"Ear Flick" Dad

[Winston001]

The true result of the anti smacking bullshit is yet to come,the endless undisciplined children of today will further stretch our over worked court system in years to come,far more than the real cases of child abuse have in the past/present and the reality is it will have made fuck all difference to those that have indeed been abused,if anything just a longer wait whilst the court deals with the pc bullshit.

You've struck the nail on the head. That is exactly the concern of most people who oppose the change of the law. The answer is - "discipline" does not require physical striking of a child. There are many other ways.

We waste time and resources on these cases but the real child abusers just keep on keeping on seemingly "UNCHECKED" until it's too bloody late!

John, I agree but despite the concerns of many people about the change, nobody has been convicted for a simple "smack". No more police resources are being used than previously.

Our deeper problem as a society is those families where physical harm is dished out to defenceless kids daily. They aren't going to change just because of the law. So in that sense the change to Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1962 is ineffective.

I do not have an easy answer or even understanding of why parents harm children. The new law is supposed to make the vast majority of good parents think about other ways of disciplining.

[Skyryder]

What started out by the anti smacking proponents that a gentle smack on the bottom is part of correct parenting and should in no way be legislated against. This gentle smack has now been incorporated by the same anti smacking proponents to include 'hitting' your child in the face as being an acceptable part of good parenting. I can come to no other conclusion too those who are in support of James Mason and believe that he should never have been charged let alone convicted. He was found guilty of ‘pulling his sons ear and ‘hitting’ him in the face.’ This to a FOUR YEAR OLD BOY. The jury got this one right.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Doesn't that law say that if it is to stop the child from harming themself then it is appropriate? There is no real definition other than police discretion. A freinds 4 yr old (at the time )spilt a large box of clothes powder on the floor. He was going through a stage of tipping out shampoo bottles etc. She smacked his butt. I got a phonecall as she was hysterical worrying cyfs will now take her son! I said Im sure if you read the fine print on the box it clearly states it has dangerous chemicals in it. The law is an ass. Sue Bradford is an asses ass.....

Yes there is.


The legislation allows for a smack in this kind of situation.

New Section 59

Section 59 states:

"(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of -

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

The anti smacking label is just a crock. There is no anti smacking legislation in this country. It is nothing but a smokes srceen put in place by those that believe God has given the parent the right to inflict pain on their children for any reason whatsoever.


Skyryder