Get ready to hit your kids...

[topher]

if they change it i would like to see it be made equal for all New Zealanders. i dont have any kids, but somtimes i would like to be able to walk down the street and smack over other peoples.

Yup. the best sign I saw in shop was "Unattended children will be given an espresso and a free puppy".

Disappointingly my kids are too big for me to thump any more. I've bought them motorcycles as a bribe for reasonable behaviour and that seems to have done the trick!

[Skyryder]

Parliment is made up of varying degrees of both left and right. The two biggest parties of of each. Both voted to repeal section 59.
This is not a left issue as some maintain nor is not social engineering either.

It is about the removal of a staute that was used as a defence when children were injured by 'smacking.'


Skyryder

[devnull]

In Sweden now, there are signs in shops banning children - they're totally out of control.

Bradford now wants to bring in a law next term to ban verbal abuse. Hrmmm..
I'm sure it won't affect good parents... oh... wait..

As for National voting for her anti-smacking bill, they didn't have the numbers to block it, but they could negotiate additional changes to try to minimise the impact on good parents. At least they tried

This bill IS social engineering, and copies another socialist country, Sweden.
We're also starting to see the same end result they did - youth crime rates rising, the offenses becoming more serious

[Skyryder]

All the Nats did was insist that the discretionary powers were written into the legislation. The police already had this in law. It was a sop to those that opposed the repeal. If the Nats were serious in their opposition they would not have voted for the repeal. The best that will happen is that they may bring it up as conscience vote. I’d take a stab in the dark and predict it will not come up on the order paper as the green block will have the numbers to stop it.

But ACT might try just as a political game that is if they get a seat.

Skyryder

[Flatcap]

In Sweden now, there are signs in shops banning children - they're totally out of control.

Perhaps that could be included in the legislation - you can't smack your kids if you aren't allowed any

[Winston001]

Yes, it is social engineering. For the good of our descendants. Family violence is largely hidden in society. One of various ways to reduce it is to send a message to parents that if you hit your kids, you better have a good reason. Ultimately it is hoped that the next generation will be less violent.

What's so hard about that? Maybe it won't work, but saying it's wrong to hit children seems a slam-dunk to me.

Decent parents have nothing to fear and I note there have not been a string of cases brought against "decent parents" since Section 59 has been tightened.

Look - I have three kids, approaching teenage-hood. Yes they were smacked - very rarely. We had a policy of not doing it. They are great kids today without a violent bone in them. Most of their friends were brought up the same way and they are great kids too. No fear in their eyes, no lashing out at other people.

You do not need to hit your children to teach them respect and discipline. If you think you do, the day will be reached when they either hit back or leave your home. And you've lost them.

[Tank]

Look - I have three kids, approaching teenage-hood. Yes they were smacked - very rarely. We had a policy of not doing it. They are great kids today without a violent bone in them. Most of their friends were brought up the same way and they are great kids too. No fear in their eyes, no lashing out at other people.

You do not need to hit your children to teach them respect and discipline. If you think you do, the day will be reached when they either hit back or leave your home. And you've lost them.

So in the first paragraph you say you smacked your kids and they turned out OK. So did all your friends.

Then in the second paragraph you say people DONT need to and if you do they either hit back or leave home?

Have your kids smacked you back or left home? I'm guessing not.

all the PC brigade seem to lose track of the fact that you can punish kids with a smack and they wont turn into parent hating psychopaths. In fact they can be 'more' balanced in some of the cotton wool kids because they learn that there are consequences for actions and that they can be unpleasant.

[Winston001]

So in the first paragraph you say you smacked your kids and they turned out OK. So did all your friends.

Then in the second paragraph you say people DONT need to and if you do they either hit back or leave home?

Have your kids smacked you back or left home? I'm guessing not.

Fair call Tank, I was being honest and also saying that smacking is not unlawful. Currently Section 59 permits physical force for actions which most people would call discipline. It prohibits physical correction = punishment.

It is a fine line but Section 59 also explicitly says the police have a discretion (which they have anyway - just says it again for public peace-of-mind). They are not required to prosecute for a smack on the bottom. And they don't - which is the point. There is nothing to fear.

Just to clarify my own approach, any smack I ever gave was a pat on the bottom, and the real discipline was the child understanding they had done something wrong. Hey it wasn't easy - there were days when I wanted to throw our oldest across the room. So did my wife.

That's why we need to learn restraint. If the concept of not hitting children is understood, then the moral/ethical strength to resist doing it is greater.

[Winston001]

So in the first paragraph you say you smacked your kids and they turned out OK. So did all your friends.

Here is where the problem lies - definitions. My smack would barely move a ping-pong ball, but it's a smack. And maybe five times ever - total - among 3 children.

Unfortunately you don't know that so naturally you think it was a normal method of discipline and involved pain. In reality it was similar to a tap on the arm of an adult to ask them to pay attention.

I'm sure you think that now I'm past the smacking stage, people like me are telling other parents how to behave - and therefore are hypocrites. I can assure you that is not the case and I expressed these views long before this issue ever arose in public.

[Winston001]

Hell I don't want to bleat on about this. Just one other point.

If I have the right to physically discipline my child, why can't I do the same to his cheeky 7yr old mate who just threw a stone through my window? A child whose parents couldn't give a toss.

That would be assault and if his parents complained I could be prosecuted. Same if I smacked an adult. But hit my own kid and I'm exempt??

There is simply no logic or consistency in that.

[MSTRS:Me]

Currently Section 59 permits physical force for actions which most people would call discipline. It prohibits physical correction = punishment.

This is where it falls down.
A story...
When I was a kid, I got hold of some matches and made a nice little fire out of dry pine needles. As kids will (or not) I gave no thought to where this little fire was situated. I thought I put it out (by dumping a big load of green pine needles on top of it) Needless to say, a slightly LARGER fire was later discovered by my old man. Yep...
Now, in today's brave new world, I wouldn't learn such a sharp lesson, since I could not be smacked except if I was discovered in the commission of starting this fire. Who knows, perhaps I would have gone on to burn down schools and - and - and - and - stuff. But no, the punishment smack saw an end to my firebug career.

[MSTRS:Me]

Hell I don't want to bleat on about this. Just one other point.

If I have the right to physically discipline my child, why can't I do the same to his cheeky 7yr old mate who just threw a stone through my window? A child whose parents couldn't give a toss.

That would be assault and if his parents complained I could be prosecuted. Same if I smacked an adult. But hit my own kid and I'm exempt??

There is simply no logic or consistency in that.

Yes there is. You are responsible for your child, not his mate. In days gone by, you would have been unlikely to have taken your hand to this kid anyway. Rather, you'd have gone and had a word with his father/mother and THEY would likely have done it for you and arranged for a glazier to repair your window at their cost.

[Headbanger]

Hell I don't want to bleat on about this. Just one other point.

If I have the right to physically discipline my child, why can't I do the same to his cheeky 7yr old mate who just threw a stone through my window? A child whose parents couldn't give a toss.

That would be assault and if his parents complained I could be prosecuted. Same if I smacked an adult. But hit my own kid and I'm exempt??

There is simply no logic or consistency in that.

Its not your role to discipline other peoples kids, Its your responsibility to discipline your own.

Seems perfectly logical to me, You breed kids, You do what you can to bring em up as good kids.

[avgas]

No you dont have to beat your kids....however currently you can get locked up for the alternatives.
Beating kids is a nice simple solution, just like beating dogs. Thats so cruel you ask....but its not. You see if you use it as a threat then nothing happens.
Many kids grew up with the fear of "the woodern spoon" "the belt" "the cane".....even if they were only hit once they remember.
No child remembers "time out" - kids even come out of time out and play up again. No child ever repeat offendeds after a light tap.

[Winston001]

The other side of the argument, which upsets perfectly ordinary good parents, is they feel like they are being labelled vicious child beaters because they disagree with the change of the law.

There is a strange irony in all this. I have the distinct impression that those of us who argue passionately on one side or the other, are also the type of parents who won't harm our children. We might disagree but I'd trust you with my kids.

This law is pretty unthreatening for us. I suspect the discussion has more to do with the polarising effect of Sue Bradshaw and Helen Clark. Its sort of the end of the tether for Nanny State - enough is enough.