The Gummit sent me an envelope

[davereid]

Hell yeah! It is giving me the chance to vote for something I know nothing about apart from my upbringings in the 60s where a thrashing was a good thing.

Yeah, by the 80's it was getting difficult to find a chick who likes a good caning... nows its virtually impossible !

[Mully]

Before I vote... I have one question... Can someone please define... "smack".

While they're at it, can they also please define "good parenting".

The question is vague and misleading. A better question would be "Would you like to see a reinstatment of Section 59 etc?"

Not that it matters, cos the damn thing ain't binding anyway.

But the repeal of S59 was great - it's stopped kids being beaten by their parents and caregivers after all....... What??..... Oh, never mind

I view this like the alcohol thing - the repeal of S59 was a desire to have a simple response to a complicated problem (in this case people beating the living snot out of their children). Make it illegal and they wont do it, right?

IMHO, the courts should have been defining "reasonable force" (that's what the law entitled parents to use), and if they couldn't/wouldn't, then the Gubmint should have redefined it for them - i.e. "Reasonable Force is an open handed slap to the legs, buttocks, hands or arms." Smacking a kid with an electrical cord until they DIE is clearly not reasonable.

[Marmoot]

Write on the form can I smack you for spending our 9 mil on this and send it back

I want to smack Sue Bradford for getting us to spend 9 million on this.

[Hitcher]

I want to smack Sue Bradford for getting us to spend 9 million on this.

You'd be smacking her for the wrong reason, but hey, if it makes you feel better...

[Clockwork]

It's not about the right to smack,that's a media blow up.It's about low lifes beating the shit out of their kids - and getting off a charge by claiming it was discipline.It's about giving kids the same rights as adults.

I remember being told decades ago when there were human rights,womans rights and animal rights issues - that children would be the last to get equal rights.How right they were.....

Since when did society think children should have the same rights as adults? Should we let them drive, marry or have sex, vote, own guns. Maybe we shouldn't compell tem to go to school, maybe we should pay them the dole if they choose to opt out!

Hell, a large part of society is even complaining that eighteen year olds can buy alcohol.

Problem was that the Police enforced but the Court's did not.Kids are allowed to have meltdowns

What we seem to be forgetting here is that those "contentious" cases where parents were aquitted of beating thier kids under section 59 were judged by their peers. ie representatives of our own society. They sat through the case listened to the evidence and presumably felt the beating was justifyable and reasonable. So do we really want to let the likes of Sue Bradford second guess them?

[Marmoot]

You'd be smacking her for the wrong reason, but hey, if it makes you feel better...

What's your right reason? Did she have her grammar wrong?

[Nasty]

Hell yeah! It is giving me the chance to vote for something I know nothing about apart from my upbringings in the 60s where a thrashing was a good thing.

There is a difference between a thrashing and a smack and between a smack and a bollocking ... yup in the 70's it wasn't a bad thing to smack a child ... in the 90's it wasn't a good thing - but accepted as a correction way .. now it can't be done at all ...

Looking at the teens and some of the kids around now a good smack (shock factor not beating) might make them realise there are consequences to the actions.

I don't have kids .. don't want kids .. but will vote .. I am with the don't vote don't complain. But smacking to me needs to be done in the right place with the right attitude - and you can't legislate that. Smacking a kid in anger is wrong .. and won't achieve anything. But without anger - and with the right of mind - I believe that the shock for the child can sometimes achieve the outcome needed.

Blabber over .. but hmmm gives me food for thought for how I may vote.

[Grahameeboy]

Since when did society think children should have the same rights as adults? Should we let them drive, marry or have sex, vote, own guns. Maybe we shouldn't compell tem to go to school, maybe we should pay them the dole if they choose to opt out!

Hell, a large part of society is even complaining that eighteen year olds can buy alcohol.



What we seem to be forgetting here is that those "contentious" cases where parents were aquitted of beating thier kids under section 59 were judged by their peers. ie representatives of our own society. They sat through the case listened to the evidence and presumably felt the beating was justifyable and reasonable. So do we really want to let the likes of Sue Bradford second guess them?

Then clearly the offences were not contentious if NZ is saying that the general public i.e. peers think the Law is wrong.

[Clockwork]

I don't follow your reply. I suspect it's because the contentious cases I was referring to were the ones cited by the opponents of S59 when they had it repealed. ie Before the Crimes Act was changed, rather than the more recent ones since.

[ynot slow]

Think of those dominatrix people,they need your vote.

It's hard,my kids got a smack on the bum or hand,the marks left quickly so that was an indication of force/lack of it,and this was from us the parents only.Nine times out of ten they were good at grandparents or friends,better with other friends with kids they could play with.I believe you bring them up that they respect peoples homes,similar ethics we had as adults.

I agree it is simple to work out a smack or a beating,but some can't they should be made infertile,rather than breed.

[Disco Dan]

I am really confused with the question. The more I read it, the more it does not make sense.

I want to be able to smack my own children when they play up. I want my children to be able to do the same to their children.

Too many children are losing respect for adults - mainly those in authority like parents, teachers and Police. I believe this is due to softer rules/laws and parents moving away from smacking.

But at the same time I do not want to allow bad parents a loop hole to 'beat' their child black and blue and then get away with it.

[Jonno.]

Children need to be corrected. They need boundaries. You can't expect a child to have a time out in a supermarket. Just like you can't expect a child to pop out mum as a good person/citizen. The reform is a quick fix that punishes the rest of society who smack but don't beat their children. There are other laws that could be put in place (ie defining reasonable force), and banning something is not the way to solve it. People who abuse their children don't think about laws. If everyone obeyed the laws we wouldn't have prisons.

Also people who claim children need the same rights as adults. Well last time I checked it's not my job to raise adults. Society trusts me as a parent to make my children fit into the norm of society (obey the laws, get a job etc). Now I agree smacking isn't the only way, but it's one of many tools and parents need to keep their options open. Look at schools compared to 40 years ago. Aren't they just doing the best

[MisterD]

It's about giving kids the same rights as adults.

Yeah lets give kids the same rights as adults...to vote, drink, drive...

Someone needs to produce a "stupid anti-smacking argument bingo" card for these threads...

[EJK]

No doubt this has been debated on mass here on KB so Mods feel free to merge this.

I got an envelope today. Its asking me whether to vote for "Should a smack be" ....blah blah blah. You know the rest.

I dont have kids so what the heck gives me the right to decide what parent out there should or shouldnt do? Personally I say NONE!

I am a big believer in dont vote dont complain but this ones got me stumped.

Oh that letter? We recieved it too, but my father used it to lit up firewood.

[sidecar bob]

I discussed the contents of said envolope with my two kids, aged 7 & 9 & asked them what they thought should happen.
They both decided that they would rather allow the smacking, because is was considered less inconvienient than the alternatives.