Child beaters, round two

[devnull]

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

Couldn't resist it... I get a bit sick of seeing the socialists labelling any parent that uses any form of force - time out, smacked hand, etc - as a child abuser, they do deserve a bit of their own medicine.

Although, when you look at Labour's caucus line-up before they were voted out...

On a more serious note, here's the process of how the referendum came about:

http://www.nzcpr.com/weekly185.htm

As you can see, it's pretty involved, and MP's are well aware of what's going on every step of the way.

If this referendum goes the way the polls have indicated, and the govt doesn't move to amend the law because the referendum isn't binding, how much patience will voters have?

If a govt tramples the will of the people, how will the people make them listen? After all, they are our appointed representatives, not our rulers.

[Winston001]

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

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?

I've already looked at Beckett's paper but it doesn't appear to have widespread academic support ie. peer review and extensions of the findings. Indeed there is a subsequent article in the British Journal Of Social Work which deconstructs Beckett.

Ad hominen attacks on people who have opposing views is unfortunate.

Democracy: Parliament composed of eight different political parties voted 113 to 8 in favour of the current Section 59. Despite the votes possibly lost by some of them. It would be hard to think of a stronger example of democracy.

[Hitcher]

Democracy: Parliament composed of eight different political parties voted 113 to 8 in favour of the current Section 59. Despite the votes possibly lost by some of them. It would be hard to think of a stronger example of democracy.

From memory the eight votes against were the Greens, bless them.

[devnull]

And National only supported the bill after they had subsection (4) inserted.

Labour didn't need National's support, they already had the numbers, but they wanted to have a "show of unity".

[devnull]

I've already looked at Beckett's paper but it doesn't appear to have widespread academic support ie. peer review and extensions of the findings. Indeed there is a subsequent article in the British Journal Of Social Work which deconstructs Beckett.

Errr... his isn't research. It's an article that cites research.
Quite a lot of research, actually.

What was the basis of the introduction of this extremely controversial bill in NZ?

1 research paper, by Joan Durrant.
(The paper has been widely discredited - statistical manipulation)

Ironically, Durrant tried to have a similar bill introduced into her own country, Canada.
It was thrown out.

The most recent research was done right here in NZ, at Otago Uni.
It was lauded as ground-breaking, yet it is ignored by a subsection of society because it doesn't fit with their political idealism.
And when political idealism is given precedence over real child abuse issues, it's a pretty sad indictment on the society involved, don't you think?

[Winston001]

What was the basis of the introduction of this extremely controversial bill in NZ?

1 research paper, by Joan Durrant.
(The paper has been widely discredited - statistical manipulation)

Agreed.

The most recent research was done right here in NZ, at Otago Uni.
It was lauded as ground-breaking, yet it is ignored by a subsection of society because it doesn't fit with their political idealism.

Millichamp, drawing on the world renowned longitudinal child study, concluded that the occasional smack does not appear to harm a child. I agree. So does the law. So do the police. So do the courts.

So why is there so much misdirection and emotion? A referendum over a something which the law doesn't mention? It's a non-issue.

[devnull]

Agreed.


Millichamp, drawing on the world renowned longitudinal child study, concluded that the occasional smack does not appear to harm a child. I agree. So does the law. So do the police. So do the courts.

So why is there so much misdirection and emotion? A referendum over a something which the law doesn't mention? It's a non-issue.

Therein lies the problem.

The law does NOT agree.
Good parents being held for questioning, undergoing CYFS investigations (permanent record), children being forced to live elsewhere, the alternative being having kids uplifted....

Clearly, this isn't a "non-issue" for over 80% of the population.

Only those with an agenda want this swept under the carpet, and the majority ignored.
In fact, if even one good parent has been affected, it's too many.
Though we know that far more than one has been adversely affected, don't we?

If we want to be absolutely accurate, Bradford made a criminal of every parent that uses any form of force for the purpose of correction.
If they are charged and convicted, their status changes - it goes from "criminal" to "convicted criminal"

Satirical look at the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfrwuBxc5w8

"Well behaved kids are prima facie evidence of child abuse.
If they are well behaved, they are being corrected. But correction is illegal.
Child abuse"

[Winston001]

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.

That is a point well made and as a society, that is what we should be discussing. Not middle-class angst over imagined persecution.

From memory the eight votes against were the Greens, bless them.

Nope.

Ayes 113 New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 4 (Brown, Donnelly, Stewart, Woolerton); Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1.


Noes 8 New Zealand First 3 (Mark, Paraone, Peters); United Future 1 (Turner); ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland, Field.

The law does NOT agree:
Good parents being held for questioning, undergoing CYFS investigations (permanent record), children being forced to live elsewhere, the alternative being having kids uplifted....

Clearly, this isn't a "non-issue" for over 80% of the population.

Only those with an agenda want this swept under the carpet, and the majority ignored.

If we want to be absolutely accurate, Bradford made a criminal of every parent that uses any form of force for the purpose of correction.
If they are charged and convicted, their status changes - it goes from "criminal" to "convicted criminal"

The concern held by the ordinary parent is that they mght be hauled off to jail if they give their child a light smack. I wouldn't want to see that either.

So - as posited earlier if 1% of children are smacked per day that equals 3000 smacks nationwide. Every day. Where are the legions of bewildered parents being dragged before the courts??

Where are all of these cases of good parents being held for questioning, undergoing CYFS investigations (permanent record), children being forced to live elsewhere.......?? Even Family First can only come up with 9 situations over two years.....and the man in Christchurch who has been held up as a shining example of parenthood swore at his kids, then punched one in the face.

That really convinced a lot of people. Tui.

[jono035]

if even one good parent has been affected, it's too many.

That is a pretty important point I think... The concept behind 'innocent until proven guilty' should really apply here too... I think a lot of people can't see this through the haze induced by the 'but think of the children!' viewpoints...

[devnull]

The concern held by the ordinary parent is that they mght be hauled off to jail if they give their child a light smack. I wouldn't want to see that either.

So - as posited earlier if 1% of children are smacked per day that equals 3000 smacks nationwide. Every day. Where are the legions of bewildered parents being dragged before the courts??

Where are all of these cases of good parents being held for questioning, undergoing CYFS investigations (permanent record), children being forced to live elsewhere.......?? Even Family First can only come up with 9 situations over two years.....and the man in Christchurch who has been held up as a shining example of parenthood swore at his kids, then punched one in the face.

That really convinced a lot of people. Tui.

Several points here...

Firstly, the law change allows carte blanche Care & Protection Orders on the basis that force has been used - in the past, they had to prove assault. With the law change, that's no longer necessary.

(C&P Order is required in order to uplift children from their family, and can be granted without the parents being aware of any action until CYFS turn up on the doorstep)

So what worries good parents?
Bad parents wouldn't be overly worried if their kids are uplifted. Good parents would be more than worried. Many would feel the need to take direct action. That is why this is so dangerous - the vast majority will do whatever is necessary to protect their kids. No matter the cost.

As for the guy in Chch, I'm impressed that an adult can "punch a toddler in the face" and leave not so much as a mark or bruise.
How disingenuous to make 2 allegations under a single assault charge, when the offender has already admitted to the lesser of the two allegations

Of course, one must ask, WHY was this amendment necessary?
It is poorly worded, bad law.

WHY is there support for such a bill, when it is political idealism, has no basis to improve abuse statistics (and was never intended to do so), and perhaps most damning, seeks to emulate a social experiment that failed miserably, destroying the lives of so many children in the process (Sweden)??

[Winston001]

Sorry Devnull, I don't doubt your sincerity or your good intentions. Smacking is not unlawful. Good parents are not losing their children.

People are losing their jobs in a recession. There are kids living on the streets in large cities. Drug abuse with associated robbery, violence, and hospitalisations is so common we hardly notice. Our trade competitors are locking their doors against us.

Any one of these issues is of far greater importance to us as a society.

[MisterD]

Smacking is not unlawful.

I disagree Winnie, the use of force for the purposes of correction is is specifically outlawed.

Good parents are not losing their children.

Good parents are in fear of having CYFS sicced on them - it has happened. Some of us won't be bullied though.

People are losing their jobs in a recession. There are kids living on the streets in large cities. Drug abuse with associated robbery, violence, and hospitalisations is so common we hardly notice. Our trade competitors are locking their doors against us.

Any one of these issues is of far greater importance to us as a society.

All true, but I disagree. This meddling of the state where it ought not to be has to be stopped early doors. Those of us of a liberal / libertarian viewpoint see this as the thin end of the wedge. Though they would never admit it, Sue Bradford et al believe the same...

[devnull]

Sorry Devnull, I don't doubt your sincerity or your good intentions. Smacking is not unlawful. Good parents are not losing their children.

People are losing their jobs in a recession. There are kids living on the streets in large cities. Drug abuse with associated robbery, violence, and hospitalisations is so common we hardly notice. Our trade competitors are locking their doors against us.

Any one of these issues is of far greater importance to us as a society.

Well there we disagree. As does the law, it would seem.
In fact, correction is specifically forbidden by law.


Using the economy, drug abuse, or health care to excuse the inexcusable intrusion of the state into familes doesn't cut it.
If you want to target those, then ask why, during record years, did the previous govt spend up large instead of building a financial buffer?

BTW, recessions are generally driven by falls in profit - depressions are driven by collapsing debt. The jury is still out on this one, but I don't think it'll be called a recession when all is said and done.

What did Helen Clark have to say on this issue?

Clark: "… they don’t want to see, ah, you know, stressed and harassed parents, ah, you know, called in by the police because they, they smacked a child, so I think there’s a debate to go on…"
Interviewer: "…right … so, you don’t want to see smacking banned…"
Clark: "Absolutely not! I think you’re trying to defy human nature."
- Helen Clark, Radio Rhema, Election Campaign 2005 (audio)

"She wants to busy herself with what goes on in the homes of the nation in areas which families regard as their own responsibility, and I think she's going over a very dangerous line."
- Helen Clark referring to Jenny Shipley 1999!