'Smacking ban' to be passed?

[Winston001]

Laws against smacking are not, repeat not, going to put a stop to chronic physical abuse. Who ever thought before a hot blooded killing, that murder is illegal, even when provoked??

Likewise, who ever thought stealing was a criminal offense first? No one.

I understand your point but disagree. Society has had laws against murder and stealing since before recorded history. Yet these crimes are still committed. In the face of that, should we just abandon all criminal laws? Let people do what they like because they "might" do it anyway?

Of course not. The only reason we have a society at all is because the vast majority of people stick to the rules because that provides a stable safe life for them.

As for the smacking, there is a lot of hysteria surrounding this. The main point is to have a social rule that bashing your kids is unacceptable. This is actually a new idea in some families and it will take a couple of generations to sink in.

Yes, there will always be a few pricks and bullies but is that any reason to give up on protecting children?

[Winston001]

The biggest mischief in this will come when relationships break up. Regardless of how private it may be, the open handed slap on the bum, is now a crime.

So when a relationship breaks up, and the partners get nasty to each other (as they do), one or other is going to throw in an accusation of criminal assault. And whilst a two year old may not be able to tattle, the same two year old two or three years later may still remember that "Mummy/Daddy hit me", when interrogated by those counsellors and psychologists who love to put words into childrens' mouths. Enter CYPS , exit any access to your children.

In the whole debate over the new law, this is the only point I'd agree with. Sadly you are right Ixion. Separated people will allege child abuse - but unfortunately what's new? They do that already. I had it happen to a mate who couldn't see his daughter for 3 months, until finally the mother admitted it wasn't true!!

The vagaries and viciousness of divorced parents is no reason not to do the right thing as a community.

[TLDV8]

Excellent policy.

The majority would would sit down and explain what a child had done wrong with the option in severe cases of smacking the child.

A minority beat and shake their children when they could leave the room,returning when they have come to their senses..Be that from stress,impatience or otherwise.

Some bunny hugger then comes up with a policy that will only affect those who were not the problem.

No doubt it's the same person who thought making vehicle registration non lapsing would get those who did not bother to suddenly start registering said vehicles.... Don't start me on firearm's.

Like a lot of things these days......Dealing with the symptom,not the cause...and it is worldwide.

Hmmm..

You can not smack a child.
You can not punish school children.
You can not punish at high school level.
The Police have minimal powers due to the law.
Commit a crime,get diversion.
Next stop..Hello Adult with integrity/respect built on sand.

[MSTRS:Me]

Yes, there will always be a few pricks and bullies but is that any reason to give up on protecting children?

Protection was already there. Removing the 'reasonable force' clause without replacing it with something better defined (like "an open handed smack on the buttocks is OK") is simply lowering the crossbar to no good purpose. Nothing will improve - quite the contrary.

[Winston001]

Could it be so that they are not seen to be anything but impartial upholders of the Law that will let the courts deal with it??

The police daily decline to investigate complaints made to them on the basis of insufficent evidence or being a waste of time.

Lets be clear about Section 59 of the Crimes Act. The general law is that any touching or force applied to another person without their consent is assault. So if you hit your neighbour's child around the ear for being a cheeky little prick, that is assault.

But Section 59, until now, provided an exception for parents. If the neighbour hit his child instead of you, he'd have nothing to fear because he was exercising reasonable force in discipline.

Why was that? Both actions are clearly an assault. The previous law was an ass.

In the broader picture, the law said to the community that it wasn't acceptable to assault adults but perfectly alright to assault children - the smallest and most vulnerable people among us. That was nuts.

[Pwalo]

I don't get this piece of legislation. We already have laws in place that are adequate to deal with assault.

If you commit an assault against another person (be they male, female, young or old) you can already be charged under the existing laws. Parents have been.

I can't see how legislation such as this assists anyone but lawyers. It may make us look good in the eyes of the UN, but it just seems ill considered, or even worse stupid.

Legislation will not make a problem go away. All I can see that it will succeed in doing is adding another casue of anxiety for middle class parents, and another minefield for the family courts. Oh joy.

[mstriumph]

If you don't leave a mark and nobody sees you do it, how on earth are you going to get into trouble for smacking an under-two-year-old? They can't talk intelligibly enough to rat on you, and by the time they can, they will have forgotten it happened.

now THAT is 'pragmatism'

LOVE IT!!!

[The Big J]

I used to share the sentiments of those who felt this law was PC Bullshit but having listened to a debate by Peter Dunne and Sue Bradford was surprised at how reasonable most of the steps seemed. Given the stretched state of CYFS and police to investigate cases an ability to draw the line at clearly ‘unreasonable force’ I think, is needed.
The catalyst for the legislation was the case of the mother who hit her child with some sort of wire cable who was able to defend the use under ‘reasonable force’. I would venture that very few NZers would accept that definition but with a good defence lawyer semantics can easily be argued. The law needs to be changed.
Taking away the leg to stand on for abusers allows police powers to intervene when clearly in this country it is clearly necessary in some cases. Proponents of the bill have clearly stated that the target is not your average smack on the bum. While many put this down to a bleeding heart liberal stand (and they may have a point to a degree), what about the damage done by allowing offenders of assault to hide behind this law? I will gladly give up my right to hit any children legally provided I see some of those cowards who abuse their children challenged and punished, severely.
Anyone campaigning for the right to discipline their child with physical force (which I agree with) should be looking at a way to define a principle where force can be applied in a parental way which will not lead to the flagrant abuse that goes with it. Not all children are lucky enough to live in a house where smacking is done with love and restraint. Not all adults have the self-control to smack effectively or purely out of discipline not anger.
Rant out.

ps while typing this some of my points have been made by others

[Ixion]

Of course. But if Family Court judges are stupid enough to let the kind of overtly manipulative situation you describe affect their judgement, then, well... I weep for society's lost sanity.

Weep. 'Twill offset the laughter of the lawyers on their way to the bank.But why condemn the judges. Parliament has now defined your "couple of slaps on the bum prior to their second birthdays" as criminal assault. If there is evidence of assault, a serious criminal offence punishable by imprisionment, the judges MUST take notice of it.

[mstriumph]

physical punishment when a child is over the age of two is lazy parenting

.. but there's nothing more effective than a short, sharp slap on the wrist to deter a little hand under that age that's reaching out towards a hot oven door ....

just my opinion

[The Big J]

physical punishment when a child is over the age of two is lazy parenting

.. but there's nothing more effective than a short, sharp slap on the wrist to deter a little hand under that age that's reaching out towards a hot oven door ....

just my opinion

that's allowed under the new legislation

[bobsmith]

Haha, if your kids are so stupid that they can't understand anything more intelligent than physical punishment, you should go jump off a cliff with your kids to protect the gene pool.

[oldrider]

I never bashed my kids. (never wanted to)
I know there is a consequence in criminal law should I have ever done so.
That does not intimidate me.
What would intimidate me would to have been judged by my children to have been guilty in their minds of having been criminally violent towards them during the time that they were in our care.
Their love and respect toward me and their mother for caring and guiding them through to adulthood successfully (in their minds) to now caring and nurturing their own children is all the reward and judgement that matters to me.
I don't need or want bloody government PC do gooder bastards in my home telling me how and where when or what I must do to raise my children.
Neither I nor my family belong to the government and as long as I abide within the laws of the country I do not want them in my life telling me what to do.
This anti smacking bill is just another excuse for government encroachment into the privacy of every ones home. There are enough laws now to deal with criminal behaviour.
Do you really want people like Sue Bradford and the bloody greens in your house telling you how to behave? For gods sake the woman is a bloody dead beat send her home to run her own house the way she wants and leave everyone else alone to run their own houses. (within the current and adequate laws that exist now!) Stupid bitch.
Really pissed off with these interfering PC do.......rant over! (bastards) John.

[Ixion]

As we can see from the Headley case, it already does. Why accuse your ex of smacking, when you can accuse them of worse?

Simple enough. Very rarely will the "worse" allegations be true, and they can often be disproved (admittedly , at great financial and emotional cost).

But there will be many, perhaps most parents, good and loving ones, who will still, law or no law, resort to a time honoured (literal) slap on the wrist or leg . Which is now a serious criminal offence. The proponents of the Bill weasel round this by claiming "oh no, that's not what we mean". But mean it or not that's what the Bill does.

See a child poking a fork into the electric outlet , yet again, and administer a quick slap on the hand "No- bad , dangerous, I told you before" And you can go to gaol.

So henceforth, the allegations will be true. Which makes them much easier to make, and harder to disprove. As for the "oh the police won't take any notice" waffle. Bull excrement. Tell that to mr Carvell. People WILL go to gaol.

[The_Dover]

I dunno, I don't recall ever getting a hiding as a kid but there were times when I deserved it.

In fact if my old man could see me now sometime I reckon he's give it a go.

BUT, this is going to do absolutely fuck all in the fight against abuse and the result is that we're gonna see more and more disgusting little oiks walking the streets because they rule the roost at home and have no respect for authority.

Fuck, I'm 27 and I walk around going "Yound people these days"

That's what is sad.