Child beaters, round two

[devnull]

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.

Well that's pretty thin on fact...

How many people, since 1961, have successfully used S.59 as a defence?
If a jury can decide on "reasonable force" in a case where a person claims self defence, how is claiming "reasonable force" under S.59 any different? The court, not the offender, decides on what is reasonable under the circumstances.

As for the riding crop - should she have used a baseball bat instead? (So she'd have the same weapon as the kid)

If kids REALLY had the same protection as everyone else, then the toddler that bit my little boy would've been arrested and charged. He'd be facing jail time.

Beckett (British Journal of Social Work) showed quite clearly the fallacy that the anti-smacking religion really is. His article "Child Deaths in Sweden: The Swedish Myth" shows not only how it doesn't work, it also identifies the key abuse indicators.
If anti-smacking equated to lower child abuse rates, then Sweden, not Spain, would've been top ranking (Spain had no such law)

[scumdog]

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

Damn right.

When my boys were in their teens they still remembered the smacks they got when they were about 2 - 3 years old which was probably the last time they got a smack.

Mere raising my voice worked ever after that.


Just like with a pup, you've got to show them who's the boss when they're very young, too late later on (as a lot find out).

[NDORFN]

Damn right.

When my boys were in their teens they still remembered the smacks they got when they were about 2 - 3 years old which was probably the last time they got a smack.

Mere raising my voice worked ever after that.


Just like with a pup, you've got to show them who's the boss when they're very young, too late later on (as a lot find out).

Yep. Worked for me.

[Ms Piggy]

Well that's pretty thin on fact...

I wasn't saying it was, I stated it was my understanding based my general knowledge off the top of my head.

How many people, since 1961, have successfully used S.59 as a defence?
If a jury can decide on "reasonable force" in a case where a person claims self defence, how is claiming "reasonable force" under S.59 any different? The court, not the offender, decides on what is reasonable under the circumstances.

No idea - would be an interesting piece of research.

As for the riding crop - should she have used a baseball bat instead? (So she'd have the same weapon as the kid)

Sorry you've lost me?? Of course she shouldn't have.

If kids REALLY had the same protection as everyone else, then the toddler that bit my little boy would've been arrested and charged. He'd be facing jail time.

Sounds like a nasty situation. Maybe his parents should have been held accountable.

Beckett (British Journal of Social Work) showed quite clearly the fallacy that the anti-smacking religion really is. His article "Child Deaths in Sweden: The Swedish Myth" shows not only how it doesn't work, it also identifies the key abuse indicators.
If anti-smacking equated to lower child abuse rates, then Sweden, not Spain, would've been top ranking (Spain had no such law)

Sorry 1 article won't change my mind but it would sure be interesting reading.

[MSTRS:Me]

If kids REALLY had the same protection as everyone else, then the toddler that bit my little boy would've been arrested and charged. He'd be facing jail time.

Sounds like a nasty situation. Maybe his parents should have been held accountable.

Really? And just how were those parents (assuming they cared enough) to control their toddler? Kids that age don't have the mental/social development to know that biting is wrong. It must be taught. Biting them in turn can work real well. Ooops, sorry...not allowed. Ok...a short, sharp stinging smack can work, slightly less well. Oooops, sorry...not allowed. Well, then...you could try talking to the offending child. Or the 'naughty corner'. Like the kid will understand, or stay in the corner. Ooooh, I know...put a muzzle on the little shit. Good luck with that.

[Mom]

Biting them in turn can work real well. Ooops, sorry...not allowed.

No but something that did work well for me. One of my kids was a biter. One day he gave a particularly nasty bite to one of my foster kids, I got the foster kid to bite him back

Win, win here. Must say it was very effective. The foster kid no longer annoyed my kid until he was bitten, the biter never laid his teeth into anyone ever again.

[MSTRS:Me]

Must say it was very effective.

Which was my point. Effective = not allowed.

[Ms Piggy]

Really? And just how were those parents (assuming they cared enough) to control their toddler? Kids that age don't have the mental/social development to know that biting is wrong. It must be taught. Biting them in turn can work real well. Ooops, sorry...not allowed. Ok...a short, sharp stinging smack can work, slightly less well. Oooops, sorry...not allowed. Well, then...you could try talking to the offending child. Or the 'naughty corner'. Like the kid will understand, or stay in the corner. Ooooh, I know...put a muzzle on the little shit. Good luck with that.

It sure is tricky to try and sort this stuff out eh. I guess my experience is that nothing is ever black and white or has a simple solution. I reckon your comments demonstrate that quite well.

[devnull]

Sorry 1 article won't change my mind but it would sure be interesting reading.

I don't wish to change your mind.
I don't care what your opinion is.

There is no shortage of data available out there if you want to educate yourself on this issue - but it isn't my job to do that for you.
Anyway, if this debate has highlighted anything, it's that some people willingly favour their own opinions to the point of obsession, disregarding all research that doesn't coincide with their beliefs. Thus, the anti-smacking mantra is a pseudo-religion, favouring social experimentation over established fact.

All I want is LESS govt involvement in my life, not more.

I DON'T want a group of childless lesbians and convicted criminals dictating that my kids can only be raised in a state-approved manner.

I DON'T want my kids growing up in a lawless society having no respect for others, and lacking empathy.

Sweden makes a great example of where anti-correction laws will take us, since it was among the first. How anyone can support this socialist experiment after seeing the end results there astound me. I suppose children aren't important to them....

[idb]

...
I don't care what your opinion is.
....

Why bother expressing yours at such length then?

[devnull]

Why bother expressing yours at such length then?

Maybe I didn't write that as well as I could have...

Basically, I don't think everyone has to hold the same opinion that I do, nor do I think I have any right to force my views onto others...

I object to people that feel that they have the right to do that, and refuse to allow those people to involve my kids in a failed social experiment.
It's my job, as a parent, to protect them from such things.

I'm not saying you can't hold a view different from mine, just don't give me the "we know best" crap even in the face of overwhelming data that the self-appointed "elite" are clearly wrong, and try to ram it down my throat.
Over 80% of the country appear to feel the same way I do....

[Winston001]

There is no shortage of data available out there if you want to educate yourself on this issue - but it isn't my job to do that for you.

Fair enough, how about some links please.

Anyway, if this debate has highlighted anything, it's that some people willingly favour their own opinions to the point of obsession, disregarding all research that doesn't coincide with their beliefs. Thus, the anti-smacking mantra is a pseudo-religion, favouring social experimentation over established fact.

There is no anti-smacking mantra. There is no law which mentions smacking. The only place where blind obsession appears is in discussions like this - and on the Family First site.

All I want is LESS govt involvement in my life, not more.

I DON'T want a group of childless lesbians and convicted criminals dictating that my kids can only be raised in a state-approved manner.

I DON'T want my kids growing up in a lawless society having no respect for others, and lacking empathy.

So you don't think children deserve the protection of the law??? And anyone who says otherwise is a lesbian??? And you require the right to hit your kids so they learn empathy??

[Ms Piggy]

I don't wish to change your mind.
I don't care what your opinion is.

There is no shortage of data available out there if you want to educate yourself on this issue - but it isn't my job to do that for you.
Anyway, if this debate has highlighted anything, it's that some people willingly favour their own opinions to the point of obsession, disregarding all research that doesn't coincide with their beliefs. Thus, the anti-smacking mantra is a pseudo-religion, favouring social experimentation over established fact.

All I want is LESS govt involvement in my life, not more.

I DON'T want a group of childless lesbians and convicted criminals dictating that my kids can only be raised in a state-approved manner.

I DON'T want my kids growing up in a lawless society having no respect for others, and lacking empathy.

Sweden makes a great example of where anti-correction laws will take us, since it was among the first. How anyone can support this socialist experiment after seeing the end results there astound me. I suppose children aren't important to them....

Okay then.

[devnull]

Fair enough, how about some links please.

Try Beckett's "Child Deaths in Sweden: The Swedish Myth" already uploaded here: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=61539

There is no anti-smacking mantra. There is no law which mentions smacking. The only place where blind obsession appears is in discussions like this - and on the Family First site.

Actually, the phrase "anti-smacking bill" came about because that was what it's author called it.

So you don't think children deserve the protection of the law??? And anyone who says otherwise is a lesbian??? And you require the right to hit your kids so they learn empathy??

Now the straw man argument.
Children were ALWAYS protected under the law.
They are also protected by their parents.
However, now we have a situation where parents have to protect their children from the state.

Some other research to look up and read:
Millichamp, Otago Uni (2006)
Larzalere (numerous journal publications)

Statistics that make for interesting reading would be things like Sweden's serious youth crime rates and the industry that's sprung up regarding seizing and "relocating" children. The sexual abuse rates are abhorrent.

And you have the gall to imply that the predominantly left-wing group, in which the majority are childless and have a higher lesbian concentration that the national average, have all of a sudden become experts on my children, and that this elite group have the right to dictate to the rest of us? Of course, it's OK to say that anyone that smacks their child's hand is a child abuser though, isn't it...

Does that sound like a democracy to you?

Or that the author of the bill, a known criminal with numerous convictions, is a model parent?
I'm concerned that someone with that many convictions can even get into Parliament - why the hell isn't there a minimum standard?

The real child abuse indicators have been around for years - this attacking good parents is a touchy feely smoke screen.
It's nothing more than a U.N. suckup.

See http://www.voteno.org.nz/ for more info - poll results, FAQ, etc.

Bradford's latest interview is linked off there too - most likely for comedic value

Why am I so passionate about this?
Because I have young children that I don't want to see ending up like the Swedish kids. Neither do I want to see them injured or killed by the spawn of some scumbag that was too lazy to give their kids the love, attention, and BOUNDARIES that good parents should...

[jono035]

and have a higher lesbian concentration that the national average

This is interesting reading all told, but the lesbian cracks sound a liiiiitle on the looney side I'm afraid...