Get ready to hit your kids...

**Indoo** · 25th August 2008, 16:22

Originally Posted by Winston001

.
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.

Unfortunately thats exactly that mindset people are taking up, its a shame really because I think anyone actually involved in dealing with abused kids and violent families knows that the legislation was long overdue and needed.

And it doesn't stop parents from giving their children a reasonable corrective smack, its aimed at abusive parents who treat kids like property and who beat them for every perceived slight in the name of 'punishment'. Those kids typically then reproduce that violence later in life and its part of the reason why we have such a violent society.

The laws been out for some time now, according to family first there must be hundreds if not thousands of parents who have been prosecuted for giving their children a reasonable corrective smack? has anyone here been charged or can anyone give one example of a parent prosecuted ?

**avgas** · 25th August 2008, 16:26

Yeh it kinda annoying about the whole nana state thing.
Its almost like mums the word

**Headbanger** · 25th August 2008, 17:46

Originally Posted by Indoo

Unfortunately thats exactly that mindset people are taking up, its a shame really because I think anyone actually involved in dealing with abused kids and violent families knows that the legislation was long overdue and needed.

So, The problem is now sorted?, Granted it was illegal to abuse kids before this law change, Now they have outlawed a smack the abused kids living in violent households are saved?

**MSTRS:Me** · 25th August 2008, 17:49

Originally Posted by Headbanger

So, The problem is now sorted?, Granted it was illegal to abuse kids before this law change, Now they have outlawed a smack the abused kids living in violent households are saved?

Of course. And vicious dogs don't attack anyone now that they are all chipped...

**Winston001** · 25th August 2008, 18:05

Well murder is unlawful but still happens. Do you suggest we abolish that law?

**Ocean1** · 25th August 2008, 18:08

Originally Posted by Winston001

Well murder is unlawful but still happens. Do you suggest we abolish that law?

Could try enforcing 'em.

Just a thought...

**Ixion** · 25th August 2008, 18:31

Originally Posted by 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.

of course there is. The parent is necessarily in charge of the child who is (rightly) assumed to lack the judgement and understanding always to make correct choices.

In like manner: If you child was playing in a park, and you wanted to go home, you could , quite legally tell him to get in the car, and if he refused ("NO. I wanna stay and play"!), pick him up and forcibly put him in the car (even under the new law that would be legal. I wouldn't like to bet on your chances of escaping prosecution though if Mrs Grundy spotted you). But, do the same to the strange kid he is playing with, and you could be up for abduction.

Less dramatically : if you were a health freak and found your child eating a Big Mac, you would be quite legal to seize it from him and throw it away. But it would be decidedly illegal to snatch a strange child's burger.

**awayatc** · 25th August 2008, 18:44

Originally Posted by Ixion

it would be decidedly illegal to snatch a strange child's burger.

dangerous to use "child" "strange" and "snatch" in one sentence.....

**pete376403** · 25th August 2008, 19:10

Originally Posted by Winston001

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..

So why are the police prosecuting the Christchurch man for flicking has kids ear?
Pity judges cannot fine the police for wasting the courts time.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=10528277

**Indoo** · 25th August 2008, 19:28

Originally Posted by Headbanger

So, The problem is now sorted?, Granted it was illegal to abuse kids before this law change, Now they have outlawed a smack the abused kids living in violent households are saved?

No, all it does is remove the legal defense abusive parents used to be able to hide behind and allow them to be prosecuted. Unfortunately I think the new section 59 is quite poorly worded and it gives rise to confusion, it looks like every political party wanted to add a clause and thats how its been mashed out with some almost contradicting each other.

Smacking hasn't been outlawed though, name one parent who has been prosecuted for giving their child a reasonable smack? Using weapons, strikes to the head, kicks etc have been unless under certain circumstances.

**Indoo** · 25th August 2008, 19:39

Originally Posted by pete376403

So why are the police prosecuting the Christchurch man for flicking has kids ear?
Pity judges cannot fine the police for wasting the courts time.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=10528277

So how long have you know Jimmy Mason for? he must be an upstanding member of the community for you to believe his version of events 100 percent when he claims he is only being prosecuted for flicking his sons ear. Do you reckon the four independent witnesses who are to give evidence against him part of this Sue Bradford led conspiracy as well, she must have brought them off with some carbon credits.

**Headbanger** · 25th August 2008, 19:49

Originally Posted by Indoo

No, all it does is remove the legal defense abusive parents used to be able to hide behind and allow them to be prosecuted.

You seem to be confused and think that smacking has been outlawed, name one parent who has been prosecuted for giving their child a reasonable smack?

There never was any legitimate defence for abuse, Its an illegal act.

Offenders will hide behind whatever crap there lawyers can clutch at, Removing the ability of parents to discipline there children is not the same as addressing the abuse problem.

How about shooting bad parents? They know who most of em are, They are on the books. Hell, A bit of profiling would even tell em what specific demographs to monitor to catch the majority of it.

**avgas** · 25th August 2008, 19:51

Originally Posted by Winston001

Well murder is unlawful but still happens. Do you suggest we abolish that law?

No beat them........talk about missing the point

**Winston001** · 25th August 2008, 20:40

Originally Posted by avgas

No beat them........talk about missing the point

Ok I'm thick, so help me out. One of the arguments often raised is that bad parents beat their kids anyway, so the law is ignored - ergo why bother? A law which is easily broken is not good law.

So shall we do away with theft, assault, burglary too? All of these laws are being broken somewhere in NZ as we talk.