Sue Bradfords Anti-Spanking Bill

[Lou Girardin]

The Greens latest piece of social engineering has passed it's first reading in Parliament last night. For those who aren't aware, the bill seeks to remove the defence of "reasonable force" to charges of assaulting your children.
It appears that Ms Bradford suffered a case of the vapours when a jury found a woman not guilty of hitting her child with a riding crop.
So. in true schoolmarm manner, she wants all parents to be placed at risk of an assault charge for smacking their kids. Although she assures us the Police will not be charging parents for that. Yet, that's exactly what happened in Sweden when they enacted the same law.
Which makes me wonder what the point of this bill is.
And from a purely reactionary, grumpy old fart viewpoint, I think kids should be beaten a lot more. Especially during school holidays. Or as we call them in retail, hell daze.

[Storm]

Damn right. Just another airy fairy F^*king politician telling us how to raise our kids. She can just-oops, this is a family forum, but I'm sure you all get the idea

[SixPackBack]

If we take away smacking, what do we replace it with. That has always been the biggest issue with the anti smacking brigade.
Bleeding hearts srike again!

[James Deuce]

As parents there is very little you can do without putting yourself in line for some serious trouble in all endeavours that you undertake with your children.

My wife has worked with colleagues who have no hesitation in using CYFS or other social agencies to "discipline" husbands and fathers who disagree with a course of treatment for a child, make a trenchant observation about the standard of care being delivered, or the heinous crime of bathing their own 3 year old daughter. I shit you not. Not a single one of the relationships survived the subsequent investigation. It is VERY easy to prove that a parent is abusive, particularly if they have gone years without proper sleep, nutrition, and exercise. MAkes one grumpy don;t you know.

Now I can get arrested for restraining my child if he tries to play in traffic. Once again I shit you not. There was a case of that in the Hutt, when one of Heather's "colleagues" dobbed a Dad in for chasing a kid into traffic, retrieving him and then yelling at him. Apparently he used too much "force" to remove him from harms way.

I give up. Just punch the next social worker in the face and get it over with if you are a parent. That way you'll get access to the help you "need" without the preamble.

[Pixie]

If we take away smacking, what do we replace it with. That has always been the biggest issue with the anti smacking brigade.
Bleeding hearts srike again!

You are supposed to reason with the child,(a two year old for example)
and get a creature, who until it reaches the age of 7,is totally egocentric,to understand that your feelings are more important than his/hers.
Easy!

[madboy]

From my first hand experience with CYFS (and I was the supposedly "innocent" parent), I'd say they must all be Green voters. I've never met a bunch of namby-pamby politically correct twats in all my life. Sure, as individuals most of them were lovely people, but the processes they work through and the way they go about things make the PC Brigade look like hairy-chested 1950s coal miners.

Implying the Police use common sense and judgement in enforcing an overly strict law is a complete farce. Many in the 5-0 use no more common sense and judgement than a goldfish (no offence to goldfish). Yeah yeah, so some use common sense, but chances of coming across one are 50/50. I've seen the damage that do-gooder pigs can do to me personally based on an overly zealous interpretation of bullshit policy, I'm f***ed if I'm going to accept those bastards having any say in how I raise my child.

[MSTRS:Me]

If we take away smacking, what do we replace it with. That has always been the biggest issue with the anti smacking brigade.
Bleeding hearts srike again!

Legalise using the business end of a cattle prod to all do-gooders. That'll help with the frustration that parents will be enduring by not being able to control their children. Watch the section get reintroduced (if removed)

[Milky]

Now I can get arrested for restraining my child if he tries to play in traffic. Once again I shit you not. There was a case of that in the Hutt, when one of Heather's "colleagues" dobbed a Dad in for chasing a kid into traffic, retrieving him and then yelling at him. Apparently he used too much "force" to remove him from harms way.

That is one of the things that irked me about the repealing of sect 59. It would be an offence if you bruised/injured/dislocated the young'uns arm while pulling him/her back from the path of an oncoming car.
It shouldn't be legal to discipline the kid with a sledge hammer then claim reasonable force, but the solution to this is not to repeal sect 59 but rather to define the meaning of reasonable in clearer terms.

[Badcat]

As parents there is very little you can do without putting yourself in line for some serious trouble in all endeavours that you undertake with your children.

My wife has worked with colleagues who have no hesitation in using CYFS or other social agencies to "discipline" husbands and fathers who disagree with a course of treatment for a child, make a trenchant observation about the standard of care being delivered, or the heinous crime of bathing their own 3 year old daughter. I shit you not. Not a single one of the relationships survived the subsequent investigation. It is VERY easy to prove that a parent is abusive, particularly if they have gone years without proper sleep, nutrition, and exercise. MAkes one grumpy don;t you know.

Now I can get arrested for restraining my child if he tries to play in traffic. Once again I shit you not. There was a case of that in the Hutt, when one of Heather's "colleagues" dobbed a Dad in for chasing a kid into traffic, retrieving him and then yelling at him. Apparently he used too much "force" to remove him from harms way.

I give up. Just punch the next social worker in the face and get it over with if you are a parent. That way you'll get access to the help you "need" without the preamble.

totally agree.
fucking PC gone mad.

[Fart]

Damn right. Just another airy fairy F^*king politician telling us how to raise our kids. She can just-oops, this is a family forum, but I'm sure you all get the idea

Too right.

Next thing will have the politicians telling us what time we can go to the toilet for a shit. I suppose they have to justify their existence.

[Hitcher]

Things must be going pretty darned well in New Zealand if all we are worried about is how parents should best discipline their children.

All this newage stuff shits me to tears, quite frankly. The number of times I've seen doe-eyed mothers trying to "rationalise" with a two-year-old who's having a tantie ("You got what you wanted 10 minutes ago, now it's my turn." "Why do you think that making that noise is making all of these other people watch you?") makes me want to reach for Hermann Goerring's revolver.

As a child I was sternly disciplined, when necessary, by my parents. However I generally knew that such measures were caused by something I had or hadn't done. I always knew that despite these interventions, they still loved me and I don't love my folks any less as a consequence. In fact I respect them more in some ways for the way that they were able to do this.

And then there were the beatings at school. I think I've turned out OK as a consequence...

But in these cases where children are beaten within an inch of their lives? Different story. Sue Bradford's Bill is close, but no cigar from me.

[Badcat]

Things must be going pretty darned well in New Zealand if all we are worried about is how parents should best discipline their children.

All this newage stuff shits me to tears, quite frankly. The number of times I've seen doe-eyed mothers trying to "rationalise" with a two-year-old who's having a tantie ("You got what you wanted 10 minutes ago, now it's my turn." "Why do you think that making that noise is making all of these other people watch you?") makes me want to reach for Hermann Goerring's revolver.

As a child I was sternly disciplined, when necessary, by my parents. However I generally knew that such measures were caused by something I had or hadn't done. I always knew that despite these interventions, they still loved me and I don't love my folks any less as a consequence. In fact I respect them more in some ways for the way that they were able to do this.

And then there were the beatings at school. I think I've turned out OK as a consequence...

But in these cases where children are beaten within an inch of their lives? Different story. Sue Bradford's Bill is close, but no cigar from me.

yep - totally.
of course, someone who beats a child is a criminal.
thewre's a big difference between a smack and a beating, and I KNOW that some fuckwits can't tell the difference, but FFS.....

[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

[spudchucka]

That is one of the things that irked me about the repealing of sect 59. It would be an offence if you bruised/injured/dislocated the young'uns arm while pulling him/her back from the path of an oncoming car.
It shouldn't be legal to discipline the kid with a sledge hammer then claim reasonable force, but the solution to this is not to repeal sect 59 but rather to define the meaning of reasonable in clearer terms.

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.

[MSTRS:Me]

Things must be going pretty darned well in New Zealand if all we are worried about is how parents should best discipline their children.

All this newage stuff shits me to tears, quite frankly. The number of times I've seen doe-eyed mothers trying to "rationalise" with a two-year-old who's having a tantie ("You got what you wanted 10 minutes ago, now it's my turn." "Why do you think that making that noise is making all of these other people watch you?") makes me want to reach for Hermann Goerring's revolver.

As a child I was sternly disciplined, when necessary, by my parents. However I generally knew that such measures were caused by something I had or hadn't done. I always knew that despite these interventions, they still loved me and I don't love my folks any less as a consequence. In fact I respect them more in some ways for the way that they were able to do this.

And then there were the beatings at school. I think I've turned out OK as a consequence...

But in these cases where children are beaten within an inch of their lives? Different story. Sue Bradford's Bill is close, but no cigar from me.

Agreed to that. We are all born with nerves (to transmit pain signals) the reason for which is to engender self-preservation. ie - if if hurts, don't do it again. Obviously, without condoning the use of jugcords & other such weapons of ass-destruction (sorry, Hitcher), an open handed smack is most effective in demonstrating the boundaries to a child. Said child(ren) not being recognised in law as being responsible for their actions until an arbitrary age in their teens, how are they to be reasoned with esp. in cases where mortal injury is imminent?