Child beaters, round two

[Winston001]

This is a trick question, right?

Sorry - is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

[MSTRS:Me]

Where is the difference?

This is a trick question, right?

I think so. 12 year olds, esp girls, are past the stage where a smack is appropriate...

[MisterD]

Perspective from Blair Mulholland.

Number of people required to hold a referendum:
285,027


Number of people required to elect Sue Bradford as a list MP:
17,513

[MSTRS:Me]

Number of people required to remove her permanently...1

[PrincessBandit]

Number of people required to remove her permanently...1

Ah, but by what means????....

[Lias]

. So too was anybody who thought that the Police would be out to prosecute any care-giver who gave a child a "loving tap".

When my 11 year old step daughter was brought home by the police for shop lifting, she had apparently told them I or her mother would give her a hiding, and as I came to the door I was formally cautioned by the police. I queried and was told in no uncertain terms that even a light smack on the bum would result in mine or my partners prosecution for assault, and the likley removal of the children to CYFS care.

We have never beaten the kids, never had issues with CYFS etc, and then we get that. If that isnt the sky falling I dont know what is. The new law is retarded.

It should be legal to give your child a smack on the arse for the purposes of correction. The new law has not stopped one single kid from being punched, kicked, or beaten to death, but it has stopped good parents doing their job.

My 2 cents.

[jono035]

Ah, but by what means????....

I doubt there are that many who would be concerned by the means

Winston: Thanks for the considered reply! The difference in your 12 year old girl example (or make it a kid who is more 'appropriate' for the smacking analogy if anyone prefers) is that you are not the sole person responsible for every aspect of your employees lives. I would also suggest that smacking someone for forgetting to take the mail out isn't what I would define as reasonable.

I prefer to use the example of smacking a kid when outright defiance is shown... I.e. you get to the stage where you say 'don't run away from me when we're in the car park' so the kid runs off, you go after him and grab him and he squirms and kicks and starts screaming at the top of his lungs, then gets free and runs off again.

I don't think it is a disciplinary action that should be used often by any means, but I do think that having it there as a 'last resort' is something that would be beneficial to the parent as well as the child. I also don't like the idea of flouting a law like that just because someone has made a thin promise that I wouldn't be prosecuted or because it hasn't happened yet. It isn't really how the law is being used now that is going to decide how good it is, but how it is being used 5, 10 or even 20 years from now. There are plenty of laws around that get bent away from their original intentions to be used however can be got away with...

[jono035]

When my 11 year old step daughter was brought home by the police for shop lifting, she had apparently told them I or her mother would give her a hiding, and as I came to the door I was formally cautioned by the police. I queried and was told in no uncertain terms that even a light smack on the bum would result in mine or my partners prosecution for assault, and the likley removal of the children to CYFS care.

We have never beaten the kids, never had issues with CYFS etc, and then we get that. If that isnt the sky falling I dont know what is. The new law is retarded.

It should be legal to give your child a smack on the arse for the purposes of correction. The new law has not stopped one single kid from being punched, kicked, or beaten to death, but it has stopped good parents doing their job.

My 2 cents.

I certainly agree... How long before it becomes something along the lines of all the kid has to do is threaten to go to the police and tell them you hit them if you won't let them go to a party/dye their hair/get a tattoo or whatever... I've seen similar behaviour plenty of times from friends and people I went to school with. Seems pretty immature and disgusting in retrospect but when you're an oh-so-misunderstood teenager, I guess things look a little different...

[jono035]

Heather broke her foot on Tuesday.

I've been getting 2-4 hours sleep a night for weeks. I'm off work trying to organise the "household" so I can Get back to work and run things in terms of getting kids to school and picking them and meeting work obligations. My employer has been brilliant.

The community suck.

Someone collared me yesterday afternoon during school pickup and demanded to know where Heather was. Not concerned for Heather, aggro that she'd "disappeared". She asked me what I'd done. I refused to answer, and yelled out to the kids to get into the car. Not yelled "at", yelled "out", they were a good 50 metres away.

No word of a lie, the bitch (sorry, there is no other word) said, "Section 59 was designed for people like you".

Section 59 has empowered bullies, radical feminists, and Government depts in ways that have nothing to do with courtrooms. It's just another weapon in a bully's arsenal. The threat is enough.

Holy crap. It is EXACTLY these kind of people that terrify me whenever I see a law that can be bent to allow someone with this kind of an attitude to wreak havoc and play god with other peoples lives. In a lot of cases it doesn't matter that you would be found not guilty if charged either, if it makes it to court it is still WAY to close for comfort, as someone said before, juries can be confused...

This is a similar situation to laying complaints about other road users... The first time I rang *555 over someone overtaking me on a blind corner and forcing an oncoming car off the road I asked what options they had for ticketing this person etc. The woman informed me that they would alert any local cars and get them to pull the guy over if seen and have a word, but that if I wanted to I could come in to the station and lay a complaint. When asked she said that such complaints, depending on severity can result in anything from a warning letter to a fine/demerit point loss for whoever was driving... I have no idea if this is correct but that idea chills me to the bone as well. I consider myself a relatively safe driver, very pro-active in the approach that I take to driving (doesn't everyone though?) but would also be extremely frustrated if some nosy old biddy (can think of a few) were to get angry at being legally overtaken by a hoon (black car with tinted windows) and complain that in her opinion I had overtaken her in a dangerous place at a dangerous speed... sorry < /rant>

[devnull]

Well, if you want to down a commercial airliner these days, use kids.

The S.59 quoting so far has been disingenious. People only quoting the first subsection and saying "See? nothing to worry about"

It is subsections (2) and (3) that have people pissed off.

The way this is worded, it also cancels out S.60 (Discipline on a ship or aircraft)

Anti-smacking seems to be some form of religion.
The Otago Uni study done in 2006 showed that kids that were smacked as part of parental discipline did better later in life.

Most likely because their parents:

a) weren't beating them (despite the current spin on this topic)
b) actually cared enough to enforce boundaries
c) encouraged their kids (goes hand in hand with boundaries)

People whining about the wording of the referedum really have nothing to complain about, because the law uses EXACTLY the same wording.

Likewise, those that say that screeds of child abusers were being let of under the old law are full of it. Never happened. That's pure unadulterated lies.
So what motiviation is there to remove a law that was working, and replace it with one that threatens the welfare of people's kids?

Control.

Control the population through their children. If they think their kids will be at risk, they'll be docile. Hitler followed the same doctrine.
But they forget one thing - S.48 (Self defence or defence of another)

How much lime should go in the hole with the social worker that was silly enough to say they were going to take your children because you smacked a hand?
If they carry on like this, that scenario will be a "when" not an "if"
Good parents will do anything and everything to ensure the safety of their kids

[fire eyes]

something has to happen .. maybe it would work maybe it wouldnt .. but its better than nothing happening at all ... the exposure of child abuse in NZ far outweighs the same type of exposure over where I am. Here you hardly read about it or even hear about .. lots of 'swept under the carpet stuff' its crazy .. but prevelent .. even in the areas I work such high rates of the abuse but rarely anything done .. I know innocent people would be targeted with the anti-smacking laws .. but NZ has more balls to actually attempt to do something right. Unfortunately a mass cull of abusers is out of the question ..

[devnull]

The problem is, that although the key risk indicators for child abuse were identified years ago e.g low maternal age at birth, drug or alcohol abuse, etc., successive govts have been spineless in addressing it.

Labour didn't, because they'd be attacking a proportion of their support base (demographically speaking), and it looks like National are being Labour lite and trying not to offend anyone

What we've ended up with is something that doesn't address the problem at all. Instead, it exacerbates youth crime, and undermines families. One look at Sweden should've been enough warning....

[James Deuce]

Unfortunately a mass cull of abusers is out of the question ..

You don't need to cull them, simply remove their kids at birth and give them to the hordes of potential parents who would otherwise go childless.

As Devnull says, the indicators are well known.

You want the problem sorted then the harsh measures required need to be actioned. That stops the prevarication around amending laws and allows parents to take corrective action in public when required. I had the dubious pleasure of being "handled" by a couple of kids with no impulse control and their clearly frustrated Dad did his best, but wheedling and negotiating with children doesn't work. Clear, absolute, consistently applied boundaries makes everyone happy.

[idb]

The quality of the referendum question and the subsequent justifications from the organisers would make me question whether I wanted to be associated with those people - no matter what my opinion was.

[Ms Piggy]

Apart from millions of column cm devoted to this issue, can anybody tell me what has actually changed?

Hey Hitcher - my understanding is that the repeal of section 59 removed the "reasonable force" clause.

Prior to the repeal parents/care givers could have a savvy lawyer legally argue that physically disciplining their child with for example a riding crop was "reasonable force".

The repeal means that children now have the same legal protection as everyone else in society when it comes to be assaulted.