have a discretion as to whether to charge a person. Apparently about 25,000 complaints/year (all sorts, not child related) are not prosecuted.

Winston001

26th August 2008, 13:15

But it still fails to define 'reasonable'. As far as I and the great majority of NZers are concerned, if a change was necessary, it was that 'reasonable' only needed to be clarified...ie open hand, no implement, LZ limited to hand or buttock.

Yes it would be so much simpler and I agree some sort of definition would be good. However abusive treatment of children takes many forms eg. hard grasping/twisting of an arm or an ear, it isn't always hitting.

MSTRS

26th August 2008, 13:20

Yes it would be so much simpler and I agree some sort of definition would be good. However abusive treatment of children takes many forms eg. hard grasping/twisting of an arm or an ear, it isn't always hitting.

That's the difference.

Winston001

26th August 2008, 13:22

When I was a kid, I got hold of some matches and made a nice little fire out of dry pine needles. :nono: As kids will (or not) I gave no thought to where this little fire was situated. :doh: I thought I put it out (by dumping a big load of green pine needles on top of it) :eek: Needless to say, a slightly LARGER fire was later discovered by my old man. Yep...:spanking:
Now, in today's brave new world, I wouldn't learn such a sharp lesson, since I could not be smacked except if I was discovered in the commission of starting this fire. Who knows, perhaps I would have gone on to burn down schools and - and - and - and - stuff. But no, the punishment smack saw an end to my firebug career.

That worked for you. In my case I set fire to a little bit of dry grass only to see it flare up and burn straw on the garden up against our house. :eek: There was a strong wind blowing.......and we lived in the country, no fire-engines nearby.

My parents didn't smack me, didn't even really tell me off. I didn't need it. The frightened looks on their faces as they frantically worked to put the fire out was enough punishment for me. Panic stations for the whole family and I learned a deep lesson.

Winston001

26th August 2008, 13:23

That's the difference.

Ok. Write a definition for us to think about.

Jantar

26th August 2008, 13:25

...And it doesn't stop parents from giving their children a reasonable corrective smack, its aimed at abusive parents who treat kids like property and who beat them for every perceived slight in the name of 'punishment'. ...

Unfortunately, that is exactly what it does do.

It is now illegal to use a smack as a correction method. The law was never aimed at abusive parents, as they were already covered. It has never been legal (well not for the past 100 years) to beat or abuse your children.

Jantar

26th August 2008, 13:33

When society allows injury of any kind especialy to a child for whatever reason then in my opinion it has lost it's right to determine what is, or is not reasonble, in respect of child discipline.

Skyryder

But society doesn't allow injury to a child. Not even the old law condoned injury. Similarly, I'm not aware of any cases where a smack on the bum has caused injury.

MSTRS

26th August 2008, 13:35

Ok. Write a definition for us to think about.

A definition of what? Abuse? At what point a corrective smack becomes abuse?

MSTRS

26th August 2008, 13:36

But society doesn't allow injury to a child. Not even the old law condoned injury. Similarly, I'm not aware of any cases where a smack on the bum has caused injury.

Exactly. And injured pride doesn't count.

Skyryder

26th August 2008, 13:53

Section 4 effectively takes the jury out of the equation and sets up the police as the final arbiters of what is "incosequential", once they choose to prosecute a jury will theoretically have no choice but to convict.

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

Where does it say that a jury must convict?

Skyryder

Skyryder

26th August 2008, 14:00

But society doesn't allow injury to a child. Not even the old law condoned injury. Similarly, I'm not aware of any cases where a smack on the bum has caused injury.

Jurys deliverd not guiltly verdicts where injury was suistained It matters not one whit how the injury was caused, children were injured and jurys were letting parents off with the defence of reasonable cause. There is just no way of getting round that fact no matter how much anyone tries to minimise the cause or effect or for that matter, justification.

Skyryder

MSTRS

26th August 2008, 14:06

Where does it say that a jury must convict?

At no time, in any case, must a jury convict. In fact, I'd say that at times a jury has found not guilty in the face of all evidence. Fickle things, juries. Will that be the next target of the zealots...you know, the ones that insist that they know best on our behalf?

Skyryder

26th August 2008, 14:15

devnull

26th August 2008, 14:38

Jurys deliverd not guiltly verdicts where injury was suistained It matters not one whit how the injury was caused, children were injured and jurys were letting parents off with the defence of reasonable cause. There is just no way of getting round that fact no matter how much anyone tries to minimise the cause or effect or for that matter, justification.

Skyryder

Cut the bullshit and cite some cases

Child abuse was and is prosecuted under assault
8 times in the last 40 years, S.59 was used successfully i.e. a jury agreed that under the circumstances the parent's actions were reasonable

e.g. the riding crop - came to light because of the improvement in the boy's behaviour at school. Incident occurred after he tried to take the stepfather's head off with a baseball bat.

The "plank of wood" incident - a smack with a 12" wooden ruler - the type used in primary schools

For a list of those caregivers that have been cautioned or charged, FamilyFirst are keeping a tally on the website - it isn't a small list

puppykicker

26th August 2008, 15:01

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), however, in an official policy statement (reaffirmed in 2004) states that "Corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents be encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior." In particular, the AAP believes that any corporal punishment methods other than open-hand spanking on the buttocks or extremities "are unacceptable" and "should never be used". The policy statement points out, summarizing several studies, that "The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults." Spanking has been associated with higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse, and increased risk of crime and violence when used with older children and adolescents."

The American Psychological Association opposes the use of corporal punishment in schools, juvenile facilities, child care nurseries, and all other institutions, public or private, where children are cared for or educated (Conger, 1975). They state that corporal punishment is violent, unnecessary, may lower self-esteem, is likely to train children to use physical violence, and is liable to instill hostility and rage without reducing the undesired behavior.

The Canadian Pediatrics Society policy on corporal punishment states "The Psychosocial Paediatrics Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society has carefully reviewed the available research in the controversial area of disciplinary spanking (7-15)... The research that is available supports the position that spanking and other forms of physical punishment are associated with negative child outcomes. The Canadian Paediatric Society, therefore, recommends that physicians strongly discourage disciplinary spanking and all other forms of physical punishment"

England's Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and Royal College of Psychiatrists have called for a complete ban on all corporal punishment, stating "We believe it is both wrong and impracticable to seek to define acceptable forms of corporal punishment of children. Such an exercise is unjust. Hitting children is a lesson in bad behaviour." and that "it is never appropriate to hit or beat children"

The Australian Psychological Society holds that physical punishment of children should not be used as it has very limited capacity to deter unwanted behavior, does not teach alternative desirable behavior, often promotes further undesirable behaviors such as defiance and attachment to "delinquent" peer groups, encourages an acceptance of aggression and violence as acceptable responses to conflicts and problems

UNESCO states "During the Commission on Human Rights, UNESCO launched a new report entitled "Eliminating Corporal Punishment - The Way Forward to Constructive Child Discipline". The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has consistently recommended States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to prohibit corporal punishment and other forms of violence against children in institutions, in schools, and in the homes...To discipline or punish through physical harm is clearly a violation of the most basic of human rights. Research on corporal punishment has found it to be counterproductive and relatively ineffective, as well as dangerous and harmful to physical, psychological and social well being. While many States have developed child protection laws and systems violence still continues to be inflicted upon children"

Many opponents of corporal punishment argue that any form of violence is by definition abusive. Psychological research indicates that corporal punishment causes the deterioration of trust bonds between parents and children. Children subjected to corporal punishment may grow resentful, shy, insecure, or violent. Adults who report having been slapped or spanked by their parents in childhood have been found to experience elevated rates of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence and externalizing problems as adults. Some researchers believe that corporal punishment actually works against its objective (normally obedience), since children will not voluntarily obey an adult they do not trust. A child who is physically punished may have to be punished more often than a child who is not. Researcher Elizabeth Gershoff, Ph. D., in a 2002 meta-analytic study that combined 60 years of research on corporal punishment, found that the only positive outcome of corporal punishment was immediate compliance; however, corporal punishment was associated with less long-term compliance. Corporal punishment was linked with nine other negative outcomes, including increased rates of aggression, delinquency, mental health problems, problems in relationships with their parents, and likelihood of being physically abused.

but family first would never cherry pick studies or make shit up to further their nutty religous agenda right? its incredible to me how many otherwise intelligent people have been sucked in by the fundies on this issue, completely misrepresenting the law and even their own petition to slip it by the otherwise mostly secular population of NZ. look at their website, the list of stuff you reference devnull contains a grand total of 2 count em 2!! convictions, one of which was a guilty plea that almost certainly would have been dismissed if not pleaded out, several of the "harmless" cases referenced sure sound like abuse to me, smacking a kid on the back of the head? yeah sure sounds like a total overreaction. you dont hit a fucking child in the head, and if you do they should throw you in jail. this is the same scumbag org that thinks any household not consisting of a mother and father is wrong and should be legislated against and you think sue bradford is trying to tell you how to live?

puppykicker

26th August 2008, 15:03

in cone-clusion, who do you all think we should listen to? the organisations made up of academics dedicated to research on child development, or a single religous organisation consisting of fundamentalists with no backing to their claims other than the damn bible?

MSTRS

26th August 2008, 15:18

this is the same scumbag org that thinks any household not consisting of a mother and father is wrong and should be legislated against and you think sue bradford is trying to tell you how to live?
The two are as bad as each other

in cone-clusion, who do you all think we should listen to? the organisations made up of academics dedicated to research on child development, or a single religous organisation consisting of fundamentalists with no backing to their claims other than the damn bible?

If I am having a particular issue (with anything - but let's say it's a troublesome child) then I may go ask a 'expert'. Otherwise, all the so-called academic experts can go fuck themselves. An entire generation or two took their instruction on child-rearing from Dr Spock..:sick:..I rest my case.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), however, in an official policy statement (reaffirmed in 2004) states that "Corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents be encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior." In particular, the AAP believes that any corporal punishment methods other than open-hand spanking on the buttocks or extremities "are unacceptable" and "should never be used". The policy statement points out, summarizing several studies, that "The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults." Spanking has been associated with higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse, and increased risk of crime and violence when used with older children and adolescents." Which is the precise clarification that should have been included in the law change that harridan forced through

devnull

26th August 2008, 15:18

but family first would never cherry pick studies or make shit up to further their nutty religous agenda right? its incredible to me how many otherwise intelligent people have been sucked in by the fundies on this issue, completely misrepresenting the law and even their own petition to slip it by the otherwise mostly secular population of NZ. look at their website, the list of stuff you reference devnull contains a grand total of 2 count em 2!! convictions, one of which was a guilty plea that almost certainly would have been dismissed if not pleaded out, several of the "harmless" cases referenced sure sound like abuse to me, smacking a kid on the back of the head? yeah sure sounds like a total overreaction. you dont hit a fucking child in the head, and if you do they should throw you in jail. this is the same scumbag org that thinks any household not consisting of a mother and father is wrong and should be legislated against and you think sue bradford is trying to tell you how to live?

Well now puppylicker, we aren't talking about smacking kids in the head are we?

Lets start with Canada - antismacking championed by Joan Durrant, Associate Professor of Family Social Sciences at the University of Manitoba, who's attempts in Canada to pass this law was thrown out.
Her study of Sweden, on which she based her argument (the same one Bradford used), is flawed and has been widely condemned for its manipulation of statistics to reach a preconceived conclusion.

She stated that in 20 years, there had been no child abuse deaths in Sweden.

There had been 224

How about the US? Antismacking stance based on the work of Elizabeth Gershoff, Research Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, University of Michigan.

She produced a meta-study of other studies, and argued that all corporal punishment is bad. By placing kids that had been smacked in the same group as kids that had been severely abused, the numbers stacked up.

Millchamp (Otago Uni, 2006), split the groups out, and showed that those that had been smacked as a child i.e. boundaries enforced, performed better academically and socially. She also showed that real abuse gave rise to other issues, and they performed poorly later in life.

American Psychological Association also has some very good studies done by researchers like Larzalere, who have demonstrated the folly of the position of the Durrant's of the world.

British Journal of Social Work cites many European studies that show the same conclusion. (See Beckett, "Child Deaths in Sweden")

Why don't you stop being a dickhead and try doing something novel, like learning something about the subject?

Swoop

26th August 2008, 15:28

Chinese burns! This could be the answer.
No hitting or "tap on the bottom" required!

Fickle things, juries. Will that be the next target of the zealots...you know, the ones that insist that they know best on our behalf?
You have a good point there. It is surprising that the Looney Labourite Sect hasn't done away with the jury system, since their brand of dogma know's best and those pesky "we know better" juries fail to heed their calling.

MSTRS

26th August 2008, 15:32

You have a good point there. It is surprising that the Looney Labourite Sect hasn't done away with the jury system, since their brand of dogma know's best and those pesky "we know better" juries fail to heed their calling.

Yep. I tried, but you put it better than I. :2thumbsup

puppykicker

26th August 2008, 15:34

Well now puppylicker, we aren't talking about smacking kids in the head are we?

err, yes actually we are, from your own "source"

A 30-year-old Glen Innes father was charged by police for allegedly hitting his five-year-old daughter with an open hand on the back of the head and swinging a pair of jeans at his six-year-old daughter. He had to spend a day in the police cells and police opposed bail!

what a shocking situation, clearly this man cares deeply for his children and knows that not smacking his little girl in the head might hinder her development. whats a little brain damage matter in the quest for DISCIPLINE

devnull

26th August 2008, 15:35

Chinese burns! This could be the answer.
No hitting or "tap on the bottom" required!

You have a good point there. It is surprising that the Looney Labourite Sect hasn't done away with the jury system, since their brand of dogma know's best and those pesky "we know better" juries fail to heed their calling.

Don't give them ideas... :bash:

Chester Borrows amendment was a good one - not only was it sensible, it was good law. But we can't have common sense prevailing in NZ apparently :(

devnull

26th August 2008, 15:46

err, yes actually we are, from your own "source"

what a shocking situation, clearly this man cares deeply for his children and knows that not smacking his little girl in the head might hinder her development. whats a little brain damage matter in the quest for DISCIPLINE

You really are quite clueless

That case was thrown out of court after the police declined to appear.

You weren't dropped on your head as a child, were you?
You're certainly giving that impression with some of your posts

puppykicker

26th August 2008, 15:52

while im here, why dont we take a look at some of the other turrible situations this shocking travesty of justice has put innocent and caring parents in

1st case: a police officer visited a mother after a report was made that she pushed her child over, was found to be mistaken and no further action was taken

2nd case: a police officer spoke to a grandparent after she smacked her child in a shop, no further action was taken

3rd case: report made of child screaming a lot, police visited, found everything ok and no further acion was taken

4th case: school passed concern on to cypfs after child reported being smacked, no action was taken until another complaint was made and a police officer visited, then no further action was taken

5th case: child called police and made a false report, police visited and found all was well, no further action

6th case: mother smacked her child in public, complaint was made and police visited. no further action was taken.

7th case: police officer witnessed mother disciplining child, clearly misunderstood situation and no action was taken

cant be bothered with the rest but youre right devnull, what a huge list, and such injustices. how dare they prioritise the safety of children over minor potential embarrasment for a parent.

puppykicker

26th August 2008, 15:53

You really are quite clueless

That case was thrown out of court after the police declined to appear.

You weren't dropped on your head as a child, were you?
You're certainly giving that impression with some of your posts

completely irrelevant. you think the police should not respond to reports of a parent hitting a small child in the head?

puppykicker

26th August 2008, 16:00

Their visit surprised me. It made me feel like a criminal. It made me question my parenting skills.

the grandmother was shocked.

She felt like a criminal and embarrassed by it all

I have found the whole episode to be extremely distressing. I felt completely humiliated

you know what devnull, after reading the horrible effects of these investigations on the familyfirst website, i totally agree with you, this is unacceptable. how could the evil liberal gubbermint do this to us?!

MSTRS

26th August 2008, 16:02

completely irrelevant. you think the police should not respond to reports of a parent hitting a small child in the head?

Those big, brave individuals doing the dobbing may just look the other way if some woman was being raped. "Not my business" - "She was asking for it".
Funny how "Not my business" translates into "I'll interfere in that parent's business"
We all know the sort of thing...small child screaming and kicking, general mayhem at the lolly display supermarket checkout. Embarassed and increasingly desperate parent gives the brat a smack on the bum. Interferring busybody jumps on the phone - 111. Police show up in force. Kid got the message - either don't play up or you'll get a smack...or...do what you like, if Mum 'gives you one' the cops will take her away and the nice lady at the supermarket will give you lollies.
Good one.

awayatc

26th August 2008, 16:38

Well next time I need a police officer in a hurry, I know what to do.....

devnull

26th August 2008, 16:47

Those big, brave individuals doing the dobbing may just look the other way if some woman was being raped. "Not my business" - "She was asking for it".
Funny how "Not my business" translates into "I'll interfere in that parent's business"
We all know the sort of thing...small child screaming and kicking, general mayhem at the lolly display supermarket checkout. Embarassed and increasingly desperate parent gives the brat a smack on the bum. Interferring busybody jumps on the phone - 111. Police show up in force. Kid got the message - either don't play up or you'll get a smack...or...do what you like, if Mum 'gives you one' the cops will take her away and the nice lady at the supermarket will give you lollies.
Good one.

Pretty much

What young puppykicker fails to note is that every complaint, regardless of outcome, is also passed on to other govt agencies and entered in a violence register.

Not sure if the end result is having a PRN, maybe one of the boys in blue here can tell me

He does demonstrate typical teenage behaviour, but I supposed his age has a lot to do with that.

As a parent of two though, I still think he's full of crap ;)

Worth noting though... In Sweden, a girl reported her mother because she wasn't allowed out at night with friends.
Mother explained possible outcomes, & daughter asked to withdraw complaint.
End result - mother arrested & charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, as well as the original complaint

MSTRS

26th August 2008, 16:51

Pretty much

What young puppykicker fails to note is that every complaint, regardless of outcome, is also passed on to other govt agencies and entered in a violence register.

Not sure if the end result is having a PRN, maybe one of the boys in blue here can tell me

He does demonstrate typical teenage behaviour, but I supposed his age has a lot to do with that.

As a parent of two though, I still think he's full of crap ;)

Yep. The spoken-to parent will have a record filed away for possible use down the track. CYFS will also be notified...they're actually a shitload worse than the cops/courts.
As for PK - there should have been more beatings when he was little?:dodge:

Winston001

26th August 2008, 19:53

You really are quite clueless

That case was thrown out of court after the police declined to appear.

You weren't dropped on your head as a child, were you?
You're certainly giving that impression with some of your posts

Guys, not just you Dev, everyone, calm down.

Abusing someone whom you don't agree with, just takes things off the rails. It is also a tactic used when you don't have a sound argument - if you can't answer the point, attack the person. :shit:

Children do get hurt in NZ and no-one here wants that. There is going to be a referendum and the fear is the law will be loosened sending a message that its perfectly acceptable for big adults to hit little kids. You don't agree - fine, lets work out an acceptable answer or at least understand the issue.

As I said earlier, this has more to do with hating Sue Bradford and Clark's Nanny State.

Indoo

26th August 2008, 20:01

You really are quite clueless

That case was thrown out of court after the police declined to appear.

You weren't dropped on your head as a child, were you?
You're certainly giving that impression with some of your posts

Thats incorrect, I'm not sure where you get your information from that the Police 'failed to appear'. The charges were withdrawn by Police due to the age of the children the trauma involved in putting them on the stand and having them give evidence against their own father when coupled with other factors such as the severity of the offense and changes made in the home since it had happened.

Swoop

26th August 2008, 20:12

Interferring busybody jumps on the phone - 111. Police show up in force. Kid got the message - either don't play up or you'll get a smack...or...do what you like, if Mum 'gives you one' the cops will take her away and the nice lady at the supermarket will give you lollies.
Good one.
The "Big Brother" nanny state mentality is creeping further in. If the security cameras do not catch you breaking some law, then the Devout Labourite sectarians will be straight on the phone to the thought police.

Worth noting though... In Sweden, a girl reported her mother because she wasn't allowed out at night with friends.
Mother explained possible outcomes, & daughter asked to withdraw complaint.
End result - mother arrested & charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, as well as the original complaint
This is exactly where the Looney Labourite Sect is taking this country.

Winston001

26th August 2008, 20:54

Yep. The spoken-to parent will have a record filed away for possible use down the track.

Not. The Privacy Commissioner would have a coronary if he knew people believed that.

The police are not permitted to keep random records on citizens. Convictions, yes, that's what the Wanganui computer is for. Interviews, accusations, No.

And a Criminal Record Number (CRN) only exists if you have a Record - kinda logical really.

As for the wet people quoted by FamiliesFirst, thousands of innocent people are interviewed by the police every year. Of course its upsetting, insulting even, but ultimately thats life. HTFU

Number One

26th August 2008, 21:20

Skyryder

26th August 2008, 22:53

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—
o (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
o (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
o (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
o (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
Subsection (1) was substituted, as from 23 July 1990, by section 28(2) Education Amendment Act 1990 (1990 No 60).
Subsection (3) was inserted, as from 23 July 1990, by section 28(3) Education Amendment Act 1990 (1990 No 60).
Section 59 was substituted, as from 21 June 2007, by section 5 Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (2007 No 18).
The above is the new law. Lets deal with some facts. Sur Bradford’s bill is not an anti smacking bill as so many claim.
• (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—
o (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
o (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
o (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
o (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

There are four clearly defined reasons parents can smack their children. That is (a) (b) (c) (d).

The Act that we have Crimes Act 2007 replaced the Crimes Act 1961 which stated in statute “every parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.”

1 allows the use of force and even if the legislation does not use the word ‘smack’ it is obvious to all but a cretin, that force and smack are as one. Like wise 1 allows for ‘correction’ of behavior if applied to (a) (b) (c). The word ‘correction’ is not used but that is the purpose of 1 it allows the use of a smack to correct behavior when applied to (a) (b) (c).

• (1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
•
• (d). performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(d) seems ride ranging to me so what’s the problem.

On the surface it looks like Bradford has widened the area of potential violence instead of reducing it. Under the old legislation “every parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child. That’s right just in case you missed, it was parents and no one else. Not now

Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent.

So now you not only have the parent but someone in place of the parent who can smack your child in four clearly legislated reasons and one of them is very loose indeed. And what does the Christian right come up with; these bastions of parental good will?

A referendum with the question
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be criminal offence in New Zealand.

So not content with four clearly defined pieces of legislation the Christian Right want 'five' where Mum Dad and “or a person in place of a parent” can lawfully ‘smack a child. The Christian Right in their obsession to the Clarke and the Labour Govt have so completely lost the plot that there is a real chance that if this question is passed into law more children will be injured with less chances of successful prosecutions than before.

Skyryder

devnull

26th August 2008, 23:14

I was smacked as a kid by one of my parents...up till I moved my arse out of home actually. Not beatings by any means just smackings and all with the intention of 'teaching me, or protecting me, or letting me know right from wrong' blah blah blah blah blah

Did it work? NOPE all it did was teach me to be sneakier and to not get caught. Did I respect this parent for it or at all? NOPE Did it do our relationship any good at all? HELL NO

I find it hard to fathom how anyone can truely believe that children need 'physical' correction in order to get through to them. Kids are not animals...I can honestly say that my other parent was far more effective at chastising and correcting me, teaching me right from wrong and keeping me safe' and yet never did this parent raise their hand to me.

To me implying that kids do need physical correction is to assume that they are stupid and can't be reasoned with or talked to.

I have never hit my almost 5 year old BUT I have had some wicked itchy palms at times. What stops me is how I felt about my parent hitting me...even when I knew I was wrong those smacks did nothing but drive me away from them further and further each time...I want my boy to see me as helping to teach him to think for himself not living in dread of the parental smack down whenever he gets something wrong.

With or without the legislation that's MY choice.

JUST MY 2 cents

I could say pretty much the opposite... but what's the point?

All kids are different, and creating some govt approved parenting method won't change that. They are individuals, and respond differently to rewards and punishments.

My son went through a playing with power points phase. A smack on the hand put a stop to that. Only took a couple, and he understood that they were completely out of bounds. I will not bury my child because a failed parent has passed a law telling others that only her ideas on parenting have any value.

You could say, why not put kiddy guards on the plugs?
Well, they're already shuttered and protected with earth leakage breakers. But not all places are, and I'm not going on a kiddy guard crusade. Far better to learn that some things are dangerous, and not to be played with.

At the end of the day, you are a parent first and a friend second. You are responsible for your kids, including their safety and behaviour.

A look at the rapes and murders in Sweden committed by youths show what we're in for. Discipline and personal responsibility are foreign concepts there now...

The youth crime rates here are following the same trend.

A decade of social engineering has effectively ruined a generation, and I'm left with the sad reality that my kids will need to learn a martial art at primary school level, and be prepared to use it.

It's a pretty damning indictment on a society when your kids need to learn to kill in order to be safe, but I'd rather they were judged by 12 than carried by 6

Of course, if they ever end up a victim to these scumbags that seem to be increasing in numbers, I doubt very much that I'd be interested in "law", just justice.

Jantar

26th August 2008, 23:20

....Children do get hurt in NZ and no-one here wants that. There is going to be a referendum and the fear is the law will be loosened sending a message that its perfectly acceptable for big adults to hit little kids. ...

Not correct. Taking the law back to what it was just means that it is legal to use some reasonable fore as a means of correction. That does not mean that it is acceptable, and certainly not mandatory. It simply gives parents a tool that the present law has taken away from them.

As I said earlier, this has more to do with hating Sue Bradford and Clark's Nanny State.

You certainly did say that. It doesn't mean you are correct.

devnull

26th August 2008, 23:28

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—
o (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
o (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
o (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
o (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
Subsection (1) was substituted, as from 23 July 1990, by section 28(2) Education Amendment Act 1990 (1990 No 60).
Subsection (3) was inserted, as from 23 July 1990, by section 28(3) Education Amendment Act 1990 (1990 No 60).
Section 59 was substituted, as from 21 June 2007, by section 5 Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (2007 No 18).
The above is the new law. Lets deal with some facts. Sur Bradford’s bill is not an anti smacking bill as so many claim.
• (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—
o (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
o (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
o (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
o (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
There are four clearly defined reasons parents can smack their children. That is (a) (b) (c) (d).

The Act that we have Crimes Act 2007 replaced the Crimes Act 1961 which stated in statute “every parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.”

1 allows the use of force and even if the legislation does not use the word ‘smack’ it is obvious to all but a cretin, that force and smack are as one. Like wise 1 allows for ‘correction’ of behavior if applied to (a) (b) (c). The word ‘correction’ is not used but that is the purpose of 1 it allows the use of a smack to correct behavior when applied to (a) (b) (c).

• (1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
•
• (d). performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(d) seems ride ranging to me so what’s the problem. On the surface it looks like Bradford has widened the area of potential violence instead of reducing it. Under the old legislation “every parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child. That’s right just in case you missed it was parents and no one else. Not now Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent. So now you not only have the parent but someone in place of the parent who can smack your child in four clearly legislated reasons and one of them is very lose indeed. And what does the Christian right come up with; these bastions of parental good will? A referendum with the question
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be criminal offence in New Zealand.
So not content with four clearly defined pieces of legislation the Christian Right want five where Mum Dad and “or a person in place of a parent” can lawfully ‘smack a child it leaves open the question of who is defined as a person in place of a parent. The Christian Right in their obsession to the Clarke and the Labour Govt have so completely lost the plot that there is a real chance that if this question is passed into law more children will be injured. I can think of better ways to spend four mill.

Skyryder

I guess comprehension isn't a strong point huh?

The ONLY time you'd actually smack a child is to correct unacceptable behaviour.

What other reason could there possibly be?

Subsection 2 renders subsection 1 void.
Though subsection 1 is so badly written anyway, it's a joke.
Perhaps it should've been draughted by a lawyer?

You've obviously got some hangup over religion - I know socialists consider family and religion something that need to be replaced by "the state", but I find it ironic since Russian Orthodox is quite widespread across Russia.

Of course, this law isn't just about smacking, it's about ANY form of force. If I use force to stop my child running across the road, was that correction?

Could be... oops - jail time then

Of course, regardless of outcome, CYFS become involved.
They are above the law - not a group to mess with.
If the parents of a child that died in CYFS care can't get an investigation, taking them to task over anything less won't do you any good.

Number One

27th August 2008, 07:22

I could say pretty much the opposite... but what's the point?

All kids are different, and creating some govt approved parenting method won't change that. They are individuals, and respond differently to rewards and punishments.

Indeed to each his own eh. Personally speaking I just remember always thinking when smacked that actually that parent had lost control of themselves and had no other tools up their sleeve (including having a good bloody talk to me - which the other parent did with great success) and it was less of a correction for me and more of a temper release valve for them.

Certainly didn't teach me anything except that they thought it was ok to hit people (esepcially smaller ones) but I wasn't to hit people...even as a kid I saw the blatant hipocracy in that....but none of my smacks (well the ones I actually remember) were just in response to dangerous behaviour or situations to 'give me a shock'.

I will not bury my child because a failed parent has passed a law telling others that only her ideas on parenting have any value.

Law schmaw eh...my understanding was that the whole point of that law was to remove the opp for child beaters to avoid prosecution. With or without it I haven't ever had the need to smack my boy...a sharp toned yell has put the shits up him enough when needed and his behaviour suggests that it was successful in the long run also. STOP said in a certain way works really well with my boy - guess I'm lucky in that regard...hopefully if there is a number two one day they will be as receptive as again - smacking is not my choice no matter the circumstance.

puppykicker

27th August 2008, 08:04

Those big, brave individuals doing the dobbing may just look the other way if some woman was being raped. "Not my business" - "She was asking for it".
Funny how "Not my business" translates into "I'll interfere in that parent's business"

errr... what?

What young puppykicker fails to note is that every complaint, regardless of outcome, is also passed on to other govt agencies and entered in a violence register.

Not sure if the end result is having a PRN, maybe one of the boys in blue here can tell me

once again, family first is not a reliable source of information, they lie to get stupid people onside ;)

As I said earlier, this has more to do with hating Sue Bradford and Clark's Nanny State.

devnull has imported the american style of political discourse, yell socialist at anyone who disagrees with you and fall back on the bible.

Thats incorrect, I'm not sure where you get your information from that the Police 'failed to appear'. The charges were withdrawn by Police due to the age of the children the trauma involved in putting them on the stand and having them give evidence against their own father when coupled with other factors such as the severity of the offense and changes made in the home since it had happened.

repeating myself i know, but:

once again, family first is not a reliable source of information, they lie to get stupid people onside ;)

You've obviously got some hangup over religion - I know socialists consider family and religion something that need to be replaced by "the state", but I find it ironic since Russian Orthodox is quite widespread across Russia.

yes devnull, everyone who disagrees with you is a socialist, and we all try to be like stalin. i dont think ive ever come accross someone so willfully ignorant.

Of course, this law isn't just about smacking, it's about ANY form of force. If I use force to stop my child running across the road, was that correction?

Could be... oops - jail time then

Of course, regardless of outcome, CYFS become involved.
They are above the law - not a group to mess with.
If the parents of a child that died in CYFS care can't get an investigation, taking them to task over anything less won't do you any good.

again, family first is not a reliable source of information, ill point it out again because you seem to have ignored it previously, the worst thing that happened to most of the people detailed in your own damn source was embarrasment, the only ones convicted plead guilty, and not one of them received jail time, so stop making shit up ;)

i cant believe this shit actually works on people, misrepresent, lie and deceive to try to get middle nu zeeland onside, ill ask this question again because you never answered it last time, why did family first feel the need to word their petition "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ" instead of asking the real question "should the section of the crimes act allowing undefined "reasonableness" as a defence to child abuse be put back in"

the number of people who completely dont understand the issue is evidence of how successful this deception has been from the religous right (who are still butthurt that helen said we were a secular country, destiny church are a driving force behind lots of this stuff) people think this is a whole new bill, more laws instead of just removing loopholes in very old ones, very few people have actually read the wording

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—
o (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
o (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
o (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
o (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

everyone needs to read that, maybe after that they will see the sheer insanity of people like devnull and the nutters over at family first and the kiwi party or whatever the political arm of destiny are calling themselves this week.

devnull

27th August 2008, 08:43

ramblings....

everyone needs to read that, maybe after that they will see the sheer insanity of people like devnull and the nutters over at family first and the kiwi party or whatever the political arm of destiny are calling themselves this week.

Oh dear... so everyone that thinks this law is wrong is a religious nutter then? Well that's over 85% of the country, so I guess you better be good when they come knocking at your door :buggerd:

The Glen Innes case:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4473820a11.html

One of the first people charged under Green MP Sue Bradford's anti-smacking legislation has had charges against him dropped.

Initially the 30-year-old Glen Innes man was accused of hitting his five-year-old daughter with an open hand on the back of the head and swinging a pair of jeans at his six-year-old daughter, hitting her on the side of the head just before Christmas.

He denied the allegations and when the matter came to trial before Judge Anna Johns in Auckland District Court today, the police offered no evidence and the case was dismissed.

The summary of facts had originally claimed the man was "enraged".

Outside the court, the man's lawyer, Tony Bouchier, said that the man had only exercised reasonable discipline on the children.

His client had pushed one of the girls to get her to hurry for school and threw the jeans at the other to get her attention.

Mr Bouchier, who is critical of the "domestic violence industry", said he supported the referendum to have the anti-smacking legislation repealed.

"When the whole issue was being discussed in Parliament and in public, they said that minor matters would not end up in court, it would only be the serious ones," he said.

"I am not condemning the police for protecting children, but the public were given assurances that the police would consider this law carefully, and in this case they have not."

Mr Bouchier said that the man was a good and loving father.

He did not live with his children but arranged to take them to school and pick them up every day.

It was "valuable time" for him.

Mr Bouchier said that it was not the mother of the children who complained, but her sister.

He said there seemed to be some animosity between the father of the children and the sister who had interfered.

"This type of discipline is probably meted out to children every day in New Zealand."

avgas

27th August 2008, 08:58

Clockwork

27th August 2008, 09:10

Try telling Clockwork that. He thinks that section four is a directive.

Skyryder

Sorry, I am unfamilier with what rights juries have to ignore the letter of the law when returning a verdict. If you are telling me they are free to thumb their collective noses at the statues, fine, I'll take your word for it but somehow I would expect that judge to some up by pointing out what Section 2 means in terms of using any form of "assult" as a punishment.

IMHO it would take a pretty ballsy jury full of like minded people to ignore such a direction.

Skyryder

27th August 2008, 09:25

Sorry, I am unfamilier with what rights juries have to ignore the letter of the law when returning a verdict. If you are telling me they are free to thumb their collective noses at the statues, fine, I'll take your word for it but somehow I would expect that judge to some up by pointing out what Section 2 means in terms of using any form of "assult" as a punishment.

IMHO it would take a pretty ballsy jury full of like minded people to ignore such a direction.

This is what you wrote. Section 4 effectively takes the jury out of the equation and sets up the police as the final arbiters of what is "incosequential", once they choose to prosecute a jury will theoretically have no choice but to convict.

The police offer evidence to the Court. The judge determines if the evidence is lawfull and in summing, up directs the jury on the relevent points of law. They do not give instructions to the jury on how they must find the accused.

Juries decide on guilt or innocence on the evidence supplied.

Section four 'does not' take juries out of the equation. The Police are not the fianal arbiters of what is inconsequential.

Skyryder
__________________

Clockwork

27th August 2008, 09:33

Skyryder

27th August 2008, 09:35

At no time, in any case, must a jury convict. In fact, I'd say that at times a jury has found not guilty in the face of all evidence. Fickle things, juries. Will that be the next target of the zealots...you know, the ones that insist that they know best on our behalf?

Of course a jury must not convict. That's what they are there for to decide.

But where injury has been sustained by a child some juries considered this reasonable force and were aquited. You may differ from myself on this but any kind of injury in my opinion is not reasonable force. That defence was removed and rightly so for the very reason you state. Fickleness.

Skyryder

MSTRS

27th August 2008, 09:37

As I said earlier, this has more to do with hating Sue Bradford and Clark's Nanny State.The names don't matter, it's the intent behind their doings that rankles.

The "Big Brother" nanny state mentality is creeping further in. If the security cameras do not catch you breaking some law, then the Devout Labourite sectarians will be straight on the phone to the thought police.
This is exactly where the Looney Labourite Sect is taking this country.Yep. Britain is no better, either. It's the only possible outcome to a series of controlling laws vs a resentful population vicious circle.

Not. The Privacy Commissioner would have a coronary if he knew people believed that.
I believe it. All the reports of parents dealt with by the police that did not end in prosecution, ended with the parent(s) being 'cautioned'... What's the point of that if it's not on record?

I was smacked as a kid by one of my parents...

Did it work? NOPE all it did was teach me to be sneakier and to not get caught. Did I respect this parent for it or at all? NOPE Did it do our relationship any good at all? HELL NO

With or without the legislation that's MY choice.
Not every child needs this sort of parenting. What works for one child is counter-productive with another. Your parents had the same choices that you do, except they had more leeway on matters of corporal punishment.

....repetitive postings of the legislation...
We know what it says. And it's still vague enough that we can all interpret it in different ways. The intent, however, is well understood. Statistics apparently say that 85% of us don't like it or want it as it is.

All kids are different, and creating some govt approved parenting method won't change that. They are individuals, and respond differently to rewards and punishments.
Yep. There are also thousands of books, written by 'experts' on how to raise children. With some very contradictory theories. How can a failed parent and ex-political agitator know better than so-called experts who don't agree with each other?

Not correct. Taking the law back to what it was just means that it is legal to use some reasonable fore as a means of correction. That does not mean that it is acceptable, and certainly not mandatory. It simply gives parents a tool that the present law has taken away from them.
We don't need to go back to the old wording. We need for it to be clarified. Objective, not subjective. Your 'light and inconsequential' is different to mine, etc...

once again, family first is not a reliable source of information, they lie to get stupid people onside
Who's relying on that lot? And where did they lie? And where did any of us say we agree with their philosophies? By referring to case histories that FF have collected, we are simply using the resource to illustrate what thinking people are saying about the results of the change to S59. Insulting our intelligence won't make us 'see the light'. We've already seen it...it's the overnight ExpressToHell barrelling down upon us. But we're not trapped on the tracks...we're preparing to derail the bastard.

Jantar

27th August 2008, 09:45

....But where injury has been sustained by a child some juries considered this reasonable force and were aquited. You may differ from myself on this but any kind of injury in my opinion is not reasonable force. That defence was removed and rightly so for the very reason you state. Fickleness.

Skyryder

But we are not discussing beatings and/or abuse. This debate is about smacking. If injury occurs, then that has gone beyond smacking.

...
We don't need to go back to the old wording. We need for it to be clarified. Objective, not subjective. Your 'light and inconsequential' is different to mine, etc...

....

Quite right. Its just that the old wording is still better than the present. Bring back the Chester Burrow ammendment.

_Shrek_

27th August 2008, 09:52

Q/ you wonder why kids rule the roost
A/ they're being taught from pre school it's alegal for parents to smack them

Q/ why are our tenages off the rails
A/ :doh: they have no boundrys

Answer to the present problem LET THE PARENTS DO THEIR JOB
& keep the sorry ass wannabees who don't have kids or batting for the same side who don't no shit about bringing up kids, why because they're morale & emotionally screwd up
this also includes the PC brigade :argh:

there is a place for smacking it's on their ASS no where else

& if you don't like what I've said build a bridge

Winston001

27th August 2008, 09:53

Clockwork

27th August 2008, 09:56

..... They do not give instructions to the jury on how they must find the accused.
...

I was using the term "direction" in the sense that Judges direct the jury on the meaning/intent of the statutes pertinant to the case being tried.

However, while I can't cite supporting evidence and there may well be particular points of law that allow this to happen that may well not be applicable in the sorts of cases we are discussing; I know I've heard/read reports whereby juries have been directed to return a specific verdict!

Regardless, my point was/is that it is very unlikely that any jury would/could return a unanimous virdict contrary to the letter of the law and the facts of the case.

MSTRS

27th August 2008, 09:57

Quite right. Its just that the old wording is still better than the present. Bring back the Chester Burrow amendment.

I don't recall the wording of that amendment. But the old wording (reasonable force) is really little different to the new (light and inconsequential).
Circumstances do need to be taken into account, but the riding crop incident is a good example of the old wording working as intended. It would seem that a lash (or two/three/whatever) averted a greater crime, so was reasonable in those circumstances. Under today's wording that mother would have gone to jail for child abuse/aggravated assault/GBH...or...obeyed the law, buried her husband, and seen her child off to jail for murder/manslaughter.

devnull

27th August 2008, 10:01

Is it just me or a some here missing the fucking point?
If you touch anyone in an incorrect manor you can be charged and taken to court.......this was how it was before the anti smacking bill.
It was at the police discretion otherwise.
The only difference that was introduced when the bill was introduced was the political swing where a party could say that they were for/against it.
It is actually meaningless in court as the parent will be charge with assault.
If we really wanted to stop kids getting beaten up then it has to come from the culture in NZ. If you see a kid get a swipe to many call the cops. Or if your really brave walk up and blast the parent.
Introducing new laws is just paper pushing in a political debate. The old laws were not broken - but unused.

Exactly. Laws were already in place - it was enforcement of those laws that was haphazard.

The argument that this law change was to address child abuse was a straw man argument, full of lies and innuendo, but very short on fact.

Sweden was held up as the poster child of the govt campaign, but nothing was said of the 6 other European countries with lower abuse rates and no such draconian law.

Spain was the leader, with no smacking ban.

What was being presented in the UK is what was presented here e.g.

(ii) from the Parliamentary Select Committee on Health:
. . . not all other countries seem to have the same problems with child abuse as Britain does. The experience in Sweden, for example, which has long outlawed the physical punishment of children, is one in which child deaths from deliberate harm by adults are now unknown (author’s italics. House of Commons Health Committee, 2003, p. 17, para. 55);

and

(iii) from ‘Evidence-based health promotion for children and adolescents in
Stockholm county’:
Between 1976 and 1995, 54 children aged 0–14 were murdered or beaten to death in Stockholm county, according to the death register. There were slightly more during the latter decade (1986–1995) compared to the earlier (1976–1986) (Hjern, 1999).

So we can see that while Sweden may be OK, it isn't as perfect as represented

‘Sweden has one of the lowest child abuse death rates in the world’ states the website of a US anti-corporal punishment organization, quoting a Canadian newspaper article (Project No Spank, 2004); ‘. . . in the decade after Sweden fully outlawed smacking and every other form of physical punishment . . . not one single child in Sweden died of physical abuse at the hands of his or her carer’ states the submission to the Victoria Climbié enquiry by the ‘Children are Unbeatable’ Alliance (Children are Unbeatable Alliance, 2004); ‘Between 1975 and 1995, four deaths were attributed to child abuse in Sweden.
In New Zealand during the same period, 240 children were killed.

Sweden has a population of approx 8 million

So now we see that NZ has a pretty crappy record here - Sweden is better, but nowhere near as good as Spain.

What confuses things even more are coding errors

Trocmé and Lindsey (1996, pp. 173–4) review a number of studies which look at the accuracy of such statistics, including Christoffel et al. (1989), who found that 89 per cent of Illinois child deaths classified as ‘undetermined’ could in fact be attributed to child maltreatment, and Kotch et al. (1993), who found in New Zealand that less than a third of child abuse deaths had actually been classified correctly.

Sweden is not in fact the world leader on eliminating child maltreatment deaths. It is either ninth or seventh in the league table of OECD countries, depending on whether or not one chooses to adopt a ‘revised’ measure which aggregates deaths from ‘undetermined causes’ with confirmed child maltreatment deaths (UNICEF, 2003). UNICEF suggests that the revised measure is the more reliable indicator because the unrevised table is ‘too susceptible to marginal random changes and differences in reporting procedures’.

The top 4 countries in the league table (Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland), had no smacking ban, yet very low child maltreatment death rates.

We can see from Jane Millichamp's research that there is no evidence that smacking teaches violence - in fact, those in the study that were smacked as young children performed better both socially and intellectually in later life.

Why were we told lies about the Swedish experiment?

It comes from Joan Durrant's study.

Between 1971 and 1975, five children died in Sweden as a result of physical abuse during incidents in which the caretaker’s motive was ‘a disciplinary measure to eliminate a disturbing behaviour of a child without the intention to kill’ (Somander and Rammer, 1991, p. 53). However, during the ensuing 15 years (1976 to 1990), no children died in Sweden as the result of abuse . . .. Between 1990 and 1996, four children died from the effects of physical abuse; only one of these children was killed by a parent . . . and this rate does not represent a significant increase since 1971 . . . (Durrant, 1999, p. 441).

By ruling out causes such as neglect, postnatal depression and neonaticide cases, and cases of fatal sexual assaults—they become discounted as ‘fatal child abuse’ or as ‘physical abuse’, because she used an artificially narrow definition.

There are, however, many other factors, other than policy on corporal punishment, which might explain the different performance of different countries.

Failure to discuss these factors as possible alternative explanations is another major flaw in the argument that Sweden’s corporal punishment ban has resulted in a fall in child abuse deaths.

If the govt had been sincere, it would have actually looked at the REAL key indicators, and done something about them.

The likelihood of child injury death, both accidental and deliberate, ‘rises steeply with poverty’ states another UNICEF report, and:

. . . the likelihood of a child being injured or killed is also associated with single parenthood, low maternal education, low maternal age at birth, poor housing, large family size, and parental drug or alcohol abuse (UNICEF, 2001a, p. 2).

This conclusion is consistent with studies such as that of Greenland (1987) which looked at individual cases of deaths caused by child abuse and neglect, and identified the following parental risk factors in such cases:
‘Aged 20 or less at the birth of their first child’, ‘Single parent/separated; partner not biological parent of child’, ‘Socially isolated—frequent moves—poor housing’, ‘Poverty— unemployed/unskilled worker; inadequate education’, ‘Abuses alcohol and/or drugs’.

Winston001

27th August 2008, 10:06

Sorry, I am unfamilier with what rights juries have to ignore the letter of the law when returning a verdict. If you are telling me they are free to thumb their collective noses at the statues, fine, I'll take your word for it but somehow I would expect that judge to some up by pointing out what Section 2 means in terms of using any form of "assault" as a punishment.

IMHO it would take a pretty ballsy jury full of like minded people to ignore such a direction.

Ok, this is how it works. The jury listens to the evidence from witnesses, then arguments from both lawyers, and finally an explanation of the law from the judge.

They then go away and decide what facts they reckon are true (and what sounds untrue), and apply the law to those facts. Then they decide whether there is a reasonable doubt ( = not quite sure) and vote guilty or not guilty.

Juries don't ignore the law but since we do not know what goes on inside the jury room, their normal human emotions sway them just like anyone else.

Examples are assisted suicide which is unlawful (manslaughter or murder) but juries have acquitted people.

There are rare cases where a judge directs a jury verdict of guilty, and others where the jury decision is off-the-wall in terms of the evidence. But largely it is a safe system which works.

Skyryder

27th August 2008, 10:17

I feel you've completely mis-interpreted paragraphs a through d. As I stated earlier these excuse "assult" in the sense of physical restraint or any other action that would require you to touch or handle a child without their explicit consent!!

I say again, for the hard of hearing.... Section 2 (which takes president over section 1 as stated in section 3) removes ALL justification for the use of force for the purposes of correction "Thou shalt not smack!"

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction. 1 quotes common law and is a clear reference to assault. Both (a) through to (c) allow the use of force (smack) for the purposes stated. (d) gives a wider rang for good care and parenting.
As the Act is written force and the smack are identical. That needs to be understood and is the very reason of section (a) to (d). You may wish to argue other wise but 2 makes it very clear that force/smack are unlawful for the purpose outside of the parameters of (a) to (c). (d) as mentioned gives a wider latitude where force/smack can be used where it is incidental to good care and parenting. If as you argue that 2 means that the smack is completely unlawful the question must be asked what is the purpose of the statute. Surely if you argument is as you say 'thou shall not smack' there would be no need of this statute as any assault of a child would come under the relevant sections of the Crimes Act.

Skyryder

Skyryder

27th August 2008, 10:25

I was using the term "direction" in the sense that Judges direct the jury on the meaning/intent of the statutes pertinant to the case being tried.

However, while I can't cite supporting evidence and there may well be particular points of law that allow this to happen that may well not be applicable in the sorts of cases we are discussing; I know I've heard/read reports whereby juries have been directed to return a specific verdict!

Regardless, my point was/is that it is very unlikely that any jury would/could return a unanimous virdict contrary to the letter of the law and the facts of the case.

I am not in disagreement this comment but those quoted by you and to which I responded concerned the so called anti smacking law where you suggested that juries would have no choice but to convict simply on the fact that the police have bought a prosecution.

Skyryder

Clockwork

27th August 2008, 10:42

[ If as you argue that 2 means that the smack is completely unlawful the question must be asked what is the purpose of the statute.

I understand that assault is defined as ANY form of physical contact that is non consentual. Indeed, I think just shaking your fist at someone can be treated as assault!

Subsection 1 exists to allow a parent to physically interact with or compell an unwilling/unco-operative child without falling foul of the legal definition of common assault.

To turn your point around, without the definition I have supplied here what purpose does subsection 2 serve and why does subsection 3 need to re-emphasise subsection 2's priority over subsection 1?

Clockwork

27th August 2008, 10:46

I am not in disagreement this comment but those quoted by you and to which I responded concerned the so called anti smacking law where you suggested that juries would have no choice but to convict simply on the fact that the police have bought a prosecution.

Skyryder

Because subsection 2 says nothing in subsection 1 shall justify the use of force for the purposes of correction. ergo if you strike your child as a punishment, you are guilty.

Arguably if you carry your child to thieir bedroom for time-out, you are using force for the purposes of punishment and in breech of subsection 2. Of course the Police may choose to consider this inconsequential, just be sure to be nice to the Police Officers when they call.

Skyryder

27th August 2008, 13:29

I understand that assault is defined as ANY form of physical contact that is non consentual. Indeed, I think just shaking your fist at someone can be treated as assault!

Subsection 1 exists to allow a parent to physically interact with or compell an unwilling/unco-operative child without falling foul of the legal definition of common assault.

To turn your point around, without the definition I have supplied here what purpose does subsection 2 serve and why does subsection 3 need to re-emphasise subsection 2's priority over subsection 1?

Your defination is wrong. Shaking your fist or for that matter giving someone the bird is not assault. Both of these could be contributing factors for the cause of assault but that’s another story.

As mentioned 1 allows the use of ‘force’ only within the parameters of (a) to (d). You seem to deny that the word ‘force’ in this statute (1) has a different meaning from force in the old section 59. Every parent of a child is justified in using ‘force’ by way of correction………..etc. so why do you deny that under current law the use of the word ‘force’ has a different meaning than the same word in the repealed statute?

Skyryder

Clockwork

27th August 2008, 13:57

It's irrelevant how you, I or anyone defines the use of the word force in either the new act or the previous act. Sections 2 removes ALL justification for using it for the puposes of correction. EVEN IF the parent IS acting within situations prescribed by subsection 1 paragraphs a,b,c and/or d.

Subsection 1 mearly permits the parent to use force to compel a child to do that which the child will not willingly do.

I honestly don't know how I can make the point any more clearly. Unless you need me to point out that in your quote you use the phrase "force by way of correction" as being the original form of the act whereas the new act explictly prohibits this in subsection 2.

Skyryder

27th August 2008, 14:24

Because subsection 2 says nothing in subsection 1 shall justify the use of force for the purposes of correction. ergo if you strike your child as a punishment, you are guilty.

Arguably if you carry your child to thieir bedroom for time-out, you are using force for the purposes of punishment and in breech of subsection 2. Of course the Police may choose to consider this inconsequential, just be sure to be nice to the Police Officers when they call.

Yes if you ‘strike’ your child as a ‘punishment’ under section (a)(b)(c) or (d) you will most likely be found guilty. The Act makes no allowances for punishment. Force is only permitted as a preventative measure.

As for your argument that carrying your child to their bedroom room for timeout is in breach of the Act. That's just more clap trap the Christian Right.

I have posted part of a report from the Law Commission that rebuts the kind of argument that you postulate.

The opinion of Peter McKenzie QC

Mr McKenzie concludes that under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill as proposed by Sue Bradford, carrying a child against his or her will to "time out" or a "naughty mat" will be a criminal act that exposes parents to prosecution for assault. This is because the redrafted defence in section 59(2) provides that "nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction". For most parents, it is said, a corrective purpose would be the dominant or indeed the only purpose for "time out".

This is still the current thinking of those that oppose Bradford’s Statute. They still claim that under the current Act carrying a naught child to a time out area is in breach of the Act.

The Law Commission comments on this are as follows.

Comment

Committee members will recall that, in relation to option 1, the Law Commission was advised by a majority of the members that the outcome sought was a prohibition on the use of any force against children for corrective purposes. We are consequently delighted to receive Mr McKenzie's independent confirmation that this objective is achieved by our proposed draft.

(They then go on to comment on Copelands media comments that are in response to McKenzies opinion.)[/I]

However, we have a number of points to make in rebuttal of the media debate prompted by Mr Copeland. In particular, we disagree with the assertion that the effect of our draft will be to prohibit time out by exposing parents who use it to the risk of prosecution.
In the example highlighted by Mr Copeland (carrying a child to a "naughty mat" who had been throwing food at the walls), we disagree with his assertion that this is "obviously for the purpose of correction". We suggest that at least part, and probably a large part, of the parental motive in that scenario relates to "preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behavior". This is a permitted purpose under our proposed redraft of section 59.

[/I][/I]
Skyryder

devnull

27th August 2008, 14:34

Yes if you ‘strike’ your child as a ‘punishment’ under section (a)(b)(c) or (d) you will most likely be found guilty. The Act makes no allowances for punishment. Force is only permitted as a preventative measure.

As for your argument that carrying your child to their bedroom room for timeout is in breach of the Act. That's just more clap trap the Christian Right.

I have posted part of a report from the Law Commission that rebuts the kind of argument that you postulate.

The opinion of Peter McKenzie QC

Mr McKenzie concludes that under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill as proposed by Sue Bradford, carrying a child against his or her will to "time out" or a "naughty mat" will be a criminal act that exposes parents to prosecution for assault. This is because the redrafted defence in section 59(2) provides that "nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction". For most parents, it is said, a corrective purpose would be the dominant or indeed the only purpose for "time out".

This is still the current thinking of those that oppose Bradford’s Statute. They still claim that under the current Act carrying a naught child to a time out area is in breach of the Act.

The Law Commission comments on this are as follows.

Comment

Committee members will recall that, in relation to option 1, the Law Commission was advised by a majority of the members that the outcome sought was a prohibition on the use of any force against children for corrective purposes. We are consequently delighted to receive Mr McKenzie's independent confirmation that this objective is achieved by our proposed draft.

(They then go on to comment on Copelands media comments that are in response to McKenzies opinion.)[/I]

However, we have a number of points to make in rebuttal of the media debate prompted by Mr Copeland. In particular, we disagree with the assertion that the effect of our draft will be to prohibit time out by exposing parents who use it to the risk of prosecution.
In the example highlighted by Mr Copeland (carrying a child to a "naughty mat" who had been throwing food at the walls), we disagree with his assertion that this is "obviously for the purpose of correction". We suggest that at least part, and probably a large part, of the parental motive in that scenario relates to "preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behavior". This is a permitted purpose under our proposed redraft of section 59.

[/I][/I]
Skyryder

suggest... probably... opinion...

See the problem here?

Bad law open to interpretation.
We already know, now, that tipping a 12yo off a beanbag is convictable under this act.
All you're saying is even lawyers don't agree with the interpretation, so we'll have to wait until someone is arrested for using time out or the naughty mat

avgas

27th August 2008, 14:35

Agreed. Right-on. That is the point - change our culture. Without a different approach to child discipline and violent conflict in our society, the tightened law will be useless.
Its the age old gap in society today. Blame the tools not the user. Responsibility is a god like complex that many can not own up to.

MSTRS

27th August 2008, 14:47

suggest... probably... opinion...

See the problem here?

Bad law open to interpretation.
We already know, now, that tipping a 12yo off a beanbag is convictable under this act.
All you're saying is even lawyers don't agree with the interpretation, so we'll have to wait until someone is arrested for using time out or the naughty mat

Now, see, they should have consulted with me...'cos my opinion is the right one.
If little Johnny is throwing food at the walls and won't stop, his parents are entitled to carry him to his room for time-out (because that prevents him throwing more food).
But if little Johnny threw some food against the wall, then sat there with his arms folded looking cross, then his parents may not touch him at all.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Little Johnny got a smack on the hand that threw the food, then another one on his bum 'cos he refused to clean up his mess, and then he was locked in the room under the stairs ('cos that was the only place where he could be trusted to stay for a period of calming down) until he promised to be good.

Clockwork

27th August 2008, 14:47

However, we have a number of points to make in rebuttal of the media debate prompted by Mr Copeland. In particular, we disagree with the assertion that the effect of our draft will be to prohibit time out by exposing parents who use it to the risk of prosecution.
In the example highlighted by Mr Copeland (carrying a child to a "naughty mat" who had been throwing food at the walls), we disagree with his assertion that this is "obviously for the purpose of correction". We suggest that at least part, and probably a large part, of the parental motive in that scenario relates to "preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behavior". This is a permitted purpose under our proposed redraft of section 59.

[/I][/I]
Skyryder

Ok first let me clear one thing up. I am not, nor ever have been the least bit interested in the actions, motives or arguments of the "Christian Right" and I honestly only added that point as an afterthought because I'd never heard it made before.

As to the quoted section

WHAT A CROCK OF WEASLE WORDED SHIT!!!!!

A child it placed in time-out as punishment pure and simple. To pretend otherwise is .... (I'm at a total loss for words at that "opinion")

"They suggest that probably a LARGE part of the parental motive in that scenario relates to "preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behavior".

What f++king presumptious bullshit masqurading as a legal opinion!!

:crazy:Boing!!!:crazy:

Clockwork has now become over-wound and will need to take some time out regain his former rational composure