Child beaters, round two

[Hitcher]

Ultimatley it is the public (juries) that decide what reasonable means, however in the case of child assault, the public (jurys) appear to have put the parents rights to assault, above all else, than punish the parent for inflicting injury to their child.

Even if the parent(s) is(are) innocent, they will still have state social workers all over them like a Hallenstein's suit and in all likelihood have their children confiscated by CYFS pending the outcome of any court case. Even then, our "justice" system will not regard them as "innocent", rather guilt unproven, as too will the communities in which they live.

Families are uniquely complex and private entities. Most work. Any law should aim to enhance this, not destroy it.

[MisterD]

No word of a lie, the bitch (sorry, there is no other word) said, "Section 59 was designed for people like you".

Section 59 has empowered bullies, radical feminists, and Government depts in ways that have nothing to do with courtrooms. It's just another weapon in a bully's arsenal. The threat is enough.

There is another word James, it's "facist".

[jetboy]

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

With any luck the government will look at the overwhelmingly strong "no" in the light of the question that was actually asked and it's complete irrelevance to the repeal of section 59 when telling the pitchfork carriers that they can't have their legal right to beat children back. Perhaps "should children be afforded the same legal protections as adults?" was a little too factually correct for the proposing parties. Or maybe even "since the repeal of section 59, has the sky actually fallen in?". Or "since the repeal of section 59 are the prisons crowded with middle class parents?". Or maybe even "Is it OK to hit a child with a riding crop?".

And if s59 comes back in, where do we draw the line? I smacked her? I smacked her with a paddle? I smacked her with the pipe off the vacuum cleaner? I smacked her for an hour and a half? I smacked her and sold the video to someone on the Internet? I smacked her and she fell down the stairs? All legal, you want your name on that?

The good news is that we have a new canonical example of a contradiction in terms: "smack" and "good parental correction".

So bring it on, child beaters. Register your ongoing interest in raising another generation of violent criminals with a red rep, just as before. It's the one with the, like, justice scales thing in the corner. Y.. Yeah ... that one.

Dave

If I ever have kids and I smack one of them becuase they were being naughty, I would hate to be labled as a 'child beater'. What the fuck is that about?

Was this bill not drafted to prevent the rediculously high levels of child assaults NZ has seen over the past few years? Funny that, after the bill passed, there were/are still cases of child abuse happening - just read the papers. So all this bill has done is criminalise parents using a correctional method which works.

Personally, when I was a little shit, I got smacked and I learned very quickly not to do whatever I did to get the smack again!, and I don't hate my parents for it.

The real child beaters out there are fucked in the head and will continue to beat their children whether this law sticks or not.

I would be more concerned if I saw a kid with a cigarette in it's mouth over a parent smacking a naughty child.

[Skyryder]

Even if the parent(s) is(are) innocent, they will still have state social workers all over them like a Hallenstein's suit and in all likelihood have their children confiscated by CYFS pending the outcome of any court case. Even then, our "justice" system will not regard them as "innocent", rather guilt unproven, as too will the communities in which they live.

Families are uniquely complex and private entities. Most work. Any law should aim to enhance this, not destroy it.

I have no knowledge of what you say but given the fact that when CYPS gets it wrong all and sundry are up in arms so even if what you say is true can you blame them for covering their arse??

I'm not too sure that I agree that families per se are complex however I have no doubt that some are.

I believe any law that reduces violence or it's causes, for any reason whatsoever, enhances society as a whole. I see no contradiction in this where families are concerned.

Skyryder

[MSTRS:Me]

No word of a lie, the bitch (sorry, there is no other word) said, "Section 59 was designed for people like you".

Obviously this woman has not matured enough to see beyond what is immediately in front of her. In that sense, she is child-like. I'm surprised you didn't invoke S.59 by giving her a smack...

[Skyryder]

There most definitely is...

This part in particular. I understand it to mean that a 'smack' is not allowed AFTER a naughty event. The preceding Part 1 is concerned only with the prevention of naughty/harmful behaviour.
And I still call for 'reasonable' to be clarified, in black and white.

(d) gives an out. Who says that the smack was for correcting. I can think of many situations in bringing up children where safety and all of (d) can be used as an excuse for a smack instead of correction.

Reasonable is subjective. It can not be defined in terms of black and white.

It's why the word is used so much in legislation.

Skyryder

[MSTRS:Me]

(d) gives an out. Who says that the smack was for correcting. I can think of many situations in bringing up children where safety and all of (d) can be used as an excuse for a smack instead of correction.

If the 'behaviour' has stopped, then you are NOT allowed to apply a smack or anything...Ms Bitch made that intent quite clear.

[Skyryder]

If the 'behaviour' has stopped, then you are NOT allowed to apply a smack or anything...Ms Bitch made that intent quite clear.

If it has stopped maybe there is another way. Oh but that will take too long. Gota get back on the phone, put on the makeup, go to the gym etc.........a smack is quicker.


Skyryder

[Genestho]

A response received this week to our Official Information Act request shows that there have been nine prosecutions under the new law in the first 15 months since the law was passed.

Many of these cases have resulted in the parent being discharged without conviction, sent to a parenting course, or receiving a suspended sentence"

Police reports show four prosecutions in a six-month period for “minor acts of physical discipline” and report a 200 per cent increase in families being investigated – yet fewer than 5 per cent were serious enough to warrant prosecution.

There has been a huge 32 per cent increase in CYF’s notifications.

Not surprisingly, the child abuse rate has continued unabated, with 12 child abuse deaths in the 21 months since the law change – the same rate as before the change.

The courts are quite obviously not full of childbeaters, but families are being unfairly complained by, and investigated, by "expert's" of whom obviously don't understand the law themselves, wasting resources, putting good parent's families through hell.
This kind of investigation stays on the record.

This is ridiculous!

Child abuse deaths continue.

Sue Bradford herself said this law was not designed to stop child abuse or deaths resulting, so what exactly do they up their sleeves that will?

[Hinny]

...
Sue Bradford herself said this law was not designed to stop child abuse or deaths resulting...

Get it people?
do you?
do you really?

For many posters here ... I don't think so!

[Winston001]

Was this bill not drafted to prevent the ridiculously high levels of child assaults NZ has seen over the past few years? Funny that, after the bill passed, there were/are still cases of child abuse happening - just read the papers.

No.

Bottom line - assault has been a crime in all jurisdictions for centuries.

Assault is a crime today.

Despite that, people have been maiming and hurting each for centuries. People do that. To their children too. Just because its illegal doesn't mean it won't happen - but the incidence reduces over time.

The change to S 59 was never intended to suddenly cure the sad and tragic brutality children suffer. How could it?

What it does do is reduce the defences which abusive parents have used to justify hurting their children. That can only be a good thing.

[jono035]

No.

Bottom line - assault has been a crime in all jurisdictions for centuries.

Assault is a crime today.

Despite that, people have been maiming and hurting each for centuries. People do that. To their children too. Just because its illegal doesn't mean it won't happen - but the incidence reduces over time.

The change to S 59 was never intended to suddenly cure the sad and tragic brutality children suffer. How could it?

What it does do is reduce the defences which abusive parents have used to justify hurting their children. That can only be a good thing.

I think a lot of people are arguing 2 different points in this debate. No-one here has said that 'abusive parents' should be able to 'justify hurting their children'. To argue that is a gigantic straw man. What people are arguing is that the change to the law spills over into criminalising something that non-abusive parents would like to have open to them as a disciplinary measure. A lot of people do not believe that a smack on the bottom that does not leave a mark, administered sparingly is something that is unacceptable, let alone something that should be prosecutable, which it now is.

Please everyone, stop suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you must be supporting child-abuse, it belittles this discussion.

[Skyryder]

What it does do is reduce the defences which abusive parents have used to justify hurting their children. That can only be a good thing.

That is what so many do not see because they are blinded by their political ideology and personal hatred of Sue Bradford.


Skyryder

[RantyDave]

If I ever have kids and I smack one of them becuase they were being naughty, I would hate to be labled as a 'child beater'. What the fuck is that about?

Well perhaps you should consider not doing it then. But this whole thing has been started by people who want their right to hit children.

Was this bill not drafted to prevent the rediculously high levels of child assaults NZ has seen over the past few years?

No, and that's the tragedy of the whole fucking thing. Sue Bradford - an irrelevant member of a mostly irrelevant party increasingly centred around political correctness as a way of life - saw an opportunity to do a little house cleaning, clear up some daft loophole and make it look like she's actually working for a living knowing full well it won't make the slightest bit of difference to more than ... what ... half a dozen cases a year? But, y'know, when it comes time to decide on the party list she can make her case blah blah blah.

Then some cretin says "anti smacking" and all hell breaks loose. The solid base of people who like hitting children get all up in arms and spin it into "the nanny state telling us how to raise our children" and run around telling their Churches (yes it is) that the state is telling us how to behave and isn't that the Church's job? So they create another huge kerfuffle and, well, here we are with this enormous pile of people under the impression that someone from CYFS is going to stand in their living room with a clipboard.

As you might have noticed almost nothing actually changed unless you were in the habit of (say) hitting four year olds in the face and getting caught.

Personally, when I was a little shit, I got smacked and I learned very quickly not to do whatever I did to get the smack again!, and I don't hate my parents for it.

Of course not. Biology programs kids to accept whatever is around them as the norm, and their caregivers as being right in all things. This is why cycles perpetuate: the poor stay poor, the rich stay rich, and violence unfortunately begets more violence because nobody sees anything wrong with it.

I would be more concerned if I saw a kid with a cigarette in it's mouth over a parent smacking a naughty child.

Oh, not another. Dude. It's an avatar. A picture. On the Internet. I don't give my kids cigarettes.

Dave

[Genestho]

What it does do is reduce the defences which abusive parents have used to justify hurting their children. That can only be a good thing.

From what I understand, there was 15 cases over 10 years that used that as a defence...