Get ready to hit your kids...

[Clockwork]

[ If as you argue that 2 means that the smack is completely unlawful the question must be asked what is the purpose of the statute.

I understand that assault is defined as ANY form of physical contact that is non consentual. Indeed, I think just shaking your fist at someone can be treated as assault!

Subsection 1 exists to allow a parent to physically interact with or compell an unwilling/unco-operative child without falling foul of the legal definition of common assault.

To turn your point around, without the definition I have supplied here what purpose does subsection 2 serve and why does subsection 3 need to re-emphasise subsection 2's priority over subsection 1?

[Clockwork]

I am not in disagreement this comment but those quoted by you and to which I responded concerned the so called anti smacking law where you suggested that juries would have no choice but to convict simply on the fact that the police have bought a prosecution.

Skyryder

Because subsection 2 says nothing in subsection 1 shall justify the use of force for the purposes of correction. ergo if you strike your child as a punishment, you are guilty.

Arguably if you carry your child to thieir bedroom for time-out, you are using force for the purposes of punishment and in breech of subsection 2. Of course the Police may choose to consider this inconsequential, just be sure to be nice to the Police Officers when they call.

[Skyryder]

I understand that assault is defined as ANY form of physical contact that is non consentual. Indeed, I think just shaking your fist at someone can be treated as assault!

Subsection 1 exists to allow a parent to physically interact with or compell an unwilling/unco-operative child without falling foul of the legal definition of common assault.

To turn your point around, without the definition I have supplied here what purpose does subsection 2 serve and why does subsection 3 need to re-emphasise subsection 2's priority over subsection 1?

Your defination is wrong. Shaking your fist or for that matter giving someone the bird is not assault. Both of these could be contributing factors for the cause of assault but that’s another story.

As mentioned 1 allows the use of ‘force’ only within the parameters of (a) to (d). You seem to deny that the word ‘force’ in this statute (1) has a different meaning from force in the old section 59. Every parent of a child is justified in using ‘force’ by way of correction………..etc. so why do you deny that under current law the use of the word ‘force’ has a different meaning than the same word in the repealed statute?

Skyryder

[Clockwork]

It's irrelevant how you, I or anyone defines the use of the word force in either the new act or the previous act. Sections 2 removes ALL justification for using it for the puposes of correction. EVEN IF the parent IS acting within situations prescribed by subsection 1 paragraphs a,b,c and/or d.

Subsection 1 mearly permits the parent to use force to compel a child to do that which the child will not willingly do.

I honestly don't know how I can make the point any more clearly. Unless you need me to point out that in your quote you use the phrase "force by way of correction" as being the original form of the act whereas the new act explictly prohibits this in subsection 2.

[Skyryder]

Because subsection 2 says nothing in subsection 1 shall justify the use of force for the purposes of correction. ergo if you strike your child as a punishment, you are guilty.

Arguably if you carry your child to thieir bedroom for time-out, you are using force for the purposes of punishment and in breech of subsection 2. Of course the Police may choose to consider this inconsequential, just be sure to be nice to the Police Officers when they call.

Yes if you ‘strike’ your child as a ‘punishment’ under section (a)(b)(c) or (d) you will most likely be found guilty. The Act makes no allowances for punishment. Force is only permitted as a preventative measure.

As for your argument that carrying your child to their bedroom room for timeout is in breach of the Act. That's just more clap trap the Christian Right.

I have posted part of a report from the Law Commission that rebuts the kind of argument that you postulate.

The opinion of Peter McKenzie QC

Mr McKenzie concludes that under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill as proposed by Sue Bradford, carrying a child against his or her will to "time out" or a "naughty mat" will be a criminal act that exposes parents to prosecution for assault. This is because the redrafted defence in section 59(2) provides that "nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction". For most parents, it is said, a corrective purpose would be the dominant or indeed the only purpose for "time out".

This is still the current thinking of those that oppose Bradford’s Statute. They still claim that under the current Act carrying a naught child to a time out area is in breach of the Act.

The Law Commission comments on this are as follows.


Comment

Committee members will recall that, in relation to option 1, the Law Commission was advised by a majority of the members that the outcome sought was a prohibition on the use of any force against children for corrective purposes. We are consequently delighted to receive Mr McKenzie's independent confirmation that this objective is achieved by our proposed draft.

(They then go on to comment on Copelands media comments that are in response to McKenzies opinion.)[/I]

However, we have a number of points to make in rebuttal of the media debate prompted by Mr Copeland. In particular, we disagree with the assertion that the effect of our draft will be to prohibit time out by exposing parents who use it to the risk of prosecution.
In the example highlighted by Mr Copeland (carrying a child to a "naughty mat" who had been throwing food at the walls), we disagree with his assertion that this is "obviously for the purpose of correction". We suggest that at least part, and probably a large part, of the parental motive in that scenario relates to "preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behavior". This is a permitted purpose under our proposed redraft of section 59.




[/I][/I]
Skyryder

[devnull]

Yes if you ‘strike’ your child as a ‘punishment’ under section (a)(b)(c) or (d) you will most likely be found guilty. The Act makes no allowances for punishment. Force is only permitted as a preventative measure.

As for your argument that carrying your child to their bedroom room for timeout is in breach of the Act. That's just more clap trap the Christian Right.

I have posted part of a report from the Law Commission that rebuts the kind of argument that you postulate.

The opinion of Peter McKenzie QC

Mr McKenzie concludes that under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill as proposed by Sue Bradford, carrying a child against his or her will to "time out" or a "naughty mat" will be a criminal act that exposes parents to prosecution for assault. This is because the redrafted defence in section 59(2) provides that "nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction". For most parents, it is said, a corrective purpose would be the dominant or indeed the only purpose for "time out".

This is still the current thinking of those that oppose Bradford’s Statute. They still claim that under the current Act carrying a naught child to a time out area is in breach of the Act.

The Law Commission comments on this are as follows.


Comment

Committee members will recall that, in relation to option 1, the Law Commission was advised by a majority of the members that the outcome sought was a prohibition on the use of any force against children for corrective purposes. We are consequently delighted to receive Mr McKenzie's independent confirmation that this objective is achieved by our proposed draft.

(They then go on to comment on Copelands media comments that are in response to McKenzies opinion.)[/I]

However, we have a number of points to make in rebuttal of the media debate prompted by Mr Copeland. In particular, we disagree with the assertion that the effect of our draft will be to prohibit time out by exposing parents who use it to the risk of prosecution.
In the example highlighted by Mr Copeland (carrying a child to a "naughty mat" who had been throwing food at the walls), we disagree with his assertion that this is "obviously for the purpose of correction". We suggest that at least part, and probably a large part, of the parental motive in that scenario relates to "preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behavior". This is a permitted purpose under our proposed redraft of section 59.




[/I][/I]
Skyryder

suggest... probably... opinion...

See the problem here?

Bad law open to interpretation.
We already know, now, that tipping a 12yo off a beanbag is convictable under this act.
All you're saying is even lawyers don't agree with the interpretation, so we'll have to wait until someone is arrested for using time out or the naughty mat

[avgas]

Agreed. Right-on. That is the point - change our culture. Without a different approach to child discipline and violent conflict in our society, the tightened law will be useless.

Its the age old gap in society today. Blame the tools not the user. Responsibility is a god like complex that many can not own up to.

[Clockwork]

However, we have a number of points to make in rebuttal of the media debate prompted by Mr Copeland. In particular, we disagree with the assertion that the effect of our draft will be to prohibit time out by exposing parents who use it to the risk of prosecution.
In the example highlighted by Mr Copeland (carrying a child to a "naughty mat" who had been throwing food at the walls), we disagree with his assertion that this is "obviously for the purpose of correction". We suggest that at least part, and probably a large part, of the parental motive in that scenario relates to "preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behavior". This is a permitted purpose under our proposed redraft of section 59.




[/I][/I]
Skyryder

Ok first let me clear one thing up. I am not, nor ever have been the least bit interested in the actions, motives or arguments of the "Christian Right" and I honestly only added that point as an afterthought because I'd never heard it made before.

As to the quoted section

WHAT A CROCK OF WEASLE WORDED SHIT!!!!!

A child it placed in time-out as punishment pure and simple. To pretend otherwise is .... (I'm at a total loss for words at that "opinion")

"They suggest that probably a LARGE part of the parental motive in that scenario relates to "preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behavior".

What f++king presumptious bullshit masqurading as a legal opinion!!

Boing!!!





Clockwork has now become over-wound and will need to take some time out regain his former rational composure

[MSTRS:Me]

suggest... probably... opinion...

See the problem here?

Bad law open to interpretation.
We already know, now, that tipping a 12yo off a beanbag is convictable under this act.
All you're saying is even lawyers don't agree with the interpretation, so we'll have to wait until someone is arrested for using time out or the naughty mat

Now, see, they should have consulted with me...'cos my opinion is the right one.
If little Johnny is throwing food at the walls and won't stop, his parents are entitled to carry him to his room for time-out (because that prevents him throwing more food).
But if little Johnny threw some food against the wall, then sat there with his arms folded looking cross, then his parents may not touch him at all.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Little Johnny got a smack on the hand that threw the food, then another one on his bum 'cos he refused to clean up his mess, and then he was locked in the room under the stairs ('cos that was the only place where he could be trusted to stay for a period of calming down) until he promised to be good.

[Number One]

So just to summarise how I understand some of what various posters are suggesting.

The ills of society and the bad behaviour of kids and teens is apparently down to them not getting smacked? WTF? SO now so called 'good parenting' comes down to whether you (in light of the law) have the balls to smack or not.

What about all that other stuff that I see missing from 'some peoples parenting' these days. Such as teaching morals, right and wrong, consideration for others, respect for self - I wouldn't think that stuff can be taught 'credibly' by dealing out the odd smack.

BTW I am not religious nutter, I do have a kid and I got smacked...not only that but I got the strap on my first day at school for WAIT FOR IT....farting on the mat during fecking story time?!!! I think it is spurious to hang the ills of todays society on the whole it's 'illegal' to hit your kids now thing. Sounds like a shitty and not particularly convincing excuse for crap parenting.

[MSTRS:Me]

So just to summarise how I understand some of what various posters are suggesting.

The ills of society and the bad behaviour of kids and teens is apparently down to them not getting smacked? WTF? SO now so called 'good parenting' comes down to whether you (in light of the law) have the balls to smack or not.

What about all that other stuff that I see missing from 'some peoples parenting' these days. Such as teaching morals, right and wrong, consideration for others, respect for self - I wouldn't think that stuff can be taught 'credibly' by dealing out the odd smack.

BTW I am not religious nutter, I do have a kid and I got smacked...not only that but I got the strap on my first day at school for WAIT FOR IT....farting on the mat during fecking story time?!!! I think it is spurious to hang the ills of todays society on the whole it's 'illegal' to hit your kids now thing. Sounds like a shitty and not particularly convincing excuse for crap parenting.

Taken in isolation, you are right...everything needs to be in balance to achieve a desireable outcome. That balance is missing, whether it be parents who give their kids a crack for no good reason - right through to those parents who never check their kids.
Kids need boundaries, and they need to find those limits by being 'checked' in an appropriate manner. Including a smack if the occasion warrants it.

[awayatc]

People on this forum taking the time to voice their opinion in regards to bringing up their offspring are not the problem.
Regardless of the completely opposing views on smacking......

This law is suppoded to make a difference....sadly it won't, because the losers and no hopers that actualy hurt kids are not responsible parents at all.

I don't believe anybody who has posted their opinions on this thread needs government interference with bringing up their blood.....wether they choose to smack or not......

.02 pacific peso worth.......

[devnull]

So just to summarise how I understand some of what various posters are suggesting.

The ills of society and the bad behaviour of kids and teens is apparently down to them not getting smacked? WTF? SO now so called 'good parenting' comes down to whether you (in light of the law) have the balls to smack or not.

What about all that other stuff that I see missing from 'some peoples parenting' these days. Such as teaching morals, right and wrong, consideration for others, respect for self - I wouldn't think that stuff can be taught 'credibly' by dealing out the odd smack.

BTW I am not religious nutter, I do have a kid and I got smacked...not only that but I got the strap on my first day at school for WAIT FOR IT....farting on the mat during fecking story time?!!! I think it is spurious to hang the ills of todays society on the whole it's 'illegal' to hit your kids now thing. Sounds like a shitty and not particularly convincing excuse for crap parenting.

You understand incorrectly

Smacking is just one tool that a parent uses, not the only tool.
A good parent sets a punishment to fit the crime, so to speak.

My little boy gets a smack if it's warranted. He also gets told off or put in his room - it all depends on what he's done
He also gets lots of praise, hugs & kisses - though he's usually pretty good, there are times he isn't

The contention surrounding the anti-smacking bill (really anti-parenting, since it isn't just smacking) is that it undermines parental authority while doing nothing to address abuse issues.

Instead, kids are being taught in schools that they should inform on their parents, and that their parents will be punished by the state (shades of WW2 Germany & Hitler Youth??)

End result is kids out of control because parents are too scared to set boundaries (as in Sweden).

As for morals and responsibilities, those values have evolved in Western society because of the predominant christian influence in our past. Other cultures teach similar values, but our society was influenced by the church.

I'm not religious either, but even i have noticed that there seems to be a lot more open anti-religious feelings expressed now, mainly anti-christian. Instead of taking a live & let live attitude, more people are condemning others based on religion.

So is it really surprising that some of the values, namely respect, morals, responsibility, usually associated with christian beliefs, are becoming watered down, and being treated as less desirable traits?

Civilised behaviour is a thin veneer, and dropping one belief system without having an alternative available to hold up as an ideal doesn't do society any favours...

[Number One]

As for morals and responsibilities, those values have evolved in Western society because of the predominant christian influence in our past. Other cultures teach similar values, but our society was influenced by the church.

I'm not religious either, but even i have noticed that there seems to be a lot more open anti-religious feelings expressed now, mainly anti-christian. Instead of taking a live & let live attitude, more people are condemning others based on religion.

So is it really surprising that some of the values, namely respect, morals, responsibility, usually associated with christian beliefs, are becoming watered down, and being treated as less desirable traits?

Civilised behaviour is a thin veneer, and dropping one belief system without having an alternative available to hold up as an ideal doesn't do society any favours...

Interesting and good points. We are currently searching a school for our boy so the teaching kids to inform on their parents hasn't been brought home to US yet. In looking at schools though I note that most of the schools are runing specific 'values' programmes I would suspect this is in an effort to improve/control kids behaviour and social skills at school in the absense of these basic things being taught and 'rolemodelled' at home. I am personally quite keen on these programmes as though my boy is being taught the basics at home I know many kids aren't being taught that stuff deliberately at all and he has to go to school with some of these little horrors. I am conscious however that there are parents that balk at this kind of 'educational input' even though they are kept very generic and there isn't a wiff of 'religion' sad that society doesn't seem to recognise that religious or not there are some basic standards of behaviour that we should all look to demonstrate as the world becomes a busier and less caring place.

BTW: I wasn't having a crack at you with that summary of my understanding about what some seem to be saying and in fact you I think are the first to even refer to hugs, kisses and praise....maybe not though - far too many pages of raw and fairly pointless debate going on to bother reading all of it.

[Clockwork]

... that summary of my understanding about what some seem to be saying and in fact you I think are the first to even refer to hugs, kisses and praise....maybe not though - far too many pages of raw and fairly pointless debate going on to bother reading all of it.
[/SIZE]

Thanks for sharing your half-informed opinion then.



As far as I'm concerned this thread is not about the correct way to bring up children. It's about how people feel towards starry eyed politicians and their supprters are turning ordinary people into criminals for caring enough to ensure that their young and unreasoning children learn right from wrong and how to function in society in a manner that has been accepted practice across almost all human cultures and I expect since before historical records began.

And for me personally the debate has been about the meaning and intent of the amendmented statute.