Get ready to hit your kids...

[awayatc]

Well next time I need a police officer in a hurry, I know what to do.....

[devnull]

Those big, brave individuals doing the dobbing may just look the other way if some woman was being raped. "Not my business" - "She was asking for it".
Funny how "Not my business" translates into "I'll interfere in that parent's business"
We all know the sort of thing...small child screaming and kicking, general mayhem at the lolly display supermarket checkout. Embarassed and increasingly desperate parent gives the brat a smack on the bum. Interferring busybody jumps on the phone - 111. Police show up in force. Kid got the message - either don't play up or you'll get a smack...or...do what you like, if Mum 'gives you one' the cops will take her away and the nice lady at the supermarket will give you lollies.
Good one.

Pretty much

What young puppykicker fails to note is that every complaint, regardless of outcome, is also passed on to other govt agencies and entered in a violence register.

Not sure if the end result is having a PRN, maybe one of the boys in blue here can tell me

He does demonstrate typical teenage behaviour, but I supposed his age has a lot to do with that.

As a parent of two though, I still think he's full of crap

Worth noting though... In Sweden, a girl reported her mother because she wasn't allowed out at night with friends.
Mother explained possible outcomes, & daughter asked to withdraw complaint.
End result - mother arrested & charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, as well as the original complaint

[MSTRS:Me]

Pretty much

What young puppykicker fails to note is that every complaint, regardless of outcome, is also passed on to other govt agencies and entered in a violence register.

Not sure if the end result is having a PRN, maybe one of the boys in blue here can tell me

He does demonstrate typical teenage behaviour, but I supposed his age has a lot to do with that.

As a parent of two though, I still think he's full of crap

Yep. The spoken-to parent will have a record filed away for possible use down the track. CYFS will also be notified...they're actually a shitload worse than the cops/courts.
As for PK - there should have been more beatings when he was little?

[Winston001]

You really are quite clueless

That case was thrown out of court after the police declined to appear.

You weren't dropped on your head as a child, were you?
You're certainly giving that impression with some of your posts

Guys, not just you Dev, everyone, calm down.

Abusing someone whom you don't agree with, just takes things off the rails. It is also a tactic used when you don't have a sound argument - if you can't answer the point, attack the person.


Children do get hurt in NZ and no-one here wants that. There is going to be a referendum and the fear is the law will be loosened sending a message that its perfectly acceptable for big adults to hit little kids. You don't agree - fine, lets work out an acceptable answer or at least understand the issue.

As I said earlier, this has more to do with hating Sue Bradford and Clark's Nanny State.

[Indoo]

You really are quite clueless

That case was thrown out of court after the police declined to appear.

You weren't dropped on your head as a child, were you?
You're certainly giving that impression with some of your posts

Thats incorrect, I'm not sure where you get your information from that the Police 'failed to appear'. The charges were withdrawn by Police due to the age of the children the trauma involved in putting them on the stand and having them give evidence against their own father when coupled with other factors such as the severity of the offense and changes made in the home since it had happened.

[Swoop]

Interferring busybody jumps on the phone - 111. Police show up in force. Kid got the message - either don't play up or you'll get a smack...or...do what you like, if Mum 'gives you one' the cops will take her away and the nice lady at the supermarket will give you lollies.
Good one.

The "Big Brother" nanny state mentality is creeping further in. If the security cameras do not catch you breaking some law, then the Devout Labourite sectarians will be straight on the phone to the thought police.

Worth noting though... In Sweden, a girl reported her mother because she wasn't allowed out at night with friends.
Mother explained possible outcomes, & daughter asked to withdraw complaint.
End result - mother arrested & charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, as well as the original complaint

This is exactly where the Looney Labourite Sect is taking this country.

[Winston001]

Yep. The spoken-to parent will have a record filed away for possible use down the track.

Not. The Privacy Commissioner would have a coronary if he knew people believed that.

The police are not permitted to keep random records on citizens. Convictions, yes, that's what the Wanganui computer is for. Interviews, accusations, No.

And a Criminal Record Number (CRN) only exists if you have a Record - kinda logical really.

As for the wet people quoted by FamiliesFirst, thousands of innocent people are interviewed by the police every year. Of course its upsetting, insulting even, but ultimately thats life. HTFU

[Number One]

I was smacked as a kid by one of my parents...up till I moved my arse out of home actually. Not beatings by any means just smackings and all with the intention of 'teaching me, or protecting me, or letting me know right from wrong' blah blah blah blah blah

Did it work? NOPE all it did was teach me to be sneakier and to not get caught. Did I respect this parent for it or at all? NOPE Did it do our relationship any good at all? HELL NO

I find it hard to fathom how anyone can truely believe that children need 'physical' correction in order to get through to them. Kids are not animals...I can honestly say that my other parent was far more effective at chastising and correcting me, teaching me right from wrong and keeping me safe' and yet never did this parent raise their hand to me.

To me implying that kids do need physical correction is to assume that they are stupid and can't be reasoned with or talked to.

I have never hit my almost 5 year old BUT I have had some wicked itchy palms at times. What stops me is how I felt about my parent hitting me...even when I knew I was wrong those smacks did nothing but drive me away from them further and further each time...I want my boy to see me as helping to teach him to think for himself not living in dread of the parental smack down whenever he gets something wrong.

With or without the legislation that's MY choice.

JUST MY 2 cents

[Skyryder]

Parental control
• (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—
o (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
o (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
o (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
o (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
Subsection (1) was substituted, as from 23 July 1990, by section 28(2) Education Amendment Act 1990 (1990 No 60).
Subsection (3) was inserted, as from 23 July 1990, by section 28(3) Education Amendment Act 1990 (1990 No 60).
Section 59 was substituted, as from 21 June 2007, by section 5 Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (2007 No 18).
The above is the new law. Lets deal with some facts. Sur Bradford’s bill is not an anti smacking bill as so many claim.
• (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—
o (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
o (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
o (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
o (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

There are four clearly defined reasons parents can smack their children. That is (a) (b) (c) (d).

The Act that we have Crimes Act 2007 replaced the Crimes Act 1961 which stated in statute “every parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.”

1 allows the use of force and even if the legislation does not use the word ‘smack’ it is obvious to all but a cretin, that force and smack are as one. Like wise 1 allows for ‘correction’ of behavior if applied to (a) (b) (c). The word ‘correction’ is not used but that is the purpose of 1 it allows the use of a smack to correct behavior when applied to (a) (b) (c).


• (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—
•
• (d). performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(d) seems ride ranging to me so what’s the problem.

On the surface it looks like Bradford has widened the area of potential violence instead of reducing it. Under the old legislation “every parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child. That’s right just in case you missed, it was parents and no one else. Not now

Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent.

So now you not only have the parent but someone in place of the parent who can smack your child in four clearly legislated reasons and one of them is very loose indeed. And what does the Christian right come up with; these bastions of parental good will?

A referendum with the question
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be criminal offence in New Zealand.

So not content with four clearly defined pieces of legislation the Christian Right want 'five' where Mum Dad and “or a person in place of a parent” can lawfully ‘smack a child. The Christian Right in their obsession to the Clarke and the Labour Govt have so completely lost the plot that there is a real chance that if this question is passed into law more children will be injured with less chances of successful prosecutions than before.





Skyryder

[devnull]

I was smacked as a kid by one of my parents...up till I moved my arse out of home actually. Not beatings by any means just smackings and all with the intention of 'teaching me, or protecting me, or letting me know right from wrong' blah blah blah blah blah

Did it work? NOPE all it did was teach me to be sneakier and to not get caught. Did I respect this parent for it or at all? NOPE Did it do our relationship any good at all? HELL NO

I find it hard to fathom how anyone can truely believe that children need 'physical' correction in order to get through to them. Kids are not animals...I can honestly say that my other parent was far more effective at chastising and correcting me, teaching me right from wrong and keeping me safe' and yet never did this parent raise their hand to me.

To me implying that kids do need physical correction is to assume that they are stupid and can't be reasoned with or talked to.

I have never hit my almost 5 year old BUT I have had some wicked itchy palms at times. What stops me is how I felt about my parent hitting me...even when I knew I was wrong those smacks did nothing but drive me away from them further and further each time...I want my boy to see me as helping to teach him to think for himself not living in dread of the parental smack down whenever he gets something wrong.

With or without the legislation that's MY choice.

JUST MY 2 cents

I could say pretty much the opposite... but what's the point?

All kids are different, and creating some govt approved parenting method won't change that. They are individuals, and respond differently to rewards and punishments.

My son went through a playing with power points phase. A smack on the hand put a stop to that. Only took a couple, and he understood that they were completely out of bounds. I will not bury my child because a failed parent has passed a law telling others that only her ideas on parenting have any value.

You could say, why not put kiddy guards on the plugs?
Well, they're already shuttered and protected with earth leakage breakers. But not all places are, and I'm not going on a kiddy guard crusade. Far better to learn that some things are dangerous, and not to be played with.

At the end of the day, you are a parent first and a friend second. You are responsible for your kids, including their safety and behaviour.

A look at the rapes and murders in Sweden committed by youths show what we're in for. Discipline and personal responsibility are foreign concepts there now...

The youth crime rates here are following the same trend.

A decade of social engineering has effectively ruined a generation, and I'm left with the sad reality that my kids will need to learn a martial art at primary school level, and be prepared to use it.

It's a pretty damning indictment on a society when your kids need to learn to kill in order to be safe, but I'd rather they were judged by 12 than carried by 6

Of course, if they ever end up a victim to these scumbags that seem to be increasing in numbers, I doubt very much that I'd be interested in "law", just justice.

[Jantar]

....Children do get hurt in NZ and no-one here wants that. There is going to be a referendum and the fear is the law will be loosened sending a message that its perfectly acceptable for big adults to hit little kids. ...

Not correct. Taking the law back to what it was just means that it is legal to use some reasonable fore as a means of correction. That does not mean that it is acceptable, and certainly not mandatory. It simply gives parents a tool that the present law has taken away from them.

As I said earlier, this has more to do with hating Sue Bradford and Clark's Nanny State.

You certainly did say that. It doesn't mean you are correct.

[devnull]

Parental control
• (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—
o (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
o (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
o (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
o (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
Subsection (1) was substituted, as from 23 July 1990, by section 28(2) Education Amendment Act 1990 (1990 No 60).
Subsection (3) was inserted, as from 23 July 1990, by section 28(3) Education Amendment Act 1990 (1990 No 60).
Section 59 was substituted, as from 21 June 2007, by section 5 Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (2007 No 18).
The above is the new law. Lets deal with some facts. Sur Bradford’s bill is not an anti smacking bill as so many claim.
• (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—
o (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
o (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
o (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
o (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
There are four clearly defined reasons parents can smack their children. That is (a) (b) (c) (d).

The Act that we have Crimes Act 2007 replaced the Crimes Act 1961 which stated in statute “every parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.”

1 allows the use of force and even if the legislation does not use the word ‘smack’ it is obvious to all but a cretin, that force and smack are as one. Like wise 1 allows for ‘correction’ of behavior if applied to (a) (b) (c). The word ‘correction’ is not used but that is the purpose of 1 it allows the use of a smack to correct behavior when applied to (a) (b) (c).


• (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—
•
• (d). performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(d) seems ride ranging to me so what’s the problem. On the surface it looks like Bradford has widened the area of potential violence instead of reducing it. Under the old legislation “every parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child. That’s right just in case you missed it was parents and no one else. Not now Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent. So now you not only have the parent but someone in place of the parent who can smack your child in four clearly legislated reasons and one of them is very lose indeed. And what does the Christian right come up with; these bastions of parental good will? A referendum with the question
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be criminal offence in New Zealand.
So not content with four clearly defined pieces of legislation the Christian Right want five where Mum Dad and “or a person in place of a parent” can lawfully ‘smack a child it leaves open the question of who is defined as a person in place of a parent. The Christian Right in their obsession to the Clarke and the Labour Govt have so completely lost the plot that there is a real chance that if this question is passed into law more children will be injured. I can think of better ways to spend four mill.



Skyryder

I guess comprehension isn't a strong point huh?

The ONLY time you'd actually smack a child is to correct unacceptable behaviour.

What other reason could there possibly be?

Subsection 2 renders subsection 1 void.
Though subsection 1 is so badly written anyway, it's a joke.
Perhaps it should've been draughted by a lawyer?

You've obviously got some hangup over religion - I know socialists consider family and religion something that need to be replaced by "the state", but I find it ironic since Russian Orthodox is quite widespread across Russia.

Of course, this law isn't just about smacking, it's about ANY form of force. If I use force to stop my child running across the road, was that correction?

Could be... oops - jail time then

Of course, regardless of outcome, CYFS become involved.
They are above the law - not a group to mess with.
If the parents of a child that died in CYFS care can't get an investigation, taking them to task over anything less won't do you any good.

[Number One]

I could say pretty much the opposite... but what's the point?

All kids are different, and creating some govt approved parenting method won't change that. They are individuals, and respond differently to rewards and punishments.

Indeed to each his own eh. Personally speaking I just remember always thinking when smacked that actually that parent had lost control of themselves and had no other tools up their sleeve (including having a good bloody talk to me - which the other parent did with great success) and it was less of a correction for me and more of a temper release valve for them.

Certainly didn't teach me anything except that they thought it was ok to hit people (esepcially smaller ones) but I wasn't to hit people...even as a kid I saw the blatant hipocracy in that....but none of my smacks (well the ones I actually remember) were just in response to dangerous behaviour or situations to 'give me a shock'.

I will not bury my child because a failed parent has passed a law telling others that only her ideas on parenting have any value.

Law schmaw eh...my understanding was that the whole point of that law was to remove the opp for child beaters to avoid prosecution. With or without it I haven't ever had the need to smack my boy...a sharp toned yell has put the shits up him enough when needed and his behaviour suggests that it was successful in the long run also. STOP said in a certain way works really well with my boy - guess I'm lucky in that regard...hopefully if there is a number two one day they will be as receptive as again - smacking is not my choice no matter the circumstance.

[puppykicker]

Those big, brave individuals doing the dobbing may just look the other way if some woman was being raped. "Not my business" - "She was asking for it".
Funny how "Not my business" translates into "I'll interfere in that parent's business"

errr... what?

What young puppykicker fails to note is that every complaint, regardless of outcome, is also passed on to other govt agencies and entered in a violence register.

Not sure if the end result is having a PRN, maybe one of the boys in blue here can tell me

once again, family first is not a reliable source of information, they lie to get stupid people onside

As I said earlier, this has more to do with hating Sue Bradford and Clark's Nanny State.

devnull has imported the american style of political discourse, yell socialist at anyone who disagrees with you and fall back on the bible.

Thats incorrect, I'm not sure where you get your information from that the Police 'failed to appear'. The charges were withdrawn by Police due to the age of the children the trauma involved in putting them on the stand and having them give evidence against their own father when coupled with other factors such as the severity of the offense and changes made in the home since it had happened.

repeating myself i know, but:

once again, family first is not a reliable source of information, they lie to get stupid people onside

You've obviously got some hangup over religion - I know socialists consider family and religion something that need to be replaced by "the state", but I find it ironic since Russian Orthodox is quite widespread across Russia.

yes devnull, everyone who disagrees with you is a socialist, and we all try to be like stalin. i dont think ive ever come accross someone so willfully ignorant.

Of course, this law isn't just about smacking, it's about ANY form of force. If I use force to stop my child running across the road, was that correction?

Could be... oops - jail time then

Of course, regardless of outcome, CYFS become involved.
They are above the law - not a group to mess with.
If the parents of a child that died in CYFS care can't get an investigation, taking them to task over anything less won't do you any good.

again, family first is not a reliable source of information, ill point it out again because you seem to have ignored it previously, the worst thing that happened to most of the people detailed in your own damn source was embarrasment, the only ones convicted plead guilty, and not one of them received jail time, so stop making shit up

i cant believe this shit actually works on people, misrepresent, lie and deceive to try to get middle nu zeeland onside, ill ask this question again because you never answered it last time, why did family first feel the need to word their petition "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ" instead of asking the real question "should the section of the crimes act allowing undefined "reasonableness" as a defence to child abuse be put back in"

the number of people who completely dont understand the issue is evidence of how successful this deception has been from the religous right (who are still butthurt that helen said we were a secular country, destiny church are a driving force behind lots of this stuff) people think this is a whole new bill, more laws instead of just removing loopholes in very old ones, very few people have actually read the wording

Parental control
• (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—
o (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
o (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
o (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
o (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

everyone needs to read that, maybe after that they will see the sheer insanity of people like devnull and the nutters over at family first and the kiwi party or whatever the political arm of destiny are calling themselves this week.

[devnull]

ramblings....

everyone needs to read that, maybe after that they will see the sheer insanity of people like devnull and the nutters over at family first and the kiwi party or whatever the political arm of destiny are calling themselves this week.

Oh dear... so everyone that thinks this law is wrong is a religious nutter then? Well that's over 85% of the country, so I guess you better be good when they come knocking at your door

The Glen Innes case:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4473820a11.html

One of the first people charged under Green MP Sue Bradford's anti-smacking legislation has had charges against him dropped.

Initially the 30-year-old Glen Innes man was accused of hitting his five-year-old daughter with an open hand on the back of the head and swinging a pair of jeans at his six-year-old daughter, hitting her on the side of the head just before Christmas.

He denied the allegations and when the matter came to trial before Judge Anna Johns in Auckland District Court today, the police offered no evidence and the case was dismissed.

The summary of facts had originally claimed the man was "enraged".

Outside the court, the man's lawyer, Tony Bouchier, said that the man had only exercised reasonable discipline on the children.

His client had pushed one of the girls to get her to hurry for school and threw the jeans at the other to get her attention.

Mr Bouchier, who is critical of the "domestic violence industry", said he supported the referendum to have the anti-smacking legislation repealed.

"When the whole issue was being discussed in Parliament and in public, they said that minor matters would not end up in court, it would only be the serious ones," he said.

"I am not condemning the police for protecting children, but the public were given assurances that the police would consider this law carefully, and in this case they have not."

Mr Bouchier said that the man was a good and loving father.

He did not live with his children but arranged to take them to school and pick them up every day.

It was "valuable time" for him.

Mr Bouchier said that it was not the mother of the children who complained, but her sister.

He said there seemed to be some animosity between the father of the children and the sister who had interfered.

"This type of discipline is probably meted out to children every day in New Zealand."