Smacking kids?

[Fub@r]

This is thinly disguised social engineering that will be just the start of state control of our families lives.

What do you mean start??????????? Its been going on for years!

Comeon lets face it, what does childless Helen expect people to do when your kid shoves knifes in power points etc? Put the child in to timeout, so they can sit in their room and shove something else in to another one? The caring parents of this world won't use bats, jug cords etc on their kids but because we care we are classed in law as being no better than the scumbag Kahui family now

All we need now is the follow up bill where parents will be held legally liable for their kids actions until age 18. So therefore the socailist government will hold us accountable for our kids actions whilst removing our abilities to control and discipline kids. You may laugh but this will be on their agenda. The State knows best according to Helen.........look at the surplus and how we can't get a tax cut because nanny State knows best!

This Bill wont stop the Kahui's of this world.......they will continue to make a mockery of the system whilst caring parents are strung up!

Hell look at the past few days, Labour and Bradford are now blaming the hype on the media for calling it "anti smacking bill" when they now claim it isn't. General public is being treated with contempt by a Labour governement that is more interested in keeping its power through a Green vote than what is good for society.

People like Bradford need to piss off back on to a benefit........when is this country going to wake up and get rid of this MMP where minority fringe groups can hold the power against the greater majority!

[The_Dover]

Well I've just sprung one of my daughters (15) fucking her 18 year old boyfriend in the back of my car.. I feel like smacking someone, and he knows it too. Trouble is thats someone elses kid..

do you want me to take him for a ride bruce?

[Quartermile]

Or a nice drive there you can have a chat about his behavior:

[Street Gerbil]

One thing the bill is going to achieve is to turn ALL parents into 3 categories of child abusers: the scum that beats the crap out of their kids, those formerly known as good parents, abusing their kids by disciplining them, and those law-abiding citizens, abusing their kids by not disciplining them.
Catch 22 if you ask me.

[Skyryder]

Why is the state not protecting me from the children?. There are 9 yrs olds committing atrocites, 12 year old boys preying on our daughters, there are 14 year olds hurling lumps of freaking concrete through our windscreens for God's sake, and we are to protect the children.......... wrong answer pal. I have always fought against the idea that children are the centre of the famly. they are part of the family, not the centre. Too much damn time is taken up worrying about what the children need, and sweet fuck all is given to what the parents may need, in order to keep their family together, and happy.


I don't really care about the semantics, I will call smacking hitting if need be, but I will not change my stance on whether or not I should be allowed to use a corrective punishment, irrespective of what stigmatic word is placed on the action.



Pardon me for caring, but my darling 8 year old daughter used to have a rather unhealthy fascination for 3 pin power sockets, and would make a bee line for them anytime she had a chance. We tried everything, but in the end, we had to smack her, in order to drive the point home. Problem solved in an instant.

If you find pain as a teaching method, "abhorrent" you live in a very idealistic world. As an 11yr old boy, I was being bullied mercillesly by one of the neighbourhood kids, and this went on for about 9 months, and we tried every damn thing we could with this kid, to make him stop. In the end, I got so fucked off, I took the matter in hand, and one day, as he was following me home, taunting me, he went too far, and ankle tapped me. I got up, turned round, and smacked him full on in the face, and decked him. The kid not only left me alone from that day on, but he stopped bullying full stop. He became a lot more involved in school in a positive way, and ended up playing beside me on the softball team.
In your world, that kid would be the same today, if not in jail, or dead.



Thanks Sue, we took corporal punishment off our teachers, and further crippled the states ability to manage schools, and now we find it hard to get teachers. Now we are going to chop society off at the knees, and remove the parents right to discipline. Watch this space Sue, in 15 years, lets revisit this, and see how fucked up your bill really was.

We are legislating like mad to compensate for out of control kids in cars, tearing up our roads, and killing innocent fpeople/amilies, and you want to tell me that "smacking is abhorrent". The rights we gave these kids 20 years ago, when we decided corporal punishment was bad, is making it's presence known today. Thanks Sue, you're a real pal.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlboroughex...2657a6520.html

Read and learn. Not much else to be said.

[MSTRS:Me]

Read and learn. Not much else to be said.

...a well-intentioned piece of legislation...

"The road to Hell is paved...etc"\. Oh...Don? (McLean) I can see him too....

[kro]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlboroughex...2657a6520.html

Read and learn. Not much else to be said.

It's still mutton dressed as lamb.

[Phurrball]

*Sigh*

I'm sorry, I couldn't be arsed reading more than the first and last pages of this thread, as I've a nasty feeling I know the sorts of rant I'm likely to read.

Some legal points:

1) This is not an 'Anti smacking' bill. I'm pretty sure that it is silent in regards to any specific method of physical discipline of a child. It may have an anti smacking effect, but that is not what the bill does. I know this might seem like splitting hairs, but accuracy is important in legal matters.

What it does, is to repeal the defence in s59 of the Crimes act that allows physical discipline of a child. Yanking your kid off the road, or smacking their hand as they reach for a plug are NOT physical discipline - they are preventative measures to avoid serious harm. (Yes, I know these may fit into the broad interpretation of 'discipline' for some purposes, but they are NOT the same as a smack after the fact.)

If those that gnash and wail knew how inconsistently the section was applied in courts (ie reasonable to beat a child with a riding crop and a litany of other woeful examples in judgments), they might see why the current state of the law is not a happy one - and why change is needed.

2) This will not criminalise parents that use minimal force to discipline their child.

This is called the de minimis approach, and is already used effectively in the enforcement of many laws. Essentially (for those that can't be arsed with the link) the law is not concerned with trifling breaches of laws that are in force.

Yes, this will not prevent cases like Lillybing, the Kahui twins etc - but they are abuse, and culpable honicide cases, and are breaches of different parts of criminal law and part of a broader societal problem.

What it may do is make us think about how we discipline our children - which is no bad thing IMHO. Such sections have been repealed in a number of countries already, and their respective societies have not crumbled.

There are a number of constitutional reasons why NZ often leads the world in the law reflecting changes in society: Short terms of parliament, a unicameral legislature, and an MMP electoral system.

I can't be faffed saying more, but FWIW, that's my legalistic view, and IMHO it corrects a number of misconceptions.

PS: I was smacked occasionally as a child, and it isn't my business how anyone else parents their children (unless they are abusing them). That said, I'm in favour of this Crimes Act ammendment.

Rant over.

[The_Dover]

as long as they don't ban smacking hippies we're all good

[MSTRS:Me]

Said it before and will say it again...
No matter what one thinks of repealing the reasonable force section, the effect WILL be one of removing the 'right' of parents to physically disipline their own children.
Unless the repeal includes a clause that says (eg open-handed slap on buttocks, or hand) smacking IS legal, then Bradford's bill is going to cause all kinds of shit down the track.

[Quartermile]

*Sigh*
1) This is not an 'Anti smacking' bill. I'm pretty sure that it is silent in regards to any specific method of physical discipline of a child. It may have an anti smacking effect, but that is not what the bill does. I know this might seem like splitting hairs, but accuracy is important in legal matters.

Yea true but thats how the media explains it, and we are supposed to trust the media

[Fub@r]

Some legal points:

1) This is not an 'Anti smacking' bill. I'm pretty sure that it is silent in regards to any specific method of physical discipline of a child. It may have an anti smacking effect, but that is not what the bill does. I know this might seem like splitting hairs, but accuracy is important in legal matters.

But then Bradford last November said in a press conference that smacking of a kid in any form will be illegal with this bill............its only now that she is saying that it won't. Don't even think the politicians know.

[Quartermile]

But then Bradford last November said in a press conference that smacking of a kid in any form will be illegal with this bill............its only now that she is saying that it won't. Don't even think the politicians know.

yea like thats a first

[crack]

*Sigh*

I'm sorry, I couldn't be arsed reading more than the first and last pages of this thread, as I've a nasty feeling I know the sorts of rant I'm likely to read.

Some legal points:

1) This is not an 'Anti smacking' bill. I'm pretty sure that it is silent in regards to any specific method of physical discipline of a child. It may have an anti smacking effect, but that is not what the bill does. I know this might seem like splitting hairs, but accuracy is important in legal matters.

What it does, is to repeal the defence in s59 of the Crimes act that allows physical discipline of a child. Yanking your kid off the road, or smacking their hand as they reach for a plug are NOT physical discipline - they are preventative measures to avoid serious harm. (Yes, I know these may fit into the broad interpretation of 'discipline' for some purposes, but they are NOT the same as a smack after the fact.)

If those that gnash and wail knew how inconsistently the section was applied in courts (ie reasonable to beat a child with a riding crop and a litany of other woeful examples in judgments), they might see why the current state of the law is not a happy one - and why change is needed.

2) This will not criminalise parents that use minimal force to discipline their child.

This is called the de minimis approach, and is already used effectively in the enforcement of many laws. Essentially (for those that can't be arsed with the link) the law is not concerned with trifling breaches of laws that are in force.

Yes, this will not prevent cases like Lillybing, the Kahui twins etc - but they are abuse, and culpable honicide cases, and are breaches of different parts of criminal law and part of a broader societal problem.

What it may do is make us think about how we discipline our children - which is no bad thing IMHO. Such sections have been repealed in a number of countries already, and their respective societies have not crumbled.

There are a number of constitutional reasons why NZ often leads the world in the law reflecting changes in society: Short terms of parliament, a unicameral legislature, and an MMP electoral system.

I can't be faffed saying more, but FWIW, that's my legalistic view, and IMHO it corrects a number of misconceptions.

PS: I was smacked occasionally as a child, and it isn't my business how anyone else parents their children (unless they are abusing them). That said, I'm in favour of this Crimes Act ammendment.

Rant over.

But where is your proof, thousands of years of bringing up kids, and now we have this TREND, in social engineering from the liberal and more educated than me, telling me how to bring up my kids.
No one on here as asked what sort of kids we want for our future .
I am raising mine to just be BLOODY GOOD HUMANS, DO unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Yes one we have had to use the wooden spoon on occassion,
The other, a look or a growl, is more damaging than a smack, where as a growl to the other one means nothing.

They are both very special kids, and we tell them daily we love them.

As Dr KRO stated we have a society where kids can committ murder, throw bits of concrete from over pass's, etc etc, .

You read one page at the begining, and one at the end, and you form an opinion, I think you are a F---wit.

The poll states that over 70% favour the deterent, but what you favour is fuck democracy.

The fact that this is a Party vote, and not a conscience vote leaves a lot to be decided, like who is trading votes for support.

Matey your kind are dangerous.

Now I have never meet you, wouldn't know you from Adam, I don't need to meet you, I form my opinion of you from as you have written.

And matey I have told my kids that I WILL GO TO FUCKING JAIL FOR THIS IF NEED BE, the bread winner taken out, the mortgage forclosed, a family torn apart because of a belligerent child.

I have mailed Bradford of my concerns, and as yet I am yet to recieve a reply, i think it will never come.

In the 80s I sent 99 letters to 99 MPs about the increasing interest rates and not being able to sell my assets,the result being that we lost our farm and business, I still have 97 replies, the two missing are from Messers Lange and Douglas.

It goes to show the FU 2 attitude the politicians have for the general population today.

Rant over. I do. very very much.

Again to you and your kind a big F U 2.

[Phurrball]

Crack, I was correcting some common misconceptions that I am in the fortunate position to understand by dint of my chosen career. My post was supposed to be helpful and informative, but if you only want to see it from your side, that's your prerogative.

But where is your proof, thousands of years of bringing up kids, and now we have this TREND, in social engineering from the liberal and more educated than me, telling me how to bring up my kids.

10 European countries have moved to a similar legislative position. Is Europe going to the dogs?? Can't say I see proof in your post either, just anecdotal opinions masquerading as fact and pointless invective. If you can point to factual errors in my post, please do.

No one on here as asked what sort of kids we want for our future .
I am raising mine to just be BLOODY GOOD HUMANS, DO unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Yes one we have had to use the wooden spoon on occassion,
The other, a look or a growl, is more damaging than a smack, where as a growl to the other one means nothing.

Emphasis added. Can you see the hypocrisy that might have made me highlight the emphasised passage?

They are both very special kids, and we tell them daily we love them.

Good. I'm sure your kids will turn out fine. But ask them in 20 years whether they remember any discipline events from their early childhood, and how they feel about those memories...you may be surprised by the answers. I remember my terror at around age 4, watching a friend down the road being chased with a belt by his grandfather. I remember that fear when I do not remember much else from that age. I don’t think that event had a positive impact on my friend or myself. It didn’t show anything other than grandad was bigger, and stronger than us kids – leaving a nasty memory for life.

As Dr KRO stated we have a society where kids can committ murder, throw bits of concrete from over pass's, etc etc, .

Show me a society where these things don’t happen occasionally…There will always be bad eggs, and I’d be very interested which of those young offenders came from backgrounds containing ‘hidings’ or other physical discipline. I can’t answer this, but as you seem to have total insight, and complete understanding of all the factors and participants in those cases, I’ll leave the comment to you…

You read one page at the begining, and one at the end, and you form an opinion, I think you are a F---wit.

Are you seriously telling me that you formed your opinion just from this thread? Like me, your opinion was likely formed before you even saw this thread. Like me, you probably know the general shape of argument of those with whom you disagree…I doubt you’d sit through pages of anti-smacking rhetoric. You do have a weak point though. I’ll read through the entire thread, and see if there is any gold-plated, eloquent prose that sways me in favour of physical discipline of children. I’ll tell you if there is.

The poll states that over 70% favour the deterent, but what you favour is fuck democracy.

A self-selecting poll from within a small target demographic isn't worth the paper it's written on (Or the 1's and 0's of cyberspace that compose it). No statistical safeguards of accuracy = a worthless poll. I'm sorry, but democracy has nothing to do with the poll at the start of the thread.

The fact that this is a Party vote, and not a conscience vote leaves a lot to be decided, like who is trading votes for support.

On this, we absolutely agree.

Matey your kind are dangerous.

Do you mean that people who disagree with you are dangerous?? I am no more dangerous than any other person in that my vote is worth the same as yours in this representative democracy. Please expand, as I’d dearly love to be all dangerous and scary…sadly, I’m neither of those things (But being dangerous and scary could come in handy on the bike when cars do daft things near me – so I’d love for you to expand)

Now I have never meet you, wouldn't know you from Adam, I don't need to meet you, I form my opinion of you from as you have written.

You'd be happy if I judged you based on this mere, tiny glimpse of your beliefs and opinions? Really?? That seems a little shortsighted, and likely to have you alienating yourself from all sorts of people worth knowing on a modicum of disagreement. I'm happy to disagree with people, quite vehemently sometimes, and still consider them worth knowing.

And matey I have told my kids that I WILL GO TO FUCKING JAIL FOR THIS IF NEED BE, the bread winner taken out, the mortgage forclosed, a family torn apart because of a belligerent child.

Just as well you won't go to jail, and that I outlined the De Minimis approach to enforcing laws for you that means you’ll stay free as a bird. Phew, that’s a relief?! Hooray, everybody's happy

I have mailed Bradford of my concerns, and as yet I am yet to recieve a reply, i think it will never come.

Good. More people should participate in this important aspect of democracy.

In the 80s I sent 99 letters to 99 MPs about the increasing interest rates and not being able to sell my assets,the result being that we lost our farm and business, I still have 97 replies, the two missing are from Messers Lange and Douglas.

As above. Good onya.

It goes to show the FU 2 attitude the politicians have for the general population today.

In your humble opinion of our representative democracy… You've done your bit by writing in, so you arguably have more right to this opinion than most.

Rant over. I do. very very much.

Good that you care. So do I.

Again to you and your kind a big F U 2.

Why thank you, take a bow for falling back to invective when a reasoned and polite argument fails you. Res ipsa locquitur. See, I wrote that whole post without resorting to nasty words and abuse once - you should try it sometime