Child beaters, round two

[davebullet]

Too often as parents we take for granted the good behaviour shown by our children. I've always made a fuss whenever my kids did something good / normal (positive reinforcement). Seems to have worked so far (teenage years coming so I'll get a serve of reality soon).

I think the no smack law is dumb. Any violent person who is going to beat someone (adult or child) has an anger management issue. Anger doesn't do a mental check against the law and consequences before committing to violence.

Laws are only practical when they can be enforced. Unless they install cameras in each home, an anti-smacking law has about as much chance as a law against picking your nose.

[NDORFN]

all my kids got a smack none of them were beaten to death

That is hands down the best response to the whole issue I've ever heard.

[Oakie]

Or maybe even "since the repeal of section 59, has the sky actually fallen in?". Or "since the repeal of section 59 are the prisons crowded with middle class parents?".

What about ... "Since the repeal of Section 59 have we stopped killing our kids" which is the issue that started this whole thing. Oh, the answer is "no". Making it illegal to smack your kid has not reduced the rate at which we kill our children.

[RantyDave]

You know, you're right. It's all much too complicated and besides, I'm sure I have better things to apply myself to. It's not like a referendum is going to actually matter, I was just offended at how the wording was implying that most people were idiots and would fall for this shit. Which they will. But it won't matter.

I wasn't allowed to (green) rep Mom, which was a shame. Full respect for anyone that fosters troubled kids.

Dave

[Mom]

Bollocks, smacking is now outlawed, but people are ignoring that fact. Not exactly the mark of a good law is it? Kids are still dying at the hands of their "care-givers"...

A smack is unlikely to kill your child after all...

*wanders off muttering about friggen do good PC wankers whose children are completely undisciplined little shits that are the bane of others lives*

[Skyryder]

Smacking or hitting a child for correctional purposes is a sign of parental failure for control of the child and inability to change behavour by other means.


Skyryder


PS And that includes their own too.

[EYNON13]

ok im not out for a sob story here but i was beatin as a child never a slap on the wrist it was always a jug cord a fist and once even a steel bar ive had a fractured skull when i was 6 months old i had my back fracterd when i was 12 by my father ive had brusses blacker than leather on my thigh,so this law is to make sure weapons and closed fists are not used,i tell my one year old off i know he thinks its funny but there is no way i will ever strike him,so i think the law is there to help the police clarify wat they have to deal with on a day to day basis sure this law neads fine tunnig but dont just abolish it ive had years of abuse and if this law was around when i was a kid who knows it may of helped the police to charge the old bastard with somthing thats my peice so open ya eyes people its not about takin away your rights as parents its there to save lives

[NDORFN]

ok im not out for a sob story here but i was beatin as a child never a slap on the wrist it was always a jug cord a fist and once even a steel bar ive had a fractured skull when i was 6 months old i had my back fracterd when i was 12 by my father ive had brusses blacker than leather on my thigh,so this law is to make sure weapons and closed fists are not used,i tell my one year old off i know he thinks its funny but there is no way i will ever strike him,so i think the law is there to help the police clarify wat they have to deal with on a day to day basis sure this law neads fine tunnig but dont just abolish it ive had years of abuse and if this law was around when i was a kid who knows it may of helped the police to charge the old bastard with somthing thats my peice so open ya eyes people its not about takin away your rights as parents its there to save lives

1: You'd have been ok if he was just smacking ya.
2: You could've charged him with... wait for it... ASSAULT!

[Mikkel]

*wanders off muttering about friggen do good PC wankers whose children are completely undisciplined little shits that are the bane of others lives*

I am a bit unsure, but I do hope you are being at least slightly sarcastic here. Statistics clearly show that if you are raised in a violent environment you are more likely to become violent yourself.


NZ is a great place, but there are things here that need to be improved upon - domestic violence is one of these. I am not saying that the law change is perfect, but if you look at the wording (as presented in this thread) the change is in fact minor and the whole point of the exercise is to raise awareness about the problem. Yes, you can turn a blind eye to the issue and just pretend that all is well and good - it won't change the reality though.

The fact that 10% of the voting population - 10% who are willing to take initiative to initiate a referendum - are campaigning for the "sacred" right to physically chastise their children in 2009 is, all things considered, disgraceful.

Anyone who feels that smacking is a natural everyday and necessary part of good parenting in anno 2009 is doing it wrong. Noone is disputing that it will happen every-now-and-again, but any time you have to get physical you have failed as a parent - and you bloody well know it too. You may not want to admit it, not even to yourself - but if there isn't something inside you that feels wrong as you hit someone you love, then you - and most likely your children too - are beyond help.

The few times I got hit by my parents it wasn't my pain I remembered - it wasn't painful as such, shocking yes, not painful - it was to much larger degree witnessing how much it hurt them to actually do it. If it had been an everyday occurance it would have lost it's impact and I have a strong feeling that I would have been in jail before I turned 25...

[Bullitt]

ok im not out for a sob story here but i was beatin as a child never a slap on the wrist it was always a jug cord a fist and once even a steel bar ive had a fractured skull when i was 6 months old i had my back fracterd when i was 12 by my father ive had brusses blacker than leather on my thigh,so this law is to make sure weapons and closed fists are not used,i tell my one year old off i know he thinks its funny but there is no way i will ever strike him,so i think the law is there to help the police clarify wat they have to deal with on a day to day basis sure this law neads fine tunnig but dont just abolish it ive had years of abuse and if this law was around when i was a kid who knows it may of helped the police to charge the old bastard with somthing thats my peice so open ya eyes people its not about takin away your rights as parents its there to save lives

If that happened to you a year ago before Bradford proved she was a better parent than anyone else it would have still been illegal. If it wasnt then that should have been changed.

However the current law is totally rediculous. If it wasnt for the EFA this would be the worst law the last Government brought in (and they brought in A LOT).

I havnt read this whole thread but I hope noone is complaining about the cost of the referendum. Theres only two people to blame for that, Bradford for bringing it in and Helen for refusing to put it in with the general election where it woudl have saved almost the entire cost.

Anyone claiming the question is biased just wants the answer to come back "yes" but they know it wont so theyre preparing it.

I shouldnt get a say in how some random person raises their kids and they shouldnt get a say in mine (provided Im not doing things that are harmful to them and smacking the way 99% of parents do it isnt).

[Winston001]

We need to agree on what we are talking about. The law does not say "a smack" is unlawful;


Smack:

"to slap with the hand," 1835, from noun in this sense (c.1746), perhaps influenced by Low Ger. smacken "to strike, throw," which is likely of imitative origin (cf. Swed. smak "slap," M.L.G. smacken, Fris. smakke, Du. smakken "to fling down," Lith. smagiu "to strike, knock down, whip").


So the etymology has strong roots but today most of us mean a light blow with an open hand applied to a child's hand or bottom.

If that's what we mean by a smack - where are all the convictions of decent parents??

[Drew]

Smacking or hitting a child for correctional purposes is a sign of parental failure for control of the child and inability to change behavour by other means.


Skyryder


PS And that includes their own too.

Bullshit. Smacking a child a few times throughout the early years, creates control.

[JimO]

Smacking or hitting a child for correctional purposes is a sign of parental failure for control of the child and inability to change behavour by other means.


Skyryder


PS And that includes their own too.

do you have children ?? what do you do for a living??

[crazyhorse]

Funny this comes up,yesterday i was listening once again to our new next door neighbours kid (12 or 13 at a guess) telling his old man to " fuck" off."dont speak to me like that" just doesnt seem to be working next door so cant imagine it does anywhere else in the country.A thick ear would sort it but i guess A the fathers to lazy or B hes to scared to do it,either way the lack of thick ears in my opinion is only going to do the kid more harm than good.Sad really.

Those who beat their kids are gonna keep doing it - those who discipline theirs, are sadly deprived of doing so. Kids of today are too wrapped up in cottonwool, they don't even know how to make their own fun - the days of no shops being open, no computers, no cellphones etc. We left the house and came back at dinner time - not like the kids of today - sadly!

[ManDownUnder]

Smacking or hitting a child for correctional purposes is a sign of parental failure for control of the child and inability to change behavour by other means.


Skyryder


PS And that includes their own too.

Are you equating smacking to hitting a child - it's unclear from the post above. My interpretation is that hitting would involve a weapon or closed fist - more of an injurious impact than a smack (i.e. you don't see people smacking each other when they fight, but the certainly hit each other)

I see it as one of the last resorts personally -but I do see it as a valid resort. Especially with the little ones where they have no concept of consequences.

"Don't touch the fire - it will burn you - it will hurt - you'll need to go to the hospital" etc for a 2 year old may not actually mean that much other than "Dad doesn't want me to touch it", but if they're in that mood... and they don't call 'em the "terrible two's" by accident... they'll keep going.

So a smack on the back of the hand is far far far better than the consequences of touching the fire. Anyone that's had a two year old will attest to the fact it is impossible to watch them 24x7 so the full time supervision (aka mollycoddling) isn't valid in my book.

Likewise building a fence around the fire, and every heater, and cotton wolling everything that might somehow end up injuring a little person. That's impossible too.

Best thing is pass the responsibility to the child in a form they can appreciate. It makes them autonomous, safe and respectful. My kids get a smack on the bum when they need it. Very rarely I hasten to add. But that's because they can rely on me to do what's right, and if there is a smack... it's always followed with quiet one on one time in their space, to explain what happened, and why, and make sure nothing is left unresolved.