The Evil Bastards come out of hiding again

[Toaster]

From police website FYI:

Six Month Review of the s59 Amendment (Anti-smacking Bill)
5:05pm 23 June 2008

Police have undertaken a second review of the amendment of section 59 of the Crimes Act (the Smacking Bill) covering the period 29 September 2007 to 4 April 2008.

This review covers a period of just over six months.

In order to make comparisons with the initial three month review, it is helpful to break down this latest review into two three month periods.

Police will continue to carry out six monthly comparisons from the next review period.

See table below:

http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/...ble-stats.html

During the first three months of the current review period, there was an increase in the number of smacking events attended by Police. The number decreased during the second three month period to levels similar to pre-enactment levels.

Deputy Commissioner, Rob Pope says even with the increase the numbers are still very small.

"A rise in smacking cases in the September to January phase will be driven by a number of factors including seasonal variation. This phase recorded the Christmas and New Year period, a traditionally stressful time for families and a time where incidents of violence increase across the board".

There was a larger increase in "minor acts of physical discipline" events attended by Police in both three month periods.

In total over the current six month review period, Police attended 288 child assault events, 13 of which involved "smacking" and 69 of which involved "minor acts of physical discipline".

All of the 13 cases involving "smacking" and 65 of the 69 "minor acts of physical discipline" were determined to be inconsequential and therefore not in the public interest to prosecute. Of the four cases prosecuted, one was withdrawn after successful completion of diversion and three are yet to be resolved through the Court.

The full review report can be accessed here:

http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/...tivity-review/

[BiK3RChiK]

Yes, but remember what is really important is what we teach the child - If we teach them "I can hit you to force you to do as I say" then they will grow up believing this, and then act it out.

It will take quite a few generations before this way of thinking is bred out, and for now there will a lot of feelings of inadequacy. We have no choice except to not smack.

Unfortunately, this type of behaviour very often isn't bred out, but, rather, becomes ingrained and entrenched, thus the cycle of violence becomes embedded in society. Just take a look at South Auckland and similar places around the country.

No amount of legislation will change how people will behave. It has to come from within.

[Clockwork]

Personally, I was against the bill before I'd read anything about it or heard anything about it. Why? It had Sue Bradford's name against it. Anything that spews forth from that harridan's mouth automatically gets placed in the "rantings of a deranged freak" category and gets treated with the scorn and ridicule it deserves. Pretty much anything said by any of the Green Party MPs can be guaranteed to be complete shite (although Stoner Nandor's announcements sometimes get quite amusing), but Bradford's simply beyond the pale.

And then my opinion of this Bill was re-inforced when Komrade Klerk decided to support it.

Green Party and Labour - fucking over New Zealand one day at a time!

Wouldn't want to burst your bubble but National supported the bill too.

[James Deuce]

They had no choice. I'm not supporting National necessarily, but it was made into a pro-violence against children, anti-violence against children issue. It isn't black & white, but those people what rule us and proposed da bill who fink we is fick presented it that way.

It was quite deliberate and designed to polarise views and make it unconscionable for anyone to oppose the Bill on its merits.

[RantyDave]

All of the 13 cases involving "smacking" and 65 of the 69 "minor acts of physical discipline" were determined to be inconsequential and therefore not in the public interest to prosecute.

In other words, the idea that ordinary parents would be turned into criminals is complete bollocks.

The bill was about removing an avenue of defence for people that like to hit kids. Did nobody actually read the damn thing or were you all busy buying the "oh noes!" hype and denouncing Sue Bradford as an ill educated slapper with a megaphone?

Dave

[RantyDave]

Unfortunately, this type of behaviour very often isn't bred out, but, rather, becomes ingrained and entrenched, thus the cycle of violence becomes embedded in society. Just take a look at South Auckland and similar places around the country.

Exactly.

No amount of legislation will change how people will behave. It has to come from within.

There's not a lot a government can do to effect change from within. But, yes, take a look at the last couple of weeks amusement in Auckland.

Dave

[MSTRS:Me]

I would have signed that petition if one had been put in front of me. And I tried to find it online to no avail.
Say what you like, the intention of the bill was honourable, except insofaras it further erodes parent's right to raise their children in time-honoured fashion. The only way that bill would have been palatable to the majority, was if 'reasonable force' was actually clarified (ie: open hand on buttocks). This is what National tried to get in, but were bullied into accepting 'light and inconsequential'....which really changed nothing, where lawyers still get paid for defending cases brought under the interpretation of the law.

[Toaster]

In other words, the idea that ordinary parents would be turned into criminals is complete bollocks.

The bill was about removing an avenue of defence for people that like to hit kids.

Dave

I agree with you. There has been a lot of misinformed gossip and emotional ranting about it.

[Manxman]

...yeah, and all the kiddie bashing has stopped now that s59 has been removed...Tui.

Everyone's a winner - not.

[mstriumph]

.................
They, presumably, believe they have the right to smack children around. This makes them evil bastards and, in many cases, the future parents of taggers, bike thieves, muggers, rapists and finance company directors.
..............

an infant - ANY infant within my reach puts it's hand out towards a hot stove or whatever and i see it - i'll smack that hand away

if that makes me an evil bastard, so be it


psssssst.. will it really make my kids finance company directors??

[RantyDave]

B]psssssst.. will it really make my kids finance company directors??[/B]

No, not really. It's not that bad.

[awayatc]

Personally, I was against the bill before I'd read anything about it or heard anything about it. Why? It had Sue Bradford's name against it. Anything that spews forth from that harridan's mouth automatically gets placed in the "rantings of a deranged freak" category and gets treated with the scorn and ridicule it deserves. Pretty much anything said by any of the Green Party MPs can be guaranteed to be complete shite (although Stoner Nandor's announcements sometimes get quite amusing), but Bradford's simply beyond the pale.

And then my opinion of this Bill was re-inforced when Komrade Klerk decided to support it.

Green Party and Labour - fucking over New Zealand one day at a time!

Surely it would be ok to smack Sue Bradbox then....?


Pleaaaaaase.......

[puppykicker]

so i take it everyone who considers this a bad law on the grounds the government should stay out of your business also supports overturning all anti-drug laws, permitting gay marriage, legalising child porn and prostitution, bringing back slavery, etc. etc. etc.

either that or you just think you should be allowed to hit kids...

[awayatc]

You must have gone to the same school as Sue Breadbox......

[puppykicker]

either you should legislate moral issues or you shouldnt, which is it going to be? or you can admit that you think they should only legislate things you consider to be immoral, in which case you need to sit down and shut up while the elected government goes about representing the people that voted for them.