Second Rotorua child hospitalised

[Albino]

It is so acceptable to draw a line between the genders when talking about abuse but doing this with race is a big no-go. How about some consistency, if race isn't a factor then neither is gender.

I agree it is an NZ issue, and the fix isn't to ask women if they've experienced abuse (or criticism as per the survey). The fix is to change the culture of NZ and that is not done via enforcement as many of us have argued in regards to the road toll.

BUT how do you change the culture of a country that has many cultures within? Do you need to have different plans for different ethnic and cultural groups or do you treat everyone the same? And if one of those cultural groups is massively over-represented in the statistics do you give them higher priority?

[_Shrek_]

I still think the anti-smacking law should be given a chance..it ain't gonna stop all abuse but may hopefully nip some things early and save some kids.............we do not and never will live in a Utopia society........at least the Bill is 'trying'.....

you either don't have kids or you're a bleeding heart liberal... the anti-smacking law has just made good parents criminals its not going to stop the sick #*!$ from beating, torchering and/or killing their kids

i work i the community and i hear 5 - 16 yo kids telling their parents you cant hit us or you will go to jail this is what they are being tought @ school

the govt is taking over and telling us how to bring up our kids... and if you see who's putting forward the polices.... they either don't have kids or they made a complete stuff brining up their own... they want to use the rest of NZrs as ginnie pigs because they couldn't get it right them selves

its about time they started to send these AH to prison instead of telling them its ok we can help you on home detention etc & ra ra ra

[ManDownUnder]

It is so acceptable to draw a line between the genders when talking about abuse but doing this with race is a big no-go. How about some consistency, if race isn't a factor then neither is gender.

Agreed, but we have to be careful that in addressing it we don't aim to remove benefits given to one group... rather we need to aim to make sure both sides get that same level of benefit.

It's annoying that women get asked and not men, but logic says the 80:20 rule kicks in and the most benefit is to do what they have. That being said... I agree with you Albino - it's not right.

[Grahameeboy]

you either don't have kids or you're a bleeding heart liberal... the anti-smacking law has just made good parents criminals its not going to stop the sick #*!$ from beating, torchering and/or killing their kids

i work i the community and i hear 5 - 16 yo kids telling their parents you cant hit us or you will go to jail this is what they are being tought @ school

the govt is taking over and telling us how to bring up our kids... and if you see who's putting forward the polices.... they either don't have kids or they made a complete stuff brining up their own... they want to use the rest of NZrs as ginnie pigs because they couldn't get it right them selves

its about time they started to send these AH to prison instead of telling them its ok we can help you on home detention etc & ra ra ra

Yes I have a Daughter and no I am not a bleeding heart liberal.

Just don't jump on band wagons and prefer to see how things pan out before taking the reigns.

And the kids are right......parents should not hit their kids because they are just kids, still learning what is right and wrong, will challenge and often it is the parents issue not the kids......the Act protects kids rights....it is easy to forget that and we can also learn a lot from kids.

Often parents who stuff up are ideal in telling us how we can do things better. We don't learn from doing things right, we learn from doing things wrong.

[scumdog]

......the Act protects kids rights....it is easy to forget that and we can also learn a lot from kids.

We are yet to see if the act has protected ONE kid.

It HAS resulted in a parent/caregiver whatever being convicted (possibly ruining an otherwise clean record) of 'assaulting' a kid they were trying to discipline.

[devnull]

I still think the anti-smacking law should be given a chance..it ain't gonna stop all abuse but may hopefully nip some things early and save some kids.............we do not and never will live in a Utopia society........at least the Bill is 'trying'.....

Get real. Do you know that there was NO scientific basis whatsoever for the anti-smacking crap they spouted? All of Bradford's info was based on a paper written by Joan Durrant. The statistics were manipulated to reach a preconceived conclusion - the paper has been widely condemned. (The British Journal of Social Workers carried an article called "The Swedish Myth" that has the correct statistical info.)

There is, however, a lot of evidence to show that the anti-smacking brigade was incorrect in their assumptions (the most recent being the Otago Uni study).

I loved the way they glossed over the massive youth crime increases in Sweden as a result - did you know that now only 31% of older kids (10-12 year olds) in Sweden think parents have the right to ground them?

The Canadians (Durrant is Canadian) threw out the anti-smacking proposals.

This bill was all about controlling parents through their kids - look around and see how many parents are too scared to parent their kids for fear of retribution.

[Grahameeboy]

We are yet to see if the act has protected ONE kid.

It HAS resulted in a parent/caregiver whatever being convicted (possibly ruining an otherwise clean record) of 'assaulting' a kid they were trying to discipline.

It is early days....

Don't know that case you highlight, however, most offenders have a clean record (also means not being caught) and I still do not agree with physical discipline on kids.

[Grahameeboy]

Get real. Do you know that there was NO scientific basis whatsoever for the anti-smacking crap they spouted? All of Bradford's info was based on a paper written by Joan Durrant. The statistics were manipulated to reach a preconceived conclusion - the paper has been widely condemned. (The British Journal of Social Workers carried an article called "The Swedish Myth" that has the correct statistical info.)

There is, however, a lot of evidence to show that the anti-smacking brigade was incorrect in their assumptions (the most recent being the Otago Uni study).

I loved the way they glossed over the massive youth crime increases in Sweden as a result - did you know that now only 31% of older kids (10-12 year olds) in Sweden think parents have the right to ground them?

The Canadians (Durrant is Canadian) threw out the anti-smacking proposals.

This bill was all about controlling parents through their kids - look around and see how many parents are too scared to parent their kids for fear of retribution.

I have my view and as a previous post said we should not compare ourselves to other Country's.

Parenting is not a science so would not like to think we rely on scientific data which can also be manipulated.

I am not saying you are wrong or right, just think we should give it a go and if doesn't work we re-visit.........the only issue with the Law is the potential for what some people may consider is an unfair prosecution but that is what the Courts are for and it is a well know fact that a lot of child murders are committed by family members.

Getting real is not expecting a Utopia Law.

[devnull]

The 2001 UNICEF study into child abuse mirrored the results of the 1987 Greenland one.

The primary risk factors were:

‘Aged 20 or less at the birth of their first child’, ‘Single parent/separated; partner not biological parent of child’, ‘Socially isolated—frequent moves—poor housing’, ‘Poverty—
unemployed/unskilled worker; inadequate education’, ‘Abuses alcohol and/or drugs’

Earlier this year, the UN produced an agreement at one of their meetings called the "DOHA Declaration for the Family". Signatories were committing to strengthening families and communities. NZ refused to sign.

Socialism and having stronger family and community ties are opposites - the state should be all anyone needs. Why on earth would anyone want to repeat a social experiment that has already failed in other countries?

As long as they insist on creating a nation dependent on the govt for support, it won't change. Personally, I'm already planning to vote with my feet. I don't want my kids growing up in a country that is finding it necessary to search kids at school for weapons and drugs

[ManDownUnder]

We are yet to see if the act has protected ONE kid.

Yeah - like that's ever going to happen. It may have protected 100's... proving it is mission impossible. How do you ever prove that intervention prevented something from happening?

I turned left today after averaging 2kph less than I normally travel for the last 5kms. Did I prevent an accident?

That said i personally have trouble with the Act. I see it turning good parents into self doubting adults, and I am willing to bet those that beat the snot out of their kids don't see the change in law as anything they're going to suddenly stop and think about once the red mist comes down and their temper pushes them rapidly to 'that point"... again...

As previously posted. People need to stand up in the defence of the kids. Wider family or non family... GET INVOLVED.

Dare I say it... ... give a damn...

[peasea]

The 2001 UNICEF study into child abuse mirrored the results of the 1987 Greenland one.

The primary risk factors were:

‘Aged 20 or less at the birth of their first child’, ‘Single parent/separated; partner not biological parent of child’, ‘Socially isolated—frequent moves—poor housing’, ‘Poverty—
unemployed/unskilled worker; inadequate education’, ‘Abuses alcohol and/or drugs’

Earlier this year, the UN produced an agreement at one of their meetings called the "DOHA Declaration for the Family". Signatories were committing to strengthening families and communities. NZ refused to sign.

Socialism and having stronger family and community ties are opposites - the state should be all anyone needs. Why on earth would anyone want to repeat a social experiment that has already failed in other countries?

As long as they insist on creating a nation dependent on the govt for support, it won't change. Personally, I'm already planning to vote with my feet. I don't want my kids growing up in a country that is finding it necessary to search kids at school for weapons and drugs

Where you off to? LA? Columbine perhaps? Waco?

Why not make a stand and try to help fix this place? If you bring your own kids up right and work hard there's not much you'll be short of in NZ. I can see some similarities between drunk driving and child abuse and as time is going by drinking and driving is slowly becoming less socially acceptable. When I was a teenager in the 70's it was almost a right of passage to be able to get home from a party pissed-as without getting plucked. Now it's frowned upon by most. People are becoming more responsible, in my circles anyway. If more people showcased the 'right' way to do things then maybe others will realize where they've gone wrong.

Turning our backs on drinking and driving won't fix the problem any more than leaving the country will fix child abuse or anything else.

[Winston001]

We are yet to see if the act has protected ONE kid.

It HAS resulted in a parent/caregiver whatever being convicted (possibly ruining an otherwise clean record) of 'assaulting' a kid they were trying to discipline.

If you are referring to the Christchurch case, the father pleaded guilty, and had previous unrelated convictions.

Honestly people, the whole "anti-smacking" line of argument is nonsence. What happened is that a defence in our law which allowed parents to use harsh discipline (horsecrop, fence picket, chains - all successfully defended) was removed. How could any decent person argue with that??

Murder is illegal - but it still happens. Why don't we just remove it from the Crimes Act - people are going to do it anyway.

Normally I'd cross the street to avoid Sue Bradford but on this matter I'm in full agreement. The whole point of the law change was to get the message across to all of NZ that hitting our kids is not OK. Our child abuse is frightful - anything which tells people to hold back, not hurt children, has to be good.

[scumdog]

Sue Bradford reinvented the wheel.

There was legislation already there that could have been utilised.

[ManDownUnder]

Sue Bradford reinvented the wheel.

There was legislation already there that could have been utilised.

OK but I don't want to explore that here. Too important an issue to drag off topic.

My focus has to be on NZ becoming a supportive community. Fuck it. I lived in Auckland... in a house 15m from the neighbour who we only spoke to... 10 times the whole 8 years we were there!

Anyone who knows me will tell you - you can't shut me UP! But something about the culture said "no - keep to yourself". That's such bullshit. we're in this together. Somehow we've adopted a culture that divides and conquors.

The Govt will supply. They will look after us. We no longer need to look after ourselves... let alone our neighbours. The Govt is looking after them too... right?

Pack of bumwipes.

[peasea]

OK but I don't want to explore that here. Too important an issue to drag off topic.

My focus has to be on NZ becoming a supportive community. Fuck it. I lived in Auckland... in a house 15m from the neighbour who we only spoke to... 10 times the whole 8 years we were there!

Anyone who knows me will tell you - you can't shut me UP! But something about the culture said "no - keep to yourself". That's such bullshit. we're in this together. Somehow we've adopted a culture that divides and conquors.

The Govt will supply. They will look after us. We no longer need to look after ourselves... let alone our neighbours. The Govt is looking after them too... right?

Pack of bumwipes.

Who are the bumwipes exactly?

When it comes to neighbours.......
I have neigbours I don't speak to, not becuase I don't like them just because I never have. The old codger next door I've spoken to about three times in five years, so what? He's probably not into bikes and I certainly don't give a flying fig about his garden. We mind our own business and respect each other's privacy.