Sue Bradfords Anti-Spanking Bill

**spudchucka** · 28th July 2005, 13:15

Originally Posted by Quasievil

they can pass whatever law they like in relation to this matter, the law says I must not exceed the posted speed limit also, get my drift

It will be a cold day in Hell that I as a New Zealander will follow any law proposed by that lefty mental radical bitch

Just make sure the lefties aren't in Govt come September and everything will be sweet again. (In terms of this socialist crap at least)

**skidz** · 28th July 2005, 13:21

Does Sue Bradford have a husband? If so he must be spanking her in all the wrong places.

**FROSTY:Me** · 28th July 2005, 13:24

Diversionary tactics leading up to the election.
The social experiment in sweden failed abismally so why duplicate it.
The bill has the greatest ramification as a weapon to be used in broken relationships.

**Ixion** · 28th July 2005, 13:31

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Not true as I see it, you still have a defence under section 48, Self Defence and Defence of Another.

The bill is bullshit though and as you say all they really need to do to relieve the problem is to clearly define what is REASONABLE force for parents to use to discipline their children. Clearly smacking is reasonable in the true sense, punching & kicking isn't. Niether is hitting with objects such as wood, canes, garden hoses etc, which some parents have gotten away with under the defence of section 59.

Is not such defintion, though, the task of the jury ? To define what a "reasonable" person would think "reasonable", under all the circumstances ? Not, admittedly, that I have much faith in the good sense of juries. But I have even less faith in the good sense of politicians.

It might also be considered excessive that a well meaning parent be subjected to all the stress and very considerable expense of a jury trial, to determine that their use of "force" was in fact reasonable.

Incidentally, I would like those who argue that "time outs" and such like are an alternative, to explain what they will do when the child decides to ignore the "time out". You can't forcibly make the child stay in room etc, since that involves force. Nor can you lock the door, since that also would fall foul of the law. No TV? What are you going to do when the child turns it on anyway. They can persist in turning it on longer than you can in turning it off. And you can't touch them at all.

The main justification put forward for the bill is that certain politicians did not agree with the conclusions of the juries in a couple of cases. Well, I don't always agree with juries either. And I'm sure that there have been some you've disagreed with . But that's the nature of trial by jury. Its the central tenet of our legal system.

Juries determine facts, not law. Changing the LAW because a politician disagrees with a jury's determination of FACT, is abuse of the constitutional process, IMHO.

**Big Dave** · 28th July 2005, 13:40

Just as well dogs don't have lawyers too. Ours has copped a boot up the date lots.

You have to smack kids occasionally. When they are too young to reason with and want to stick a fork in the power point - a tap on the back of the hand is the only way to get through to them. Bad thing.

I have a mate who wouldn't discipline their child. 'let him grow his way' they used to say. It's now 12 and a fuckin' psychopath.

**ManDownUnder** · 28th July 2005, 13:44

Originally Posted by Ixion

Is not such defintion, though, the task of the jury ? To define what a "reasonable" person would think "reasonable", under all the circumstances ? Not, admittedly, that I have much faith in the good sense of juries. But I have even less faith in the good sense of politicians.

It might also be considered excessive that a well meaning parent be subjected to all the stress and very considerable expense of a jury trial, to determine that their use of "force" was in fact reasonable.

Incidentally, I would like those who argue that "time outs" and such like are an alternative, to explain what they will do when the child decides to ignore the "time out". You can't forcibly make the child stay in room etc, since that involves force. Nor can you lock the door, since that also would fall foul of the law. No TV? What are you going to do when the child turns it on anyway. They can persist in turning it on longer than you can in turning it off. And you can't touch them at all.

The main justification put forward for the bill is that certain politicians did not agree with the conclusions of the juries in a couple of cases. Well, I don't always agree with juries either. And I'm sure that there have been some you've disagreed with . But that's the nature of trial by jury. Its the central tenet of our legal system.

Juries determine facts, not law. Changing the LAW because a politician disagrees with a jury's determination of FACT, is abuse of the constitutional process, IMHO.

Oh c'mon it's easy.

"reasonable" force would be up to (but not including) the point of making the child cry surely... coz that might cause them to learn something.

I have to admit I'm blessed in respect of my wife - being the ex primary teacher and natural "reader of thoughts of kids and animals". I have learned HEAPS from her.

When it comes to discipline - our kids get reasoned with, in age appropriate language, then tested - "Do you understand". Beyond that they a smack on the bum or sent to their bed for 5 mins or whatever.

No mess no fuss, the occasional tanty but - a kid's lot is to push boundaries - and the only way to keep the boundaries there is to push back - just hard enough so they don't move

MDU

**spudchucka** · 28th July 2005, 13:45

Originally Posted by Ixion

Is not such defintion, though, the task of the jury ? To define what a "reasonable" person would think "reasonable", under all the circumstances ? Not, admittedly, that I have much faith in the good sense of juries. But I have even less faith in the good sense of politicians.

Yes it is, under the direction of the Judge. However, there have been more than just a few cases where the Judge & jury have gotten it very wrong. I know from talking to child abuse detectives that parents routinely get off serious assault charges through the defence of section 59.

The section doesn't need to be repealled, it simply needs to clearly define what is and isn't reasonable to the point that juries can't make the sort of mistakes that have become quite common.

**MSTRS:Me** · 28th July 2005, 13:48

Anyway, as it was with the cane in schools, not all got a taste of it, but the potential for it's use was often enough. Any of the 'older' members here spent time in the 'lower ranking' schoolrooms of today. A hugely greater percentage of those young adults (cough) are conducting themselves in ways that would make you want to ...well, you get my drift. Knowing the punishment/discipline is there or not makes a big difference to behaviour. Why do we automatically look at our speed when we see a cop??

**ManDownUnder** · 28th July 2005, 13:49

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Yes it is, under the direction of the Judge. However, there have been more than just a few cases where the Judge & jury have gotten it very wrong. I know from talking to child abuse detectives that parents routinely get off serious assault charges through the defence of section 59.

The section doesn't need to be repealled, it simply needs to clearly define what is and isn't reasonable to the point that juries can't make the sort of mistakes that have become quite common.

Sounds like common sense getting in the way of a Political Career to me... you better watch your back....

**Wolf** · 28th July 2005, 13:51

We have a no smacking policy in our house - we use alternative means of discipline. However we wound up with CYF turning up accusing us of child abuse because the someone heard us yelling at the kids and so therefore told CYF we had beaten them. We are not able to know who dobbed us in because they are protected by anonymity but they out-and-out lied and said they had come round to our place and witnessed us beating the kids. Either that or the woman from CYF was lying to make it sound more menacing - "we have witnesses".

We were not believed when we said we hadn't beaten them and the woman who spoke to us (who was dressed like a hooker, I might add) was extremely condescending.

We wound up being put on a parenting course - which we enjoyed and found valuable and all - because they could find no physical evidence of any beatings but still didn't believe us.

Anyone else see the similarity between the way CYFS, the McCarthy Regime and the Spanish Inquisition behaved? To be accused is gospel proof of your guilt, all the most honest and upright members of society can be identified by the way they phone up the anonymous "Dob in a Fellow Citizen" line or whatever.

I am appalled by the way that these people have the power to come to you on the say-so of an anonymous caller and threaten to take action against you unless you jump through the hoops.

I love my kids and they know it. Having some Inquisitor turn up on your doorstep or accost you in the street because of hearsay and threaten to take your kids from you unless you toe the line is the stuff of nightmares.

Especially when you consider the number of kids sexually molested in the "safe" foster homes the CYFS sends them to - and, more recently, the ones where the "safe" foster parents have beaten the kid to death.

I am dead against child abuse - having been subjected to it as a child myself, and I would happily see children removed from an obviously dangerous place but there are those in CYFS who are nothing but power-tripping Nazis (I actually have a rather good friend who works for CYFS so I know they're not all Hermann Goerring clones) and they abuse that power, threaten people and treat people as "guilty until proven innocent" they protect spiteful people who lie to "pay back that bitch next door who always has the radio so loud, get CYFS on her, that'll teach her".

I will always classify CYFS as a bunch of self-aggrandising criminals until they toe the line with the law - allow the accused to know who their accusers are and contest the matter through proper legal channels, treat the accused with respect and dignity and treat them as innocent until proved guilty.

I know of several people who have had falling-outs with both Juliet and myself who would be prime contenders to call CYFS on us out of spite and make up all sorts of crap ("I was there yesterday and saw it with my own eyes" despite not having visited us for months owing to a trivial disagreement.) I have also heard back through the grapevine of someone who was actively trying to recruit other mutual friends into dobbing us in because CYFS need the complaints to come from three different sources. I know this person would have been one of the "reliable witnesses" quoted by CYFS ("Reliable" in this case means "continuous drug user whom we don't want near our kids")

**ManDownUnder** · 28th July 2005, 13:58

Originally Posted by Wolf

...We were not believed when we said we hadn't beaten them and the woman who spoke to us (who was dressed like a hooker, I might add) was extremely condescending.

We wound up being put on a parenting course - which we enjoyed and found valuable and all - because they could find no physical evidence of any beatings but still didn't believe us.

If it wouldn't cause so much grief - wouldn't it be fun to test them - set up a BS situation and put them through their paces - just to show how flawed the system is.

Let's say you ring an complain I'm beating my kids, you "witnessed it" just as the news was starting on TV1 (tie it to a time and a place). At that time I happen to have some friends over - members of the constabulary, who are gone by the time CYFS show up. This gives me an alibi, although not one immediately available.

you see where I'm going with this.

Problem is the kids get hurt and confused by whats going on - they're the pawns and that would shit me big time.

If CYFS ever showed up on my doorstep and said something like that - I'd just see red. I can see I'd want a friend or someone there to calm me down - which in turn would "add credibility" to the CYFS case.

... it's a tough one coz at the same time - I wouldn't want kids to stay in a house where there is abuse going on... and I expect those involved may be experienced at hiding it... and threatening the kids to convince them into lying about it too...

I don't envy them, but it's far from ideal either way

**ManDownUnder** · 28th July 2005, 13:59

Originally Posted by skidz

Does Sue Bradford have a husband? If so he must be spanking her in all the wrong places.

No - the bloke in the mirror is enough for her

**Ixion** · 28th July 2005, 14:06

Originally Posted by ManDownUnder

Oh c'mon it's easy.

"reasonable" force would be up to (but not including) the point of making the child cry surely... coz that might cause them to learn something.

..

When I was a wee lad, my great great grandmother (our family matriarch), who had very definite opinions on children ("seen and not heard, and that as little as possible"), had a trick for disciplining the wayward ones.

After a verbal ticking off (always very fair, explained what you did wrong, and why it was wrong, and established that you knew it was wrong) would come "And now you're going to get a spanking". Then she would bend the child over and, behind his back, clap her hands together loudly in the region of the childish posterior. Never touched the kid, but , at least half the time, kid would burst into tears. Reasonable force ? In fact, no force at all, but I'll bet CYPS wouldn't belive it (Mind you, I wish I could see any of them try to take on Gran. Her tongue should have been registered as a lethal weapon)

'Tis the discipline that does it , not the pain. I had my share of spanking as a child, can't say that any of them really hurt much, but most made me cry.