Family Integrity - foot in mouth again
Oh dear. Family Integrity (the group behind a controversial child discipline handbook exhorting parents to administer physical discipline to their children for up to 10 minutes) have pulled a poll asking whether parents should be allowed to use reasonable force to discipline their children from their website after too many people voted no! This Barnados press release has the details.
An old link to the poll still works however, so you can still vote here and see results here. Democracy in action!
Bookmark to:
September 11th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
I fully support Sue Bradford’s bill, and I don’t buy into Family Integrity’s thesis that very small children are sinful. However, if you actually look at their brochure, they seem to have been much maligned. They are not advocating a 10 minute spankathon as some seem to interpret it.
The 10 minutes includes talking, cuddling etc. and the administration of one smack (or not, where appropriate). Again, I don’t consider smacking to be the best way to discipline children, but I also think that parents could do a lot worse than stick to FI’s guidelines if they are into corporal punishment. It is not families who occasionally administer one smack who would end up ending up in court pleading section 59 in their defence - I am sure the police will not be prosecuting them.
kiore1
http://www.epf.org.nz
September 11th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
The poll has now gone from that old link, I hope someone got a screenshot.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:04 am
It was Yes: 54%, No: 46% shortly before they pulled it. Not a bad result, since it was promoted only through their own pro-spanking website.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:16 am
So … are you in favour of letting a majority-vote determine what is, and what isn’t, a right?
September 26th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
An interesting thought, Duncan.
I would say it is the right of a child to grow up free from parental violence.
Family Integrity would say it is a right, or even a duty, of a parent to beat the evil out of his or her child with the rod of correction.
The difference is that my concept of rights comes from a perspective of respect for planet and people. Family Integrity’s concept of rights comes from the treatment of an historical text as the literal word of a supreme being who must be obeyed (no, not Helen), irrespective of the impact on planet and people.
When it comes down to it, it is Members of Parliament who will determine, by a majority vote, whose concept of rights will prevail.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
toad,
Doesn’t it bother you that those MPs aren’t constrained? That is, that by a simple majority vote, they can extinguish (or create) legal rights with the stroke of a pen?
On the topic of corporal punishment, the only reason the Government may rightly interfere in child-raising is if the guardian is abusing the rights of the child that the guardian is holding in trust. Corporal punishment doesn’t fall into that category; it simply doesn’t harm the development of the child in the same way that physical or sexual abuse does.
September 27th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Agreed, Duncan, it doesn’t harm the development of the child in the same way that physical or sexual abuse does, but there is plenty of evidence that it does harm the development of the child - in particular it teaches the child that might is right and that if you can’t get your own way through reasoned argument and negotiation then you get it through the application of physical force. This is the very mentality that ultimately leads to violence, rape and even war.
I learned this myself when, at age 14, after having been subjected to numerous spankings by my mother as a child, I realised I was big enough to seize Mr Whacky off her and give her a few back. Interestingly, she never hit me again, becasue now it was me who held the power. Fortunately, I have come to terms with that, and have managed to raise my child without ever resorting to physical punishment. Many do not, and the cycle continues with the next generation.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Toad
The lesson about “reasoned argument” being subservient to force is a useful one to learn, Maybe you haven’t noticed but there is some truth to it. Reasoned argument may guide and control force, but in the end the force is an important part of the equation when it comes to behaviour. Not fighting with the police, not challenging the local bike gang… these are a matter of prudence, and that TOO must be learned. The bigger guy CAN beat you up… be respectful and use reason to get him on YOUR side.
This is the very mentality that ultimately leads to violence, rape and even war.
That’s a strong claim and I doubt that it is backed by the facts. We learn very fast and remember very well, the things which cause pain. If a spanking is applied at the time of the actual attempt to reach for the electric plug, or the actual attempt to run into the road, it is an extremely effective means of extinguishing THAT behaviour. It does very little in the way of encouraging a boy to rape, pillage and murder.
Spanking a 12 year old is futile, if the child actually needs a spanking it is too late anyway, and the lesson will indeed be as you argue. A 2 year old may well get a swat on the behind and profit from it.
What you can take away from this is that “one size fits all” isn’t applicable. We grow from a single cell to old age and at each stage of that process our needs are different and our ability to learn and change our behaviour is different.
Generalizations that are to apply to everyone at every age, are not valid.
This issue has divided the Green party. We could do better than to be arguing about it again.
respectfully
BJ
September 27th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
bj: “This issue has divided the Green Party”
… for you and how many?
I agree that “”we” could do better than to be arguing about it again.”
… so don’t !
September 27th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Eredwen
I am, much to my amazement, part of the “right” wing of this party. This is a measure of the extremism of some members, but is also a warning sign. I am basically a NY Liberal. I am regarded as a loony lefty by most of my peers from the USA and in most places I have ever been. I support raising my own taxes…
I cannot believe that I am alone as a Green in finding this a poor use (a squandering) of our limited political capital. How many.?.. I could poll the board which wouldn’t work cause many Greens aren’t here and many who are here aren’t Greens, but I would not be surprised if the split in the party wasn’t a lot closer to 50/50 than you’d expect. This is not a “Green” issue except to the extent that we’ve made it so and it was not necessary.
We’re doomed in the next election if the public is reminded of this… and I think we can expect they will be.
respectfully
BJ
September 27th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
BJ,
You’ve hit the nail on the head. From an outsiders perspective there are two main ’streams’ within the Green movement here: environmentalists and socialists.
You’re right that the smacking issue is a complete waste of time for those concerned with the environment. But it *isn’t* a complete waste of time from a socialist perspective, because it represents further encroachment of the State upon parental rights.
September 27th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
BJ
This thread is named “Family Integrity - foot in mouth again.”
That seems apt!
September 27th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
g0ddam c0mmies!
h0w dare they encr0ach 0n my right t0 whack the bl00dy kids.
these s0cialst pink0s just need a g00d clip r0und the ear.
September 27th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
BJ :
We’ve been around this before, and I wish you would stop trying to define what Green is in such a narrow and restrictive fashion.
There is a coherent political philosophy that covers, but is not restricted to, environmental issues. This is not particular to NZ greens, it doesn’t vary a lot internationally (I would be tempted to exempt US greens who have a tendency to paranoid wacko leftism that makes me uncomfortable!)
Non-violence is a fundamental element of greenness. If you are not happy with that, it needn’t prevent you from being a Green in other respects, but please accept that you won’t talk us out of it.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
DBayne :
The issue of violence against children is played out, not strictly speaking on the left/right axis, but on the authoritarian/libertarian axis.
And the Greens are not authoritarian on this issue (taking rights away from parents), on the contrary they are libertarian (protecting the rights of kids).
Authoritarians instinctively respect the right of the patriarch to dominate his tribe by all means.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
BJ : But I agree with you about the value of learning prudence with respect to violence. It took me decades to learn that : hey I’m non-violent, how come I end up getting whacked?
So, would getting smacked occasionally by my parents have saved me from getting bashed by cops, or punched at parties? An interesting conjecture.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:05 am
I dunno…. I don’t get bashed by cops or punched at parties… not even when I was protesting ‘nam
Now I’m a bit old for that sort of thing.
I’m not really trying to redefine “Green” in a restrictive fashion. I pointed out when this started that there was another path to the same end, a BETTER path IMAO, which was not taken. That was to actually define the boundary between parental adminstration of a spanking and parental abuse of a child. NOT leaving it to the police to decide where that borderline is. We pay our parliamentarians well, I expect them to actually do something difficult in return for that salary. Not just fob off the decision on the nearest cop or judge. This is being allowed into the proposed law in amendments now, but what will be remembered at the next election?
I suspect that I gather as many brickbats as I do on this because many of you realize that there WAS a mistake in the way it was done. I’m all for the prevention of child abuse, but I insist in a rule-of-law society, that there be a proper legal definition of abuse. Not the opinion of the cop on the beat or the judge having jurisdiction. What if you get a cop who’s a hard-boiled conservative? … the parent’s get a pass and the kids get a beating because THERE IS NO LAW.
We want to publicize what is acceptable and what isn’t… but when we want to write up the information pamphlet we run into a problem because THERE ARE NO GUIDELINES ANYWHERE.
Basically we messed up. Maybe we can retrieve it, maybe not.
There’s a reality check called an election… and we’re gonna be overdrawn unless we pay attention to what we attempt to do and HOW we try to do it. Preventing child abuse is a big winner with the electorate. Doing it the way we proposed turns it into a big loser.
That’s a big problem.
If you attempt to do something impossible and fail you have really failed twice, once by the failure to accomplish the impossible and again by the failure to attempt a possible thing you might have done instead.
That could well describe us in the next election.
respectfully
BJ
September 28th, 2006 at 6:04 am
once again bj…you lift dancing on the head of a pin/making mountains out of molehills..into an art form..
the exemption in sec 59 will be repealed…(get used to it/over it..!..)
and as for you..(in mountain-making mode)..claiming this will ‘cost us’ the next election…
what a crock..!
the mood amongst our lawmakers..(it has been reported) is to lead the mood of the nation…(not follow it)..on this issue..
and (i know.!.i know.!.all parents don’t ‘abuse’..)..the kahui twins case colours the zeitgeist….that and others clearly shows the need for changes within our cultures…
remember the hoo-ha around the legalisation of prostitution..?.
(with the bj’s of the world muttering..”..the electorate will never forget/forgive’..
once again…that was a crock..eh..?..)..
there are many other examples…
btw..re yr ‘nam’ demo credentials…what stage of the war…?…(great parties after the demos..!..eh..?..
great places to meet women too..eh..!)
(i mean…to draw a parrallel….it’s only the rightwing ‘denialists’ who are still parrotting the pro-iraqi war/invasion line..eh..?
not that much cred to had from being anti that little mess now..eh..?..)
but back at sec 59….there have been times i have worried sues’ bill wouldn’t succeed…..
i now am reasonably cheered that it will…
(anecdotal….quite some years ago i recall raising/banging on about this issue in ak green party circles….this raising/banging on greeted with rolled eyes/raised eyebrows and sniffs of impatience..
we have come a lot further than i could have hoped at that time..
(and that ‘cheers’ me..)
so bj…this is the time for that change…
and you could just ‘pack-up’ your canute/cassandra schtick…
(it’s past its’ use-by date..eh..?..)
(but i know you won’t..(sigh!)..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 28th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Duncan Bayne says: “From an outsiders perspective there are two main ’streams’ within the Green movement here: environmentalists and socialists…But it *isn’t* a complete waste of time from a socialist perspective, because it represents further encroachment of the State upon parental rights.”
Actually, Duncan, there are 4 founding Charter Principles on which the Green Party is founded: ecological wisdom, social responsibility, appropriate decision-making, and non-violence. You can read about them here. There are also links from that page to the Green Party’s Vision and Values.
Repealing section 59 has got nothing to do with socialism or the social responsibility Charter Principle - that principle is about the just distribution of finite resources. The Green Charter basis for the repeal of section 59 is the non-violence principle “Non-violent conflict resolution is the process by which ecological wisdom, social responsibility and appropriate decision making will be implemented. This principle applies at all levels.”
I don’t know where you get the idea that the Greens want the State to interfere in people’s lives from, Duncan. The Appropriate Decision-making Charter Principle means the Greens actually want to keep the State out of people’s lives, unless there is a sound Charter-based reason for State involvement. That is why the Greens support cannabis decriminalisation, voted for the Prostitution Reform Act, voted for the Civil Union Act, voted for the Relationships (Statutory References) Act, voted against the Foreshore & Seabed Act, voted against the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Act, voted against the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Amendment Act, voted against the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Act - the list goes on… The Greens voting record in Parliament shows they have a pretty good record of trying to keep the State out of people’s lives.
Where the Greens do support State intervention is where they consider this is necessary to support other Green Charter Principles. None of the Principles stands alone - there is often a balancing act involved. With section 59, the balance to be struck is between the parent’s right to discipline their child as they see fit (Appropriate Decisionmaking Charter Principle) and the child’s right to be free from violence (Non-violence Charter Principle). The Greens come down on the side of the vulnerable - the child - and consider it is appropriate for the State to intervene in this manner to protect the child from parental violence.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Yeah - but I decided to leave the USA when I realized they were going to invade. No surprises for me there. I knew there were no WMD. I knew how Vietnam had to end in ‘70 and ‘71 and ‘72 when I was protesting.
I assigned a 60/40 chance of global thermonuclear war in the mid-80’s and it didn’t happen. How close did we come? Are you watching the collapse of the housing market in the USA that is happening now? The recession that follows it probably cannot even be averted by destruction of the US $dollar. Nobody is sure how the Fed will steer things, but it is between a rock and a hard-place now.
Maybe I am playing cassandra/canute but predicting the future is what we have these big brains for, and it is important to use them.
ciao
BJ
September 28th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Well said Toad. Despite my arguments, I support the PRINCIPLE, it is the manner in which it was approached and implemented that draws my criticisms.
respectfully
BJ
September 28th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
bj says, (and I comment) :
“I suspect that I gather as many brickbats as I do on this because many of you realize that there WAS a mistake in the way it was done.”
Absolutely wrong!
“… THERE IS NO LAW.”
Wrong
” … THERE ARE NO GUIDELINES ANYWHERE.”
Wrong
“Basically we messed up.”
WRONG! Sue Bradford and her advisors are not in the habit of “messing up”. Please leave this to the experts in the areas concerned!
…
bj, I’m glad you “support the PRINCIPLE”.
Now PLEASE “give it a rest”! You do yourself no favours in continuing this misguided, one person crusade.
(Do you realise how arrogant you seem?)
eredwen
September 28th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Eredwen
Repealing section 59 takes vague law and turns it in to no law. There is no legal definition of abuse as opposed to such minor physical efforts a parent might take to correct his/her childs behavior once 59 is is gone. There is no legal guideline once 59 is gone, just the opinion of the cop on the beat or the judge in the courtroom. Precedents may guide courts in time, but not the cops.
It is the job of Parliament to make the laws.
If the amendments mooted are put in place the situation is much improved, and closer to what I have been arguing for all along, but the original mistake stands.
Sue Bradford is not infallible… and took a path that has needlessly given our opponents ammunition.
Needlessly giving your political opponents ammunition for the next election is “messing up” politically.
How is ANY of what I just said not true?
If true, can it be wrong?
sorry
BJ
September 28th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
you’re like a broken tape-loop bj..
how about just trying to keep quiet on this one …?
just for a little while..eh..?
give us all a break here..?..will ya..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 29th, 2006 at 8:14 am
BJ,
How dare you stand up for what you believe in, in the face of the majority who think you’re wrong! I mean, how arrogant can you be? Greens should know better than to do that kind of thing … oh, wait …
Toad,
I know the Greens are, on many topics, actually quite liberal. However, your Charter justifies an awful lot of State intervention. While you may be opposed to State interference in certain aspects of private life (which is commendable), that doesn’t extend to:
- food
- drugs
- entertainment
- trade
- commerce
- speech
- education
… ranging from the trivial (complaints over liquer-flavoured biscuits and Hooters bars) to the serious (restrictions on international trade and monopolisation of education by the State).
September 29th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Duncan
Whilst there is disagreement here about method, there is none about the principle. The state has a place in the parenting equation IMHO, and in regulation of most all of the things you listed.
I am not clear where the state is restricting free-speech here though, and that I’d be surprised to see you link to the Green party to such shenanigans in any realistic way. Maybe you are talking about the moves against liars among the Brethren?
I’ll write it off as excess enthusiasm… you were on a roll.
What you should ask is why we’d allow ourselves to have control over all those things. This is a matter of trust… and a perception of who the government is and represents.
We maintain that the government is us, and represents us… it is imperfect but reasonably representative of our collective wishes. I don’t know where you’d stand on that proposition exactly but it is an assumption that underlies Green politics and viewpoints. When it appears to be untrue it generally becomes a primary focus of our political efforts to make it true.
This means that we trust ourselves collectively more than we trust each other individually. I think that this is where we part company most distinctly from the Libertarian view which is to trust individuals more than the collective society.
Based on that perception that our government IS us, we reckon it wise to give it leave to regulate and plan things as we as a society deem necessary… and all else follows from that perception.
respectfully
BJ
November 7th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
As a child I was hit in the name of “discipline”. This resulted in psychological problems including debilitating anxiety, self-mutilation and suicidal idealization. The effects of corporal punishment caused me to disassociate which lead to self-cutting and suicidal behaviour.
Need I say anymore!.
November 7th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Svetlanov,
How then do you explain the countless number of children who received corporal punishment (as distinct from physical abuse) without harm?
November 7th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
What are you inferring ??? Are you trying to minimise my truth, or otherwise poke fun at my honest input? If you are drop it!!
November 7th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Duncan - Svetlanov is under no obligation whatsoever to explain it. Each individual is different, and circumstances differ. No doubt harm varies and manifests in a variety of ways. Please let people contribute what they can, without feeling the need to argue them into the ground.
November 7th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Svetlanov, I have no idea what you mean by minimising truth (something is true, or it isn’t) - but I apologise if I’ve insulted you. I certainly wasn’t meaning to poke fun at you, or at any problems you’ve had.
What I was trying to do was to question your assertion of causality. You’re stating that being hit caused you psychological harm - with the clear implication that what we’re talking about pertains to Section 59, i.e., that it was corporal punishment rather than physical abuse.
So, I’m asking you to substantiate your claim. Clearly, you see it as being relevant to this debate, else you wouldn’t have posted it here.
November 7th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Duncan,
What I meam by minimising is your implication that you assert: “the countless number of children who received corporal punishment (as distinct from physical abuse) without harm?”
My psychological problems and self-mutiliation behaviour resulted from corporal punishment - and what I mean by corporal punishment is the smacking and hitting that causes pain and fear. THAT is the truth of the matter.
Furthermore, I have been in therapy where others have been damaged by such childhood treatment. So let go of the myth that corporal punishment is “harmless”!!!
November 7th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
I think that some degree of corporal punishment should probably be allowed. Perhaps allowable “corporal punishment” needs to be defined, in the context of suitable studies. Studies anyone?
I wonder whether what Svetlanov suffered was abuse. It might be difficult to argue about it if terms are not defined to begin with.
At any rate, I think that Svetlanov has probably suffered enough, without people jumping down his/her throat to “substantiate your claim”. Duncan, you seem a bit aggressive. It’s awful when crime victims complain and are further victimised for it. Duncan, please lay off Svetlanov.
November 7th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Svetlana,
So “minimising your truth” means that I disagree with you? Well, in that case, I guess that’s what I’m doing. As traumatic as your circumstances may have been, anecdotal evidence is no substitute for proper studies, and the latest studies show that corporal punishment (as, I stress, separate from abuse) does not cause psychological harm.
Prim,
Yes, obviously. The studies I’ve seen suggest that light corporal punishment in young children is without harm - but the issue is that a blanket repeal of Section 59 would criminalize that as well.
W.r.t. Svetlanov: she posted her story in order to win sympathy for those supporting the repeal. I would never dream of challenging someone who raised such issues in a private setting, but in the context of a public debate over policy, her claims can legitimately be questioned.
November 7th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Duncan -
I agree that studies are generally valuable. It seems to me that what Svetlanov suffered would most likely fall outside any definition of allowable corporal punishment that I would agree with - which would be light.
I think that this kind of approach to discussion may be preferable to a head-on, black-and-white style.
November 7th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I would hardly call “light smacking” corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of physical and psychological pain and that is totally unacceptable. I have already stated my case over this issue and my reasons.
Speaking of Section 59, I think the legislators are going to have to think very carefully about the rewrite, so that parental touching and restraint is not regarded as assault. That would be going from one extreme to another.
Duncan, if you do not like what I say, then that is really just too bad. But that does not give you the right to discount my truth.
November 7th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Duncan
You are a guest on a Green website here.
Svetlanov is a newcomer to this website. Please give him(her) the courtesy of respecting what (s)he has to say.
By all means debate issues with the Greens, but minimising a person’s actual experience is not an appropriate nor acceptable way to do this. Thus it does nothing to support/advance your argument.
November 7th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Duncan sez : (something is true, or it isn’t)
What colour is the sky in your world, Dunk? Is it black, or is it white?
November 8th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Alistair,
Are you arguing that truth is subjective?
Svetlanov,
If what you were subjected to was not “light smacking”, then yes, it might well have caused you harm. Again, I apologise if I’ve caused you offense, but I do not apologise for asking you for clarification: there is no such thing as “your truth”, merely truth - which I was trying to determine.
November 8th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Duncan,
My patience is beginning to run extremely thin with you. Until now, I have held back but now I will give you a piece of my mind! You are being very offensive. And I think it is deliberate! I do not need to say anymore than what has been said just to please you! - Damn you!!!
While I am about it, I will also tell you that I do not speak on assumptions and if my truth is “subjective” then so be it! I think it is time you displayed some intelligence in your postings and not border on pig-ignorance and arrogance. And my posting is NOT anecdotal, it is a fact. This talk about “surveysâ€? and “anecdotal evidenceâ€? is total crap. Many surveys have been done on this issue and none of them are accurate, on either side of the debate.
Furthermore, your statement: “the countless number of children who received corporal punishment (as distinct from physical abuse) without harm?�- you speak about is also absolute crap. What about the countless number that has been harmed. I suggest you pull your head out of the sand, opened your eyes and took a damn good look around you instead of just looking into your own little internal world of warm fuzzes and denial.
If more survivors of this crap you call “discipline� found the courage to speak out about the long-term pain they have suffered, I think the world will be a better place for everyone.
Duncan, for your own good, unless you have something constructive to add – drop it because I certainly will not put up with anymore of your continued monotony.
November 8th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Svetlanov,
I agree that we should drop the discussion; you clearly aren’t listening to what I’m trying to say.
November 8th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Yes, perhaps it would be wise to leave the discussion here - I’ve been concerned at the direction it’s been heading given that someone’s very personal experience is involved. I think you’ve both been able to effectively communicate your points so let’s leave it at that shall we?
Cheers,
frog
November 8th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Bravo Svetlanov!
I endorse your use of the word “monotony” to describe the various mantra that Duncan uses to assert his world view. I also empathise with what you have to say about your childhood.
Duncan:
On forgblog you are generally talking to an educated audience (among whom there are specialists/experts from a variety of areas). Your use of bluster and repetition to cover the lack of background knowledge / depth in your arguments in various areas does not go unnoticed … It seems to be your hallmark!
We are a tolerant lot, and give visitors “the benefit of the doubt” … I think you’ve had your share of that!
If you must insist on being part of the “I was hit as a kid and it didn’t do me any harm brigade” that’s your choice. It can be difficult to face the fact that the way in which you were “disciplined” by your parents (?) may not have been the most effective way socialize a child, and even more difficult to face the fact that you will/may have some permanent affects from that “discipline”.
Parents/caregivers “did their best” in their time, and it is a really “adult” decision to move on from there (in light of current knowledge) for the sake of one’s own children. Many, particularly men, find this move very difficult.
(Here, I am speaking as one with a wealth of academic background and professional experience in this area … including the rigors of (sole) parenting of two now-adult offspring.)
best wishes!
eredwen
November 8th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Eredwin,
You assume a lot … my parents didn’t use corporal punishment; they thought it was morally wrong, & that children should have the same rights w.r.t. use of force as adults.
Perhaps it’s easier for you to imply that I might have ‘permanent effects’ than to address my argument?
November 8th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Just in case it wasn’t clear, my argument is:
- studies have shown that corporal punishment (light smacks administered to young children) does not cause psychological harm
- therefore, as it doesn’t cause harm, parents should be free to employ corporal punishment as defined above
- therefore, a complete repeal of Section 59 is wrong
In the light of current knowledge, it might be prudent to clarify the Crimes Act to restrict corporal punishment to those forms that have been shown to be harmless.
November 8th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Duncan -
I think that your points just above sound reasonable. Perhaps many of us would agree on these substantive points. Much of the discussion above may have instead been due to different people interpreting “corporal punishment” in different ways. No doubt there is freedom to adopt appropriate definitions in the relevant legislation. Some caveats - one may need to consider reliability of studies, and distributions of effects.
November 8th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Prim,
Thanks, I think
The point I was trying to make is that those on either sides of the “I was smacked as a child and it did / didn’t harm me” are wrong (epistemologically, not morally) to apply their personal experiences to the Section 59 debate.
That way lies subjective law, and the “well we did it like that in my day” argument, which I’m sure many Greens have come across while trying to argue specific issues.
November 8th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Hi everyone,
I need to share more about the issue of pain infliction in childhood and the addictive “pain-playâ€? behaviour that can result from it. In my earlier years, (mainly from my teens, but my self-harm behaviour began from when I was about six years of age) I would self harm (SI), with razor blades and needles. But I had no insight into my behaviour, only that it was always pleasurable. This behaviour was enveloped in deep shame and so it was always a very secret thing. In my early adulthood, I thought “I was the only one in the world who did this to myselfâ€?. I became suicidal and ended up being admitted into a psychiatric hospital (admitted four times over the years) following suicide attempts or feeling suicidal. It was during my times in hospital that I encountered other patients with similar SI behavioural traits. All of us had a similar story to tell - “childhood pain from corporal punishment led to my SI”. Some of us had also suffered from childhood sexual molestation. Over the years, I continued in my psychotherapy and found safe ways to deal with my SI addiction without inflicting anymore actual injury to myself. Anxiety from childhood feeds the behaviour. Stress feeds it as well.
SI behaviour is very common, but also very hidden. People do not go out in public and begin to cut into themselves – it is all done “underground�. So those who are alien to such behaviour and its causes are totally unaware of it. That is a major problem, because people inflicted by SI behaviour cannot seek help for it and that can be very devastating. And often it is. I encourage anyone who is into this behaviour to tell themselves that they are not mad or silly and that it is OK to seek professional help and support.
If anyone wants to learn more about self harm behaviour it is very easy to find. There is a culture out there called BME. Do a search in Google - keywords BME or “Body Modification Ezine� and you will find some very revealing (and disturbing) material. Another culture to look out for is BDSM where people enjoy pain for sexual reasons. There are BDSM groups in New Zealand. One can only speculate why these people get into such behaviour.
After you have done this piece of research do another search in Google - keywords “Self Injury� and see what you can find.
Thank you for listening.
November 8th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Svetlanov,
Thank you for sharing - I’m sure it isn’t easy, & hope it helps you.
However, without wishing to sound like a stuck record: personal experiences aren’t the kind of thing you want to use when deciding legislation. Rigorous studies are.
For you to advocate the repeal of Section 59 based on your personal experiences is as incorrect as someone advocating it be kept as is, because he was beaten as a child without any ill effects.
As you rightly state (in the case of BDSM practitioners) - to do otherwise is speculation.
November 8th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Duncan,
Well, actually, if you read my earlier posting, I have tried to say that I do not oppose smacking in its true context. What I speak out strongly against is hitting that causes pain, fear and distress. That is clearly where Section 59 needs rewriting. You have already said that “light smacking� is harmless and I agree with you.
Now, can we please “let it be� (as the Beatles song suggests)?
Discussion closed.
Thank you.
November 8th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Svetlanov,
Smacking, even light smacking, is negative reinforcement precisely because it causes pain, fear and distress.
The issue is one of magnitude; it is my assertion, supported by the aforementioned rigorous studies, that low levels of pain, fear and distress through light corporal punishment do not lead to psychological harm.
If you’re going to close a discussion, it behooves you not to introduce new material in doing so, or afterwards.
November 8th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
If what you say is true then I should not be here at all. I should be pushing up the bloody daisies.
It is becoming very clear to me that you don’t know when to let go. You are like a starving dog chewing an old dry bone. Your postings are becoming extremely tedious.
I tried to reconcile with you and asked you to let it be. You have failed to do so.
I have already given you a lecture and I stand by every comment I have made to you. Your last posting is absolute rubbish. You can continue to treat people such as myself as “collateral damage� if you wish, but don’t expect to find any respect from me. Respect will come only when you refrain from continuing to make such provocative statements.
I am NOT going to stop speaking from personal experiences just to pander to the likes of you. People like you will never silence me. I have been silenced for far too long by people such as yourself. I am no longer a ‘hidden statistic’. I am real and I am still alive. So get used to it.
November 8th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Svetlanov,
I have actually dropped the discussion with you once already; it was you who restarted it. Then, you introduced new material in your second request to drop the discussion, which I addressed.
I never asked you to stop speaking from personal experience, & I never attempted to silence you.
What I said was that personal experience is no basis for objective law, & that support for modification to or repeal of Section 59 should be based on rigourous scientific studies, not personal experiences - regardless of whether those experiences are positive or negative.
If you take honest disagreement as both provocation and an attempt to censor you, that’s your issue to deal with.
November 8th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Bravo (again) Svetlanov!
November 8th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Svetlanov - I empathise with your situation. I would however caution (for your own protection) that it is probably not ideal to share too many private details on a public forum like this. I imagine that studies done in this area would have probed people’s details in a confidential context, which seems preferable. Perhaps you could contact researchers in some way if you have concerns about their studies.
Duncan - I think that you may have valid points, and it is possible that there is some reasonable point “in the middle” where you and Svetlanov might well be in agreement. It could be explored briefly and constructively. Perhaps you could send a link to those studies which you mention?
November 8th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Hi Prim,
Thanks for your concern for me, but I really do disagree. This issue is constantly “in your face” and I think people need to know the real human cost surrounding corporal punishment.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Like Svetlanov I have also suffered fear and guilt through my experiences being hit at school and home. Fear from the punishment or even threat of such punishmen, and guilt at being such a coward. I was not hospitalised, and have worked through it by now, but it is not a pleasant experience, so I certainly cannot agree that corporal punishment causes no long term harm.
Two of us on this site have now provided personal experiences on how corporal punishment has affected us, and statistically there is likely to be a lot more. Even if only two people in every generation are harmed by corporal punishment, than that is two too many, especially as nobody is arguing that corporal punishment can actually prevent harm. So personal experiences are certainly valid in this debate. I acknowledge that not everyone is affected in the same way, in the same way that not everyone gets lung cancer from smoking, but the argument that “I was beaten as a kid and it did me no harm” has about the same validity as “my grandfather smoked 3 packs a day and lived to 90″.
kiore1
epf.org.nz
February 24th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
You wish us to explain how it can prevent harm? I can offer it up quite clearly, but we’ve been around this bush often enough.
There are two issues. One is that “corporal punishment” is too broad a term, as it encompasses everything between a harsh word and capital punishment (please notice the word is BETWEEN).
The little spankings children sometimes need are not the same as beatings. Categorizing them this way is a mistake. It is a mistake when you permit the beating because the spanking is permitted and it is a mistake when you prohibit the spanking because the beating is not permitted.
This is why I have maintained that this measure is a mistake. It may work. The cops may find some way to deal with it…. but good law is explicit, and not at the discretion of the cop on the beat. Who may be OK or may be EB.
The harm reduction? Respect for authority and one’s elders is both learned and earned. Kids have to learn it and while it can be taught without spanking, most people have trouble staying on message long enough to do it. A spanking may bring more rapid results.
As anything, it can be done poorly. Teaching parents not to be angry with kids when they punish would be a fair trick. We don’t do that either. In truth what we seem to do best and most is bury our mistakes.
Good law is explicit about what is right and wrong, and can be used to teach. That is not what we have here.
BJ
February 24th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
sometimes bj..you are so full of it..eh..?
why do you insist on dancing on the head of a pin on this..?
it’s real simple..no ambiguities..
don’t..smack/hit..children..!
why do you seem to have so much difficulty with such a blindingly simple concept..?
“..a spanking may bring more rapid results..”..
and w.t.f. is that..?..as a justification for hitting children..?
feckin’ time-managment..!
(that’s the best you can do..?..)
and no doubt you were hit..and it made a bloody man of you..eh bj..?
(as i said..sometimes you really are full of it..eh..?..)
well bj..my parents didn’t hit me…
and i don’t hit my children..
it ain’t rocket science..eh..?
but no doubt you will just keep on dancing bj..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 25th, 2007 at 12:13 am
bj,
“You can take the boy out of New York, but” …
(on this matter, you keep on making it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that)
… “you CAN”T take New York out of the boy.”
You and your partner come from a very different society. Just for a moment, on a macro level, consider the very great differences in the behaviour and attitudes of the USA and of Aotearoa/NZ in the World.
The decisions about how you socialise your kids is your private matter,
but you will not succeed in bringing Green Party policy around to your way of thinking!
“Non violence”, one of the four Green KEY Principles, is taken very seriously. The Greens obviously see no place for “spankings” (little or otherwise) in our policies. What you call “spanking” is an example of physical assault by a powerful person on a powerless person. Children have no say in the matter. Greens believe that there are more effective models of behaviour for socialising kids.
When I spend time among Green families, I find the wholesomness and the gentleness of the kids great to see!
Personally, I had the experience of becoming an unsupported, fulltime
working, sole parent, when my children were aged five and one.
My stress levels were through the roof … I ended up smacking both my children. The look of shock and surprise on my son’s face was enough to make me resign from my position and go on the DPB.
My only regret is that I didn’t do it sooner!
(I did continue a few hours of part time work per week.)
February 25th, 2007 at 1:46 am
bj says:
“You wish us to explain how it can prevent harm? I can offer it up quite clearly, but we’ve been around this bush often enough.”
Which “us” are you about to speak on behalf of?
NOT “the Green Party” I hope!
February 25th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Eredwen
You really are beginning to show your true colours, I have to say that those colours are becoming increasingly red.
In my opinion BJ is a true Green, yet you now question BJ intentions because he/she does not blindly tow the party line.
The sooner you realise that we live in a democracy the better, the sooner you realise that the stance you are taking on this issue is wrong the better it would be for the Green party, BJ has an absolute right to disagree with the party on this issue yet you seek to deny him/her that right.
I do however suspect that you are honest, I do suspect that you (and almost you alone) are the one on this blog site who actually tells us what life would be like under a Labour/Green govt.
I am sure that you honestly believe that you have all the answers, and I honestly believe that you feel that we do not have enough time for the usual debate and discussion to take place before we see the error of our ways and implement the Green party plans and strategies.
Thank goodness for BJ and thank goodness for Frogblog, at least it proves two things.
One is that not all Greens are watermelons (Green on the outside and red in the middle) and secondly that through this site we can get a better idea of what the true Green party agenda is.
February 25th, 2007 at 9:03 am
look..!..there’s one who’s just ‘full of it’..all the time..
and those same predictions of calamity have been ‘toned’ at every advance in civilisation..
from ending slavery..to getting children out of mines..
so what bj..and his ideological ‘new-buddy..bj..(heh-heh..!.)..bbq soon boys..?..) are trotting out..
is just a load of p*ss and wind..
and as such..best just ignored/dismissed..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz
February 25th, 2007 at 9:06 am
(ahem..!..)..the second bj shoulda been bb..but you knew that.
and it still sorta reads..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 25th, 2007 at 11:29 am
phil:
Sometimes your posts brighten up my day!
February 25th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Eredwen -
On this topic I disagree with the stated part of the policy of GPANZ.
I am environmentally Green and I am liberal to the core and yet I regard this as an error of political and social judgement that will bite a huge chunk out of our collective rump, both politically and as a society, so on this point of this policy I am in opposition to this party.
The fact that most of the the country hates this idea and only one other country on the planet has ever tried it, and that one has fairly ambiguous results on the parts that matter and some unambiguously bad results when the unintended results are added in, SHOULD give pause to you folks. It won’t. I don’t think it will completely destroy NZ society either, but I do expect a backlash against the party that will damage our ability to actually do meaningful work on the environment.
I didn’t get to argue on this bit of policy when it was made. I don’t know if I could’ve made the necessary points quickly and forcefully enough then. Were I elected for some reason I would have to support it, and would, with gritted teeth, do so. I am not elected and I don’t have to and I don’t.
So… is that clear enough for everyone? I actually read the policy document to make sure I am actually opposed to a point in a Green policy and I AM.
Are you satisfied Eredwen? or would you rather I left the party entirely because I am not willing to salute this particular error in judgement?
All kids are not the same. Some will need a spanking now and again, others are so eager to please that any admonition is sufficient. It isn’t like I don’t understand the need not to hit if there is no need… but just like defense has to accomodate the real world conditions that make “non-violence” impractical as a universal rule so needs the children’s policy to recognize some limits. It doesn’t.
I note that in Sweden, where this policy DID get put in place, there were some substantial supports for families already in place… supports missing entirely here. I expect the results of this adventure to be unambiguously worse. Fortunately, unlike global warming, a law can be amended.
respectfully
BJ
February 25th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Phil
If you have a point, other than don’t smack/hit (which I agree with given the common usage of THOSE terms) but which you insist is the same as spanking (which I don’t, again given common usage), then please try to make it. I haven’t noticed anything but egregious straw-men and absurd generalizations from you in those last two messages and if you can’t tell the difference between good law and bad at this late date, I am not going to try to help you learn. You are big enough and old enough to figure it out yourself.
with all due respect
BJ
February 25th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Phil
Do you and your ego contribute anything other than clichés and tired old stereotypes?
I note that your “contributions” are becoming more and more abusive in the absence of any reasoned counter argument.
But then I am used to that from the left, you socialists are running out of ideas.
February 25th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
as opposed to BB of course who comes up with a new idea in every post … NOT!
February 25th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
This thread is turning into a nightmare!
February 25th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Eredwen
Why is it turning into a nightmare?, this is a very important piece of legislation and one that many (for various reasons) are dead against.
I am sure you have protested against many things in your time, this forum is the perfect place for those of us who do not want this piece of legislation
to register our protest.
In many protests emotions can get out of hand, if I have offended you in any way then I apologize but there is a lot at stake here.
All I would ask is that you respect the choice of those who choose to be against this bill, nothing more or nothing less.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Eredwen
I do not find the thread a nightmare. I find the misuse of the party to promote this particular error annoying, but it is less than a nightmare… less of a nightmare than the fracture this is causing for some members of the party and less of a nightmare than the apparent potential for increased child on child assaults (which is indicated by the Swedish data).
I’m a pretty patient person, and I don’t have any problems with 99% of what Greens promote. It does however, get me quite riled to see that THIS is the thing that Greens push hardest on, when damned near nothing is actually being accomplished with the environment…. because we’re not IN government and the reason is because we do stuff that p!sses off 80% of the population like this.
Fixing the problem with the law as it stood would’ve been outrageously easy, but no, we have to promote the most extreme possible policy. One that most New Zealanders see as a direct assault on their already limited ability to control their kids. In an environment where kids are already seen to be out of control. You want people to be comfortable with this? the economics have to be fixed so that one earner can support the whole family… so that someone can be home with the kids all the time and you’d better be pretty quick with the parenting classes because those don’t exist either. That sort of thing has to come FIRST. BB mightn’t pay for it and I would… because I value the kids and I know that the thing they need most from me is my time. I don’t have much.
This is, and was from the moment S59 abolition was written into it, a busted policy. That single line item probably went unnoticed by 90% of the Greens who read it. The implications of it were not, I am sure, understood except by the people who inserted it. Alternatives were undoubtedly not presented. Now it is Green policy. Hard to change… but the ugliness isn’t this thread.
The ugliness is my very real suspicion that if the S59 issue were, by itself and with everyone actually informed about the issue as they are now, placed before the party alongside the alternatives, it might not even gain a simple majority. THAT’S ugly.
I have no idea how this is going to sound during the election either, but it has the potential to sink the party completely. Warming or not. Peak oil or not. I headed up my comments on this when it first came up with the expectation that we’re going to lose big because of this. I still expect to lose big.
BJ
August 15th, 2008 at 4:11 am
When I was raised many years ago spanking was an accepted policy of disciplining a child. My father never spanked us when he was angry he always waited sometimes a couple of days if it was something really bad. Like the time my sister and I went home with the man that owned the riding ring without asking. No one knew where we were, and only being 6 and 9 years old you can imagine how upset they were for the 5 hours we were gone. My dad had taken us many times to the riding ring the man ran. So being children we did not realize what could have happened. Thank goodness nothing happened. For my own children I’ve only used spanking when necessary, my son has received maybe 3 his entire life, my two daughters maybe 4 together. I don’t believe in swatting children or threatening them with a spanking. Spanking should be saved for only a last resort such as when you try everything you can to get the child to stop putting things up their nose and they do not stop. After 4 times in time out, and at the age of 3 they are still sticking things up their nose you have a choice, either try spanking or take a chance of the child doing themselves physical damage. After 1 spanking, the nose has been clean and the child is now 10 years old.