Smacking kids?

**lb99** · 22nd February 2007, 07:44

did you ever notice how the pro bill peoples say "HITting" (just like that, in caps and bold), and the anti bill people say "smacking"?

I think my kids will be OK, I have taken to punishing the lot for ones misbehavior, so they eventually meter out their own discipline, have you ever seen Full Metal Jacket?

but seriously, I think a lot of the bad behavior of teens and even younger kids, stems from the families lack of respect for authority, police, teachers, elders, bus drivers etc....

Being a fairly young parent of 4 children myself, I interact with their friends parents occasionally at school etc, and frequently come across appalling attitudes to authority figures being projected right in front of the kids, no wonder they have no respect anymore.

I think Sue Bradford might be a bit nuts, she said that if her bill gets watered down at all she'll withdraw it totally, because its not what she was trying to achieve.
She's on the right track, but going about it the wrong way, what they are trying to do is to eliminate the "reasonable force" argument that the scumbag lawyers always ride on in child abuse cases.
But by putting a blanket ban on physical discipline is the wrong way to go about it IMO, why not just define reasonable force?

Does a blanket ban on physical discipline extend to restraining a child?, ever tried to put a struggling 2yo in a car seat when the just don't want to go?, how about grabbing them and pulling them back when they are about to run onto the road/off a cliff etc...

to go to extremes, how long before a child cost you your job/ vetoed a family holiday/ prevented you from moving house/ remarrying, just because they "didn't want to" and you couldn't make them, I can feel the lawyers closing in already.
Some people could get very rich from this.

end transmission

**Squeak the Rat** · 22nd February 2007, 07:51

Originally Posted by lb99

to go to extremes, how long before a child cost you your job/ vetoed a family holiday/ prevented you from moving house/ remarrying, just because they "didn't want to" and you couldn't make them, I can feel the lawyers closing in already.

And the child custody cases - "he used to hit the kids".......

**Lias** · 22nd February 2007, 08:00

I got smacked as a kid, I got the wooden spoon every now and then and a belt across the arse once that I recall.

Others I know got the jug cord, the alkythene pipe, the metal ruler etc and that IMHO IS child abuse, let alone fists/kicking or worse.

I honestly dont see the harm in an open hand smack, or even a wooden spoon/hair brush applied to the arse a few times for major things.

I'll be smacking my kids as needed, law or no law.

**Guitana** · 22nd February 2007, 08:01

Anti smacking Bill what a load of fucken shit as if NZs parents don't have enough shit to worry about already!! What's next an anti masturbation bill because touching yourself is a sin????
I can see where Sue Bradford is coming from but this dose'nt require a law to govern it, this requires education!!!
Personally I dont smack my kids I dont need to they're scared of their UNHINGED father as it is!!!!
Part of the problem these days is the lack of respect towards adults from children!! You only have to walk into a college classroom to see the effect of no discipline!!! Kids today run amok in the classroom I don't know how teachers these days cope I really feel for these poor bastards they get treated like shit!! I dont know about you but just the threat of getting the cane back in the day was enough to keep you in line then of course there was the reputation of those teachers Usually the male ones and the stories of their super human caning technique.
Child abuse be fucked the poor old teachers are the ones getting abused and these little fucks know damn well they can't do shit about it!!!
Fear is a healthy thing it gives people boundaries take that away and you have chaos!! You only have to look at the fuckers that are causing the crime these days all products of the PC school system with no boundaries!!!
I bet if you looked at their school records they abused beat up and intimidated teachers with gay abandon with no threat of action!!!
Oh no they're going to expell me!!! Woop de fuck school sucks anyway!!
I'll just go join a gang and have some fun at the expense of the NZ taxpayer!!!
Wake up fuckers it's only going to get worse!!!!!!!!!

Bring back the bash, Buck Shelford for Primeminister!!!!!!

**Squeak the Rat** · 22nd February 2007, 08:06

Originally Posted by Guitana

they're scared of their UNHINGED father as it is!!!!

No shit!

95% of parents do a fine job and it is these people who will be affected by the bill. The other 5% won't give a shit.

But we have to do something because we have a horrendous child abuse record. Hey, let's classify a smack on the arse as child abuse, that'll make the figures look better! Oh, but we also don't expect the police to prosecute - they can make subjective decisions about which cases are important.

LABOUR (and greens - it goes without saying) - You are a bunch of morons.

**Ralph** · 22nd February 2007, 08:09

OK I'm no parent but I got smacked as a child and I turned out fine, most likely smack a child of my own as some have pointed out some kids respond better to a smack on the arse than other methods.

The only thing I see happening is innocent hard working good parents that put shoes on kids feet, breakfast in their stomach and drop them at school at the right time getting prosecuted for trying to teach discipline.

Can't see it having any effect what so ever on child abuse, the witch needs a

**idleidolidyll** · 22nd February 2007, 08:12

With some kids nothing else works.
Beating a child (abuse or assault) is one thing and should be prosecuted, smacking a child when all else fails is another.

This bill is ridiculous and despite those who say it won't criminalise parents, I am sure that the proponents of the bill will be looking hard for their first prosecutions.
Eventually, if it passes, total strangers with no idea whatsoever about the particulars, will be calling police and laying complaints. If a complaint IS laid, the police must follow it up: do the math.

**ManDownUnder** · 22nd February 2007, 08:19

3 things are converging here

An increase in child abuse (or maybe reported abuse) hitting the press... not sure if it's actually an increase in abuse or those with an agenda simply publicising things more to raise public awareness

The UN rights of a child to not be smacked (however that's worded) makes it en vogue to not smack

Sue Bradford has a past of being abused and I would fully expect being smacked or beaten is part of it. It's a very sensitive issue to her personally which explains her passion and determination... I have respect for people that believe in their cause - no matter what it is. Whether I agree with their passion is a whole different topic, and that respect is also tempered by their willingness to consider external challanges, and not simply carry on blind to their own predispositions.

Following a recommendation from Wolf about a year back I backed off on the smacking, reducing it from "as often as my parents did" toi really serious/urgent stuff only. When I'm angry - I call in the boss so she can deal with things. Kids need to know right and wrong - not a parent seeking retribution or in need of anger managment.

I'm convinced I never abused my kids anyway - but now I reserve a smack to when it's needed, on the spot, settled and done.

As FROSTY said - outlawing it isn't going to stop those that abuse now anyway, and taking a weapon to hand (a la Lias example) is outrageous. Whjy would you need a jug cord, length of alkathene pipe etc? No hurt your hand less (kind implies you're really whcaking them hard), or to inflict more pain... (kinda implies a bit of abuse there too)

The law change is over the top but has a basis in good intention and international trends. Outlaw smacking, watch the levels of reported abuse stay where they are, watch average parents get confused about what their rights are... and are not.

I forget the strict definition of assault, but I think it's along the lines of "trespass on a natural person" or something like that. I read some interesting stuff in Invetigate magazine where a number of QCs were asked if picking up a prtesting child and taking them to their room for time out fell into the definition of assault. A resounding yess from 2 of the 3, and a quite likely yes from #3.

Great. Now I don't know where I stand... so... that helped... NOT

I don't want this law passed. I think it's stupid for all the reasons outlined above. I also think we need less tolerance for prima facie cases of abuse. The definiton of that needs to be spelled out very clearly, and kids removed from families need to go somewhere safe (i.e. to a grandparent or other safe family member). I know it's not always that simple but I don;t pretend to have all those answers

**Squeak the Rat** · 22nd February 2007, 08:31

This may be a leap of logic for some people, but this is serious:

We're banning all levels of smacking because it is seen as child abuse. Well, child abuse can be mental as well as physical.

So we also need to outlaw mental abuse, surely - I would argue that's more important than physical abuse, because it's the mental side of the physical abuse that does the lasting damage.

So we also need to outlaw things like:

Put your child in solitary confinement (timeout)
Blackmailing your child with threats if they don't do what you want
Other parenting tricks which I'm not aware of.

Do you think that I'm stretching this too far? If you think so, would you have thought the same thing if i told you smacking was going to be outlawed 8 years ago?

**Guitana** · 22nd February 2007, 08:41

Originally Posted by ManDownUnder

3 things are converging here

The UN rights of a child to not be smacked (however that's worded) makes it en vogue to not smack

The FUCKEN UN !!!!!! Rights????? The UN is the biggest joke in the history of man a bunch of bloated beureuacrats sitting around a table doing fuck all but eat club sandwiches and talk shit what a fucken waste of time!! How long did it take these pricks to act while the Rwandans were ethnically cleansing their little slice of paradise??? They were all tied up in red tape and thousands of children were being hacked to death with Machetes by rabid militia!!!!
The UN needs a fucken smack in the head!!!!

**oldrider** · 22nd February 2007, 08:42

Originally Posted by Jim2

I'm with shafty.

it pays to think about poll questions a bit.

Wallop is too strong a word for a surprise tap with an open hand on a bottom that has turned off its reason centre.

Having said that, it is impossible to even raise your voice to a child in public without attracting a significant number of glares and the occasional intervention.

In my parent's day enough whacks with a strap to draw blood, or a cane for that matter, or maybe even a knife thrown at you was acceptable. In my day and open handed slap and some deafening shouting was the go.

Nowadays if you aren't wheedling and begging with your three year old you're a bad parent.

Kids aren't little adults. Their brains are missing bits, things that haven't joined up, and they haven't experienced enough physical and emotional pain to know that it is bad to dip your hand in the jar of Marmite you just heated in the microwave for 30 mins. I'd rather intervene and provide a scary memory than watch a child deglove a finger in a vat of superheated Marmite thanks. Wheedling doesn't teach right from wrong, any more than example does. teaching by example works from about 6 up IMO. Under that it's your job as a parent to scare kids out of being too stupid to stay alive.

I agree with Jim about the wording of our polls, I voted for walloping but that is not what I mean but I get the drift and I hate the STATE controlling my life in absolutely everything I do!

The STATE (crown, gov't, call it what you like) works for "US", the STATE belongs to "US" not the other way around!

The "GREENS" are only suitable for "COMPOST" so bury them before they bury us!

Bloody lunatic fringe!

John.

**Guitana** · 22nd February 2007, 08:51

Lets face it these kind of laws only affect the Law abiding citizens!!
Take the new Firearm laws for miliatary style rifles it only affected the law abiding citizens,did the crims get affected fuck no they didnt have a license in the first place and they still mange to get their hairy paws on assault rifles and illegal firearms. Fucken do gooders only trying to proove to the public they're actually doing something for the bloated paypacket they get every month!! They should shut the fuck up and go hide under a rock till the next election!!!!!!

**Dilligaf** · 22nd February 2007, 09:45

I am going to chime in here.... I smack my child - often when she has to choose a punishment (teddies going into time out, removing a star from her reward chart etc) she actually chooses the smack.

She also gets a smack on the count of five (i.e. if I have counted and actually say 5 then smack it is). This is in times of non-compliance, getting her to start obeying when she's been told to do something etc.
However, I have never smacked my child because they have got me wound up and frustrated that I lash out. And let's be honest here, that happens loads of times and you DO see it happen and that is the smacking IMO that changes this method of behaviour modification into something that doesn't work. (i.e. because I didn't explain that well, I mean that when they tell you that smacking is not a good behaviour modification tool, I reckon it's because they are tracking families who smack more out of frustration than as a deterrent). I believe that a child should always know that a smack is on it's way. If they don't then it's a fair standard to say that you are lashing out in anger / frustration - and No, that isn't going to work, it's going to make the child confused and angry at you.