The votes are in, and s59 is on the way out
Well, Sue did it! The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill has just passed it’s second reading. The vote went thus: In favour - Labour 49, National 6 (Katherine Rich, Simon Power, Paula Bennett, Paul Hutchison, Jackie Blue and Chester Borrows), New Zealand First 3 (Brian Donnelly, Doug Woolerton, Peter Brown), Green 6, Maori 4, and United Future 1 (Peter Dunne). Against - National 42 (all the rest of ‘em), New Zealand First 4 (Ron Mark, Barbara Stewart, Winston Peters, Pita Paraone), United Future 2, Act 2, and Taito Phillip Field.
We still have a long way to go. This is by no means in the bag, and yet it was a huge hurdle. It was hard for some amphibians not to get teary, especially when Sue was greeted with spontaneous applause from the assembled NGOs, politicos and ordinary Jo(e)s. Many of these people have campaigned tirelessly on this issue for literally decades, and some of the abuse they’ve copped makes it look like we’ve got off lightly. Sue is often criticised for forcing her ‘femi nazi doctrine’ through, with ‘no support and against the wishes of the majority of good kiwi parents yada yada yada’ , as if she sat around one day, trying to think of a private members bill that would garner her comparisons to the Dark Lord, endless abuse, filthy emails and death threats. In fact, people who have worked at the coalface and continue to do so - researchers, social workers, lobbyists, academics, parents, doctors, even, gasp, children - have pushed long and hard for these changes.
It’s for those same people that Sue is adamant about pulling her Bill if Borrow’s amendment is passed. Not petulance or pride, but because this would negate both Sue’s Bill and all the work of these people.
Frog’s off to celebrate. The committee stages are scheduled for the 14th of March. See you there…
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:42 am
Hope it fails, and given most New Zealanders do not want this, it will be interesting to see which politicians back it. There is no mandate. Pure state interventionist left-wing arrogance. Burrows occupies the sensible middle ground, and it is telling that Bradford will pull the bill if it doesn’t criminalise everyone for using a gentle slap.
It comes down to this: most parents know better than the state how to look after their kids.
Go after the minority who are doing the real damage. Why isn’t your time and energy spent on those people? This bill won’t make the slightest difference to them as they ignore the existing laws now.
Too racially charged?
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:55 am
You want to make a positive difference? Educate people on the difference between discipline and abuse (something that seems to be misunderstood by most who wish to repeal s59).
And go after substance abuse.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 am
congratulations sue…
getting this through will be a major….
(a morning on which i am ‘proud to be a green’..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:00 am
albeit an excommunicated one….(..heh-heh..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:00 am
I think you are dead right PEL,
Police wont attend basic call outs now, can you imagine the Police response when Mrs NoseyNeighbour calls them to report smacking going on next door?
And if they do attend and the process comes to a prosecution it will be Mrs NoseyNeigbours word against the alledged smacking offender.
Just cant see this law being enforced somehow. especially as Mrs NoseyNeighbour will need to go to court and testify. Will be a case of “yes you did, no I didn’t”.
Who in the land is going to report a case of smacking. Assault yes, smacking, nah dont think so.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:08 am
>>Who in the land is going to report a case of smacking
I think it will be used mostly in custody cases, unfortunately.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 am
ah..zen..are ready to answer that question now..?
y’know..that one you and b.b. keep ducking away from/not answering..?
and as for your snide red-herring/reference to ’substance abuse’..
i’d like to put my hand up as a pot-smoker with an adult child..and one aged 12..
who has never even thought of smacking/hitting his children..
you’re really getting quite tiresome zen..
as you well know..if anyone tried the trolling you and bb are doing here..at your place..
they would have been ‘banned’…how long ago..?
your trolling bullsh*t is wearing thin..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
and hey zen..!..answer the feckin’ question..eh..?
(the reason you don’t ..is because you have no answer/riposte..
and we can all see that..
eh..?
‘the zen has no clothes’..eh..?
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 am
substance abuse Phil, not substance use. You may also care to consider the difference between discipline and abuse in the same light.
As I said on the other thread, where you asked your questions - happy to, but they deserve (and require) more time than an off the cuff response between my work obligations. Be patient.
And my comments are hardly trolling…it’s called “having a different opinion”, whereas your comment above is typically impolite.
I hope you do not speak that way to your children. Your skill at sarcastic put downs can really hurt those tender young ones as much as a slap across the face (both which I do not approve of). Was my crime to talk back to you?
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:03 am
Well done Sue! and well supported the “Yea” sayers!
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:23 am
Zen Tiger please save your obviously long standing(?) personal disputes and put downs (no matter how “polite”) for somewhere else.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Resistance to Sue Bradford’s bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act indicates that some people need more information and other solutions to their problems of controlling wayward children.
If you don’t like what your kids are doing, check what behaviours you think you have been modelling. If you want listening, loving, cooperation and honesty, then model it! View ‘The Nanny’ currently on TV2 at 2:30pm.
When Corporal Punishment was prohibited in all NZ schools under Section 139A of the 1989 Education Act, teachers were horrified that they could no longer vent their wrath or get revenge and so have release from their anger at a disruptive pupil.
Unfortunately some fundamental religious schools have found a way round the Education Act ban on corporal punishment by insisting that parents administer physical violence. No doubt some parents will continue to beat their children whether or not Sue Bradford’s bill gets through its third reading.
So far, so good! But it will be a crime if Section 59 of the Act is not fully repealed in the third reading, because children will continue to be treated as objects, not people, and therefore not victims.
Jurors will continue to claim that parents have used reasonable force to control their children, short of breaking a limb or two.
Following are definitions from Dictionary.com for ’smack’:
verb
1. to strike sharply, esp. with the open hand or a flat object.
noun
2. a sharp, resounding blow, esp. with something flat.
Synonyms for ’smack’ from Roget’s New Millenniumâ„¢ Thesaurus:
bash, bat, belt, blow, box, bump, collide, crack, cuff, knock, punch, slam, smack, smash, sock, stroke, wallop, whack, whop
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
zen..i was yacking with someone this morning..
and your name came up..
(i used it as an example of the hysterically funny nomes de guerre that righties choose..
(remember that (now departed) member pf your coven called ‘rightwingdeathraybeast..?..whoar..!)
and they asked me to ask you..(this is a direct quote..)
“..what sort of pretentious? onanist would choose the false persona.
.’zen tiger’..?..”
(his words..not mine..!..i hasten to add..)
(you could answer here..eh..?..and i’ll pass it on to him..)
and re me and ‘the boy’…?
no..he dosen’t get sarcastic ‘put-downs’ from me..
increasingly i am finding we are laughing at the world..together..(which i like..)
i save them for the onanists of the world..eh..?
and as for your ’substance use/abuse’ qualification..?
(sheesh..!..one persons’ ‘too-much’..is anothers’ ‘not-enough’..eh..?..)
i’m in the ‘not enough’ category..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:53 pm
BTW
CYFSWATCH NZ is dead. Gone.
Maybe anything calling themselves **WATCH NZ shouldn’t blog at all…
RedWatch NZ was removed, now CYFSWATCH NZ. I see a pattern rofl
http://www.t94xr.net.nz/?p=142
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Oh and heres my post, abuot the threat to Sue Bradford and stuff.
http://www.t94xr.net.nz/?p=139
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
A victory for lies and half truths, and a victory for Labour.
Still, you will pay for it at the next election.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Congratulations to Sue Bradford and the team.
Before the naysayers begin to criticise me let me say that I am 61 years of age, so I have seen a few generations in my life time. Now I see my youngest grandchildren (ages 4 to 6) being brought up without smacking. I am very proud to say that they are polite, courteous children, intelligent, eager to learn and that their soul/spirits are being nurtured. Joy.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Unfortunately, I have to go with the amended version. I know Sue means well, but she’s a legislator. NO law and the discretion of the police (and the neighbours) is not good law. A good law defines what behaviour is wrong. Her job is to make good law, not defer the responsibility to the cops or the neighbours.
This albatross will be hung on us at the next election and it will cost us.
Of course we’ve had this discussion before.
I just want to point out that we may be celebrating a pyrhhic victory. I got my nomex suit right here.
BJ
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
PEL,
You are right I can see the custody battles aready. Mum accusing Dad of “smacking’ Johnnie. Dad replies “No I didnt”. Who will the court believe?
BJ
As per always, elegantly descibes and sums up the situation perfectly. You have a way with words my good Sir.
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Gerrit said: You are right I can see the custody battles aready. Mum accusing Dad of “smacking’ Johnnie. Dad replies “No I didnt�. Who will the court believe?
I don’t think it will have any bearing on custody battles. The scenario Gerrit mentioned can, and does, happen already.
Sue Bradford’s Bill amends the criminal law. It does so to remove a defence that is currently available to a charge of assault on a child in the Criminal Court. There has to have been an actual assault before the current defence under section 59 comes into play.
The Family Court, in resolving custody disputes, should be interested in how each parent has treated the child and what custody/access arrangements are consequentially in the best interests of the child, rather than whether anyone is criminally liable for what happenned to the child.
The Family Court is charged with taking an interest in whether assaults have actually occurred and whether they are detrimental to the welfare of the child. If assaults have occurred, it is irrelevent to the Family Court whether there is a defence to them in the Criminal Court.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
bj..how about you try and answer that question bb and zen tiger are avoiding…?
and..there was the same ‘panic’ here when caning in schools was stopped..
and as for electoral backlash..?
nah..!..it’ll be old history by then..’done ‘n dusted’..
and an environmental cassandra such as yourself..should be aware that far more pressing issues are heading our way..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Section 59 should have gone down with the Titanic - better late than never.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I also hope Sue Bradfords bill fails. This will only be negative to averge joe family, will lessen the ability of loving familys to discipline their children and add to the ever increasing problems of deminishing acceptable behaviour. If your can’t tell the differenc between a smack and a beating you shouldn’t be a parent.
For those that bash kids this will make no difference. I am a parent of two teenagers both are on the right track (for now anyway!). I am liberal in trems of their freedoms,we have a great relationship ane can communicate well even on issue we don’t agree with. I have smacked them when they were little. I strongly resent a politician telling me how to bring up my children.
Sue should spend more time sorting out the rubbish parents whose children will not be thanking her for this wasted effort.
I fail to understand how a party or individuals can support something that is not wanted by the majority. If she was genuine it would go to a referendum.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Fantastic news that the bill has passed second reading, and I hope it repeals section 59 and without any qualifications. Sue is a courageous campaigner and a leader in the true sense of the word. Like outlawing slavery and universal suffrage it is an idea who’s time has well and truly come, but one that needs a good campaigner to move the political establishment. I’ve been commenting on it at Aardvark - http://www.aardvarkforums.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1119
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Toad
The key word is “should” This isn’t a perfect world.
Sensible, separated Dad, who may administer a gentle slap, once in a lifetime, to protect his child from harm. Mum, looking for any excuse to distance Dad from child.
How quickly can the lawyer say assault charge?
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Unfortunately getreal, some parents certainly do not know the difference between a smack and a beating and that is the problem. Therefore, they should never be a parent. And, yes you could argue until the cows come home, whether repealing S59 will change that, but speculating and assuming does nothing either. Action is better than doing nothing to stop the appalling child abuse in this country. Smacking and hitting are two different ‘animals’ and the latter is allowable under present legislation. Hitting is destructive and so is totally unacceptable. Now I suppose this debate will rage over what is hitting and what is smacking.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
you don’t need a mandate to protect someone. if 90% of voters wanted to give peterexitsleft a wedgie every wednesday, the government would be entirely justified in ignoring the electorate’s wishes & providing him with protection.
the difference between discipline & abuse? if it teaches, it’s discipline. if it hurts and humiliates, it’s abuse.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Maybe most parents do oppose the bill. But has anyone polled the children? I imagine the level of support would be much greater, in the same way that 100% of sows expressed an opposition to sow crates.
Congratulations Sue!
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
>>the difference between discipline & abuse? if it teaches, it’s discipline. if it hurts and humiliates, it’s abuse.
Which will also be the new defense: “I was teaching him/her. Honest guv”.
Who, in their right mind, is going to admit to “hurt and humiliate”?
Why not just define the level?
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I haven’t seen the polls but I understand about 80-85% oppose the bill. If that is so it is a blow for democracy, another case of the tail wagging the dog.
The level of parliamentary debate is pathetic (we elected them as politicians; we never deemed them geniuses) and coverage on TV is too quick and clipped. Morning Report and Nine to Noon are good and if you happen to catch them there are opinion pieces in the newspaper. I think though as an adjunct to the political system we need a site that critically analyses issues, bringing all the arguments together.
It would be good to think that this is somehow based on sound science rather than ideology, however, when I hear people say that the level of support provided by working people to unmarried mothers has nothing to do with their decision to have a child (or several), I doubt it.
For a party that presents itself as an environmental party there are far too many people from the far left. Two politicians from the “Unemployed Workers Party” and two rank communists. Where are the economists and ecology professors?.
jh
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Politicians are reef fish.
jh
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:54 pm
More comments from the Herald on line:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=1042 5219
An Angry Teacher:
Tawhilangi
What a farce! How much money do we pay our politicians? Have the not got better things to do than to continually degrade our ethics? Statistics do not lie! Sweden newly introduced no smacking policies, child abuse cases quadrupled. Netherlands legal to discipline kids, child abuse cases low. Japan corporal pinishment..child abuse non existent. England no smacking! Youth crime increased exponentially. We have got to wake up! What is this Sue Bradford pushing? Has she done any homework? Our country keeps adopting stupid policies that have already failed in many countries. Why? Problems began in our country when we started to model our rules and regulations to other so called modernised and westernised countries. I am a secondary school teacher who will never teach in this country again, I have taught in many countries around the world and I am totally saddened and disheartened with the discipline(or lack of it) that I have seen in our current schooling system. It is o ut of control,there is no more respect in our classrooms anymore. Why do we have teacher shortages, no teachers want to teach todays students it only takes 1 hooligan to ruin and destabilise a class. What can we do? Ring the parents whom are already disenchanted with there childs carelessness. We just keep going backwards..and we always will with ill conceived policies like this. I have voted for labour the last 20 years , its time for a change! Mr Key please do something about this. I love my children too much to let this bill pass. I want them to know whats right and wrong not just in my eyes but any person that interacts with them ie teachers, nurses, caregivers. The list goes on.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Well said JH
Sadly this bill is not about smacking kids, the Greens have already proven they are not overly concerned about the plight of our kids.
They have voted against classifying “P” as a class A drug, voted against increasing the sentence for Child porn and voted against raising the drinking age.
The examples you cite are true, I have seen the youth gangs and yob culture that infest Britain, we will have the same problems here.
Make no mistake JH, this is all about the hard left gaining more control of our lives, the sad thing about all this is that the Greens are going to carry the can for what I believe to be the work of Comrade Klarke.
Klarke knows full well that as she has no kids she would be hammered if she introduced this bill to the house, she found a patsy in Bradford (who is not one to let the truth get in the way of a good story) and is happy to sit back and see this bill passed, she will not allow her party members to have a conscience vote on this issue..why do you think that is?
I sure as hell do not agree with a lot of Green party policy but until now I have trusted them, at least you knew where they were coming from, sadly they are now no better than the corrupt Labour govt.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
so did the Greens change in the last day, (so that you no longer know where they are coming from) or did your opinion of them change after you discovered that they voted a certain way on certain bills, or do you just sway in the wind and type a stream of consiousness steaming heap?
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Stuey
When I need to see a “steaming heap” I look for one of your posts.
Now if you want to debate this issue then I am keen to do so, if however you cannot answer the question then please stick to the rules that Eredwen is so keen on reminding us about and lay off the personal attacks.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Congratulations to Sue Bradford for her guts and determination and putting up with all the crap.
aladin
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Lots of people are missing the point…
Yes, changing the law won’t suddenly stop bad parents beating their kids from fear of the cops.
But changing the law will change (not instantly, but over time) people’s attitudes about what is an acceptable level of violence by parents against children.
Social pressure does the rest. If people consider that it’s up to parents to decide the appropriate level of discipline/violence, then the 10% of bad parents get away with it… If Joe beats his kids, and Joe’s neighbour or Joe’s cousin feel bad about it but say nothing because it’s Joe’s business, then a change in the law may encourage them to have a word with him…
This page, that I linked in yesterday’s thread, outlines how this worked in Sweden.
http://www.nospank.net/durrant2.htm
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:19 pm
since many kids are already brought up without smacking & are doing fine, i am puzzled by the underlying attitude that the littlies are a criminal threat to all that we hold dear and must be slapped down until they are compliant & reppress their vile natures.
i look forward to the epilogue a few years down the road when we can all enjoy the creativity and industry of a new generation of compassionate, confidant young adults.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:16 am
Me and my kids send congrat’s to Sue and her kids - especially the daughter in pg A2 of Thursday’s Dompost!
Adults don’t like being beaten. I campaign for the right to live my life without rape or violence, everyone’s pretty used to my “Thursdays in Black” t-shirts, sweatshirts, singlets and hoodies, which I wear without fail, every week.
I ask for no less for my children - that society respects the Rights of the Child to be safe from violence, and free to live and learn in an environment without fear, which includes schools without corporal punishment. If it’s good enough for teachers to be restrained from corporal punishment, then it’s good enough for parents - after all, who gets 3 years at training college to become a parent? I wish! 9months pregnany didn’t give me half enough time to learn what I needed to know to be an adequate parent, and 17 years later, I’m still learning from my children, some of whom will be adults very soon.
NVDA* in this country is strongly endorsed by legions of young people. I suggest that some more of the older people would do well to understand that position.
[*NVDA = Non Violent Direct Action]
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:05 am
Phil
Skimming your posts you refer to a question but I don’t see it. Just some comments about substance abuse. If you do want me to try to answer you’ll have to refresh the question or link it so I can find it.
As to the next election… I hope you’re right and it doesn’t become an issue, but if last election is any measure, any mud available from the past half century will be airborne… and this’d be some of it.
Finally, the question of more pressing things? Of course there are, so why in the heck are we going at this in the worst possible way? Done right and everyone would have lined up to salute. This way we have to spend a hell of a lot of our precious political capital to get worse law than we should have.
Be sure to point me at the question now.
respectfully
BJ
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:28 am
alistair Says:
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Lots of people are missing the point…
Yes, changing the law won’t suddenly stop bad parents beating their kids from fear of the cops.
But changing the law will change (not instantly, but over time) people’s attitudes about what is an acceptable level of violence by parents against children.
——————————————————–
People all ready know what is acceptable and what isn’t, except perhaps some violent, slack subcultures of society. In their case we have people like Sue Bradford claiming they are products of the (capitalist) system. [the Kahuis Frogblog].
This bill is aimed to make it illegal to physically disipline from level 0 to 10. It will be another breath of fear over the comunnity like “we musn’t change our toddlers at the public pool it is i-n-a-p-p-r-o-p-r-i-a-t-e”
When I was a little kid I had been being naughty with one of my sisters. Later I had an argument with my sister, to get back at her I said (in front of our mother)”anyway!, we showed!”. I got a quick smack, no words spoken, not even looked in the face. I don’t remember her smacking any other time.
jh
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:22 am
Andrew said
“i look forward to the epilogue a few years down the road when we can all enjoy the creativity and industry of a new generation of compassionate, confidant young adults.”
Therefore the bill’s purpose in your eyes is social engineering. Why havent the Greens marketed the need for this bill by promoting the long term, socially beneficial benefits.
Listening to Sue Bradford on the various radio interviews this message did not come across at all. Her delivery was whinny and rubbed most people up the wrong way.
Does anyone in the Greens have a marketing degree or experience to “sell” messages better?
I’m with BJ on this, it is alienating a lot of people because the message and potential beneficial outcomes have not been marketed correctly.
I put it in the same league as the legalise marijuana. Sold poorly and while maybe 5% of the people thought it was a good idea the other 95% said rubbish. Cost the Greens votes. Just like this poorly sold piece of legislation will cost green votes.
But then again are principals more important then votes?
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:29 am
essentially bj..
why is it that countries that haven’t hit their children since the mid-fifties..?
and that have higher taxes and (much) better social services/support..
and hence..have no ‘underclass’..
came top of that unicef survey on how well societies/cultures/countries cared for/protected their children..?
that survey that we came bottom of..
please explain..
essentially bj..it is a question addressed to those who think they have some right to slap/smack/hit other human beings…
in this case children..
and to those righties who advocate scrapping social support systems..
on the grounds..’..they don’t work..’..’..bludgers..!..’..etc..
and as for your stance on that issue..?
i assume from your words here that you oppose the revoking of this exception to the ‘common assault’ laws..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:35 am
jh : OK, so your model of society is one where there’s a majority of people who don’t need telling what to do, and a minority who are slack and violent who there’s no hope for?
That sounds sick to me. It’s also profoundly mistaken. The reality is that there is a continuum from zero violence, to people beating their kids severely. The aim of the bill (and it is indeed social engineering) is to lower the threshold of acceptable violence.
BJ : there is, I guess, a possibility of the measure being counter-productive, if people, in large numbers, are in revolt against it. But fundamentally I don’t care if it’s a vote-winner or a vote-loser for the Greens. The issue should be treated on its own merits.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 am
>>new generation of compassionate, confidant young adults.
Ever been to Sweden?
Smacking can be a quick and effective form of discipline. Studies show it does not harm the child, and anyone who fails to tell the difference between a gentle corrective slap and violence has no place being a parent.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:49 am
Why do we have pain?
It has to give an evolutionary advantage, or it would not be so ubiquitous in all the life-forms we observe.
What advantage would that be?
The fact is that we’ve abandoned an extremely easy win and better law, for a struggle against 80% of the population of the country and no legal definitions at all. We’re told to trust the discretion of the courts and the cops. Law is about definitions, and this contains none, nor any guidance at all to parents or anyone observing them.
AND
If you create a situation where children’s respect for others and authority is entirely dependent on having perfect parents the children of the imperfect ones will dominate the newpaper headlines. There are a lot of parents who have to work and have little time and energy left to invest in nurturing that respect and to deny them the quick and effective alternative of a spanking when it is needed, condemns them to a peculiar hell and society to juvenile delinquents running it. Until they become adult delinquents and we can put them in jail or if they are particularly successful, in Parliament.
I hope the amendment goes through and I would hope that Sue does NOT pull the bill in that event. A law with clear definition of the difference between a spanking and a smacking or a beating would be a big gain on the current situation.
I hope too that at the next election the public forgets having this foolishness force-fed to them.
Hope is a bad word to have to be using with respect to the results of a legislative action.
respectfully
BJ
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:57 am
by definition it does harm the child, though i appreciate you are referring to that one study which found no long term anti-socialization of the victims.
your view that the many parents who successfully raise their kids without corporal punishment have no place being a parent is insulting and betrays a warped sense of priorities, given all the parents out there who are doing a really bad job of it.
the purpose of the reform as far as i can see is the protection of the children.
social engineering is merely a positive side effect, but it will be all the better to be able to look back to this debate years hence & say “see- we really weren’t overcome by a wave of barbarism”
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 am
Andrew
“social engineering is merely a positive side effect”
Well at least you are honest, tell me, what other things do you believe the state should get involved in or change?
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:13 am
Phil
The reason is that they DO have higher taxes and fairer societies with more support for parents - As I recall Sweden had a full year of maternity leave mandated, don’t know if they still do. Women can take time off to care for their kids.
All countries I know of have laws against Beating them and most would have laughed the excuses given here out of court… with or without S59.
Second, of ALL those listed countries only Sweden went so far as to outlaw
parents administering a spank. So you need to be careful how you generalize and finally….
The result in Sweden in subsequent years was a diminished amount of parental “abuse” which can barely be measured and a 500% increase in child on child assault if I am reading this correctly.
This is “good intentions”… but not a good result. Sweden also leads in countries having to remove children from homes. Society there is coping with it, but it isn’t anything like worth the price we’re likely to pay.
respectfully
BJ
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 am
andrew
It is not my view “that the many parents who successfully raise their kids without corporal punishment have no place being a parent”. Please do not misrepresent me.
>>the purpose of the reform as far as i can see is the protection of the children
No, it isn’t. What it will do is criminalise parents who smack. The Burrows amendment will close the loophole which currently gives the real abusers a defence.
Why do the Greens want criminalise parents who DO know the difference? Effectively, they’re saying to ALL the parents of New Zealand that parents don’t know what is best for their child. The state knows best.
The arrogance is unbelieveable. No mandate and no clue.
I agree with BJ. We have a pain response for a reason, and no amount of social conditioning will change that biological fact.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 am
A few observations:
A few men here want to preserve their “right” to “discipline” “their” child/ren.
How many of you have seriously looked at the alternatives and
…have attended parenting classes, (and which ones)?
…really understand the “literature” (ie: studies done and written up in learned journals) about this subject?
… would be happy to see others (caregivers, teachers, babysitters) “disciplining” your child/ren in the same manner that you do?
Does your child’s mother agree totally with your methods? Are you sure?
Above all, are you willing to take responsibility for the damage that others will continue to inflict on other children if the current law is not amended?
Or is a lot of this just “I was hit, and look, it didn’t do me any harm!”
bj, I suggest that you are not applying the academic rigour here that you would expect in your own areas of expertise (Translation: “Don’t make a prat of yourself”!)
eredwen
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:40 am
Adult humans and all animals also have a pain response for a reason. So by the same logic it is okay to hit them for reasons of discipline. Have you noticed that tose who go on the most about the value of discipline generally mean giving, rather than receiving it.
As I mentioned before, I wonder what proportion of the real stakeholders (the children being smacked) support the bill. Asking very small children or animals directly for their preference is impossible, but behavioural scientists use a variety of behavioural indicators to determine preferences. And the results are hardly surprising; 100% of those polled dislike pain or discomfort.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 am
>>100% of those polled dislike pain or discomfort.
It’s called being human.
>>So by the same logic it is okay to hit them for reasons of discipline.
Most people can tell the difference between a gentle correct slap, and hitting. The government doesn’t think that is the case, but then planet earth is merely an abstract political concept to many of them.
>>Does your child’s mother agree totally with your methods? Are you sure?
I don’t smack. But my wife sometimes does when all else fails.
I was canned at school. Occasionally smacked by my (very good) parents.
On all occasions, I was the first to admit I deserved it. And it was no big deal. I find verbal abuse far more difficult to accept - it can cut deeper, hang around longer, and builds resentment.
How about banning that? Perhaps that’s next on the agenda…
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Oh, and another thing:
What has smacking got to to with the environment?
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
PeterExitsLeft said:Oh, and another thing: What has smacking got to to with the environment?
Peter - Green principles are not just about the environment. They are about promoting:
Ecological sustainability
Social justice
Appropriate decision-making
Non-violence
The Bill to repeal section 59 is founded primarily on the fourth of these - nonviolence.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Hence the reason I can’t vote Green.
Love the environment, dislike socialism.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
pel:
From your family’s case (as you have written it) what is it you are concerned about here?
It seems to me like someone, who drives his car at 50.001 Km/h, being afraid of a clear speed limit “in case that law puts me in jail for speeding”. (He does this without any thought for the innocents on the road who will die in EXCESSIVE speed crashes because of the lack of a law that will work.) THAT is what makes me very concerned!
We currently have a law that does not work.
The EXCESSIVE “Chastisers” hide behind a Section of the Act that was intended for the “50.001 Km/h-ers” (that many of us are.)
Because of the way in which our legal system works, we MUST amend this law to be able to stop the carnage (that is too frequently happening in our society.) It is being used in the Courts in a way for which it was not intended. The Legal Profession knows this and it is the Politicians job to rectify the situation.
Meanwhile you and I can safely chug along at our “50.001 kph as we do now … and who knows, your kids’ generation may decide that they don’t want (or need) to hit their kids at all!
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Eredwen
“A few observations:
A few men here want to preserve their “rightâ€? to “disciplineâ€? “theirâ€? children.”
Interesting slant on things Eredewn, whats next?..all men are rapists so we will make it illegal for men to be on the streets after 6pm?
Is this issue really about men? and the man haters of the left?
And by the way, they are our children Eredwen, I know you see them as members of the state but right now they are still our children.
“How many of you have seriously looked at the alternatives and
…have attended parenting classes, (and which ones)?
…really understand the “literature� (ie: studies done and written up in learned journals) about this subject?
… would be happy to see others (caregivers, teachers, babysitters) “discipliningâ€? your child/ren in the same manner that you do”
Are you serious?..since when the state have all the answers when it comes to raising children?
The state has no place in the upbringing of our kids, for you to even suggest that parents should be attending parenting classes smacks of communism, if this is Green policy then that is something that the party must make public.
“Does your child’s mother agree totally with your methods? Are you sure”
Yes and yes, it is the height of arrogance for you to assume that all mothers are against this, all (and yes I do mean all) mothers that I speak to about this subject are dead against Bradford’s bill.
I note that you have again suggested this is a male thing, do you have a problem with men in general?
“Above all, are you willing to take responsibility for the damage that others will continue to inflict on other children if the current law is not amended”
Please stop telling lies Eredwen, smacking kids DOES NOT cause damage.
Stick to the facts please.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
“toad Says:
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
PeterExitsLeft said:Oh, and another thing: What has smacking got to to with the environment?
Peter - Green principles are not just about the environment. They are about promoting:
Ecological sustainability
Social justice
Appropriate decision-making
Non-violence
The Bill to repeal section 59 is founded primarily on the fourth of these - nonviolence.”
Ecological sustainability….check, no problem with that.
Social justice…Real problems here, your idea of social justice is communism.
Appropriate decision making….More individual rights given up so the state can choose what is “appropriate” and what is not?, sounds like communism to me.
Non Violence..check, no problem with that in theory, but will you really attack the sector of our community who cause most of the violence or will you stay away from that as it is not PC?
The bill to repeal section 59 is not about the well being of kids Toad and well you know it, the Greens voting history shows quite clearly that they are not overly concerned with the welfare of our kids, this is all about the state gaining more and more control of our lives.
When I first came to this site I accused some here of having a hidden Green agenda, i must admit that I only half believed it at the time but the events of the last few days has finally convinced me that it is real and it is evil.
Do you not think it is about time you let the voting public know what your real intentions are?
Toad, this post contains absolutely no personal abuse at all, if you believe in free speech you will not censor it, if you do then I suspect it is because you have something to hide.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
BB - Toads can’t censor posts here - only Frogs can, and I’m a pretty thick-skinned Toad anyway - not that there was any personal abuse, as you say.
As for you stating: the Greens voting history shows quite clearly that they are not overly concerned with the welfare of our kids take a look at the Greens’ Children’s Policy.
Actually, the Greens are the only Party that cares enough about kids to have developed a Childrens’ Policy, and they rated top in the Every Child Counts survey of political parties before the last election.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Toad
Is that not a discriminatory policy then?..sign me up for the equal rights for Toads march.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 pm
>>what is it you are concerned about here?
Increased state intervention that will only serve to criminalise good parents.
The failure to go after the group who are most responsible, presumably because it isn’t PC to do so.
Socialism and communism in general. I think it fails all people equally.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Eredwen
With two kids (one who doesn’t seem to need spanking and the other who’s outgrown it) , and a degree in Psychology and a Mom who taught for 20 years I reckon I know about as much about it as any of us. First off, there’s the kids individual differences.
My wife does more spanking than I do. Sometimes I play peacemaker instead.
I’d be happy to have someone else emulate me. I think my kids would as well, but it remains true that I HAVE spanked when needful.
See… I AGREE that we have a law that does not work. You described it very well. The folks who are creating the problem are hiding behind the vague wording and inconsistent interpretations.
It is the response to this that aggravates me. Substitute the cops judgement about when to prosecute for “vague”? THIS is the best law we can have?
Every single cop has a different idea of what’s appropriate and has a different idea of who’s right here. It is the parliamentarian’s job to make the law, not the cop’s. What happens when, as I have encountered in other climes, the cop is a born-again evangelical ideologue? What happens to your “law” when the enforcement is up to a member of the EB?
(Not that I imagine they ever apply to become cops, just making an example of how ELSE this is wrong).
Kiore1 - Of course they dislike it. Pain is intended to dissuade the organism from doing things that are bad for it. It is the FASTEST teacher. Not the “best” and not the “nicest” and not the “easiest”… but it is efficient.
The pain we are going to feel at the polls on account of this will likely bring tears. Maybe we’ll learn from it. I have some hope we’d learn sooner.
respectfully
BJ
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Wow bb!
That certainly hit a nerve (and “kee jerk” reflex!)
Unfortunately, from your response, it seems that very little of what I wrote got far enogh to be processed by your brain cells.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Today’s’ parents who advocate smacking may have been brought up in yesterdays’ dysfunctional families where a parent was too stressed, too tired, too inconvenienced, too annoyed or upset to acknowledge that their own behaviour may have been inappropriate and delivered you a sharp hit or worse.
Get real; a light or gentle smack will achieve nothing because it won’t be felt! Stressed out parents are more likely to smack their child to relieve their own feelings, not out of any concern for the child’s safety or wellbeing.
Often children hit other children because they haven’t learnt to control feelings of inadequacy, jealousy or resentment. Adults are supposed to be more in control of themselves, but are they? Not if they model smacking (hitting). ‘Preachers say, Do as I say, not as I do’.
I wonder how many children including teens feel resentment, anger or hatred because they have been made to do something against their will, by those who would wield power over them with underlying threats of violence.
Of course, if there is immediate danger it is appropriate to pull or push a child out of the way, but why hit?
Some parents who don’t smack have no methods of coping with problem behaviour in their children, so feel impotent and helpless while their offsprings become little monsters manipulating, bullying and bashing one and all. They need to attend parenting classes!
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
bj:
I understand your position.
However, do bear in mind that both you and your wife come from what is, in many ways, a different culture with different cultural norms.
I prefer that we take the lead from elsewhere … Scandinavia for example.
You also come from a different legal system. As I have said, the law as it was intended is not working, and this amendment will help until such time that the whole thing is redrafted.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
eredwen Says:
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Wow bb!
That certainly hit a nerve (and “kee jerk� reflex!)
Unfortunately, from your response, it seems that very little of what I wrote got far enogh to be processed by your brain cells.
Eredwen, I am very disappointed by that response, you used to be able to argue your point quite well, I shall have to assume that you do not deny anything I have said.
I was really hoping that your reply would prove me wrong but sadly it seems that I was right all along.
All along I was of the opinion that you did not like me because I am slightly right of center, however it seems that the real reason is because I am a man.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
BB
Communism is NOT what constitutes “Social Justice” here - You need to compare communism with socialism with social-democrats and progressives… the folks I’ve met and with who I interact among Greens are very little like communists. Don’t exaggerate.
Appropriate decision making actually brings it closer (imao) to the individual than it is now in most cases. I don’t think you got the right of that one right either.
YMMV of course.
respectfully
BJ
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Focus
Most of todays parents (87%) who are advocating smacking were raised in the days of MUCH lower crime rates, MUCH lower child abuse figures and MUCH higher respect for authority and their elders, these figures were lower because kids all knew that if they stepped out of line there would be consequences.
The stupid hands off approach that became fashionable in the 70’s and 80’s has produced at least two generations of dysfunctional and violent kids who know there is not going to be any consequence to their actions other than being sent for “time out”.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
BJ
I would suggest that exaggeration is the life blood of this blog, as David Lange once said “if they stop telling lies about me I will stop telling the truth about them”
Communism is all about the state controlling or interfering with our lives, this bill (and others that the Greens have talked about introducing) are intended to do just that.
NBIWYMMVM
Bruv.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
So, BB, what does NBIWYMMVM mean? I suspect you spelt it wrong because no one has ever used it before on the web:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=NBIWYMMVM
And I must take issue that you feel that the Greens charter commitment to appropriate decision-making is somehow centralist or authoritarian in nature. The reality is quite the opposite. We support localisation of democracy, not centralisation.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Stuey
I did wonder who might pick that up, it means (in answer to BJ’s post)
No Bl**dy Idea What YMMV Means
Try thinking laterally Stuey, not everything is as it seems….oh and lighten up mate, it is after all Friday.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
BB - Totalitarianismabout the state controlling or interfering with our lives.
Communism by contrast is about the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
They can go together, but don’t necessarily have to - the State interfered massively in people’s lives (and deaths) in Nazi Germany.
The Greens don’t support either totalitarianism or communism. What we do support is limited State intervention where necessary to progress our Charter principles. If the market and/or education programmes can do the same without State intervention, we’re quite happy to leave well alone.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Toad
So what you are saying is that as long as the education system preaches the message YOU want you will not interfere.
Would you allow dissenters?, what if there was huge popular support for changing our electoral sytem?..would you ban that or simply ignore what the public want?
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
This snippet from The Kiwi Herald:
Standing outside parliament under a banner announcing “Red bum good, blue bum bad,” National MP Chester Burrows today attempted to explain his amendment to the “anti-smacking bill” saying that he wanted to outlaw bad smacking while encouraging the kind of smacking that was ‘part of the great kiwi tradition; the stinging red bum delivered with love’.
“Like thousands of New Zealanders I look back with fond memories of a hot bottom. It was always transitory and trifling, usually after a Sunday roast when Mum had poured more sherry into herself than into the trifle itself and us kids were keeping her from her nap. She would give our bare bums a good paddling, all the time weeping and saying how much she loved us. Far from being the cruel and degrading treatment that Sue Bradford is on about it brought us closer together. These days if I get a touch of sunburn or a sting from a wasp I’m immediately awash in a flood of loving memories of family life.”
Using a colour chart Mr Burrows went on to explain the varieties of redness that were acceptable under his amendment saying that “where the redness is from blood, Mum has probably gone too far and no sherry has made it into the trifle.”
The MP, whose amendment is expected to pass said that where the child was blue or black or even dead from smacking prosecution was often in order.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Eredwen
As far as I know the only country on the planet that has tried this to now, is Sweden (not all of Scandinavia) and their results seem at best ambiguous.
The others have outlawed it in schools and that’s fair enough.
Nor do I argue that children cannot be raised better, or that other means besides a spanking can’t work on any child or that all children need to be spanked occasionally. Some do, some don’t.
What I am arguing is that a law must clearly state what is permitted and what is not. The attitudes of cops here seem to be far less anxiety producing (at least for me) but leaving it to individual officers, judges, neighbours or the kids themselves is simply abdication of responsibility. We have a responsibility to make good law. Permitted or not permitted is clear. “Not permitted but you won’t be prosecuted because the cops will turn a blind-eye to it” is deliberate obfuscation. The law is clear.
Whether I am prosecuted or not.
respectfully
BJ
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
YMMV
Your Mileage May Vary
Standard disclaimer seen in car adverts a long time ago…
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
BB: So what you are saying is that as long as the education system preaches the message YOU want you will not interfere.
Not at all. The Greens are a political party, and as such we’re about trying to change things for what we see as the better for people and planet. That is why we continue to advocate some policy positions that currently have little public support - because we believe they are correct, because we believe we can eventually convince the public they are correct, and because we hope the public will eventually give us the political power to make them happen. It’s got nothing to do with the education “system” - it’s about educating people through whatever means possible.
BB: what if there was huge popular support for changing our electoral sytem?..would you ban that or simply ignore what the public want?
I presume you mean if we were in Government. I think the Green response should be based on our appropriate decision-making charter principle. If the huge popular support were towards giving more democracy to people, we would support it. If it were for a move towards a less democratic society, we’d oppose it, and if the voters weren’t convinced by our ats and (ironically) continued to want a less democratic system then I guess they would chuck us out.
But to ban it is what happens under totalitarian regimes, and that is anathema to the Green appropriate decision-making principle.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
BB - Want to watch a scary movie, try to find “burnt by the sun” which is a russian language flick about a former general in Stalin’s time, or “repentance”.
No… we Greens are not into that sort of totalitarian control.
Heck, they haven’t kicked me out… they have to be a pretty tolerant bunch.
BJ
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Toad
Thanks for that, I can understand the theory behind what you are saying but I am sure that you can appreciate that it looks a lot different in practice.
What 87% of the public hear when the smacking bill is debated is Sue Bradford telling them that she is going to control how they raise their kids.
And as for the electoral system question, remind how the Greens voted recently when there was a bill before the house to reduce the number of MP’s?…remind me what was the Green party attitude was toward the huge numbers in support of changing our electoral system?
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
BB: And as for the electoral system question, remind how the Greens voted recently when there was a bill before the house to reduce the number of MP’s?…remind me what was the Green party attitude was toward the huge numbers in support of changing our electoral system?
The Greens voted against the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill.
They did so because it would have made Parliament less representative, and therefore less democratic. The Royal Commission that recommended the MMP electoral system recommended it would require 120 MPs to work effectively.
That was the same expert advice received by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee.
Under the system proposed in that Bill the number of list members would start to reduce, and the ability of MMP to deliver diversity in terms of adequately sized smaller-party caucuses, race, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth would be extremely limited. Select Committee’s, which are a check on the power of the Government, would not have been able to function if the Bill was passed, as there would simply have been insufficient members to sit on them.
I acknowlede that there was significant public support for reducing the number of MPs. But the Greens don’t cast their votes on the basis of what is popular. We cast our votes on the basis of what the Green Party’s policy requires (Green MPs are bound to support the democratically decided policy developed by the Party at large) and on the basis of what expert advice tells us is correct.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Toad
The Royal commission also recommended the removal of the racist Maori seats, it would seem to me that if you quote the Royal commission in support of your position then you should also support the removal of the Maori seats.
Why is it necessary to have a set number of men/woman/gays or races in the house,? what is wrong with just having the best people?
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
” Green MP’s are bound to support the .. policy developed by Party”
pure totalitarianism
Marx coudn’t have put it better.
poor BJ he the only one in the party who think for hisself,
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
PQ
Hot Damn! Where’ve you been? long time since seeing that unique style of yours…
I believe, as this bill was a private members bill, it is not party “policy”. It is the preference of some members of the party. I respect their opinion and disagree.
Party policy I get a lot more say in, and by and large, it seems to be a lot less divisive and troublesome, and I am not an MP. If I WERE an MP I’d expect to toe that line same as… heckfire, that’s the same all over. That’s why they have whips
respectfully
BJ
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
alistair Says:
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:35 am
jh : OK, so your model of society is one where there’s a majority of people who don’t need telling what to do, and a minority who are slack and violent who there’s no hope for?
That sounds sick to me. It’s also profoundly mistaken. The reality is that there is a continuum from zero violence, to people beating their kids severely. The aim of the bill (and it is indeed social engineering) is to lower the threshold of acceptable violence.
———————–
It lowers the threshold to zero (ie) includes the light smack.
It assumes that a light smack is always the worst of any set of options, and purports to be based on solid scientific evidence.
jh
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
toad Says:
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Peter - Green principles are not just about the environment. They are about promoting:
Ecological sustainability
Social justice
Appropriate decision-making
Non-violence
The Bill to repeal section 59 is founded primarily on the fourth of these - nonviolence.
————————–
I asked someone to apply appropriate decision making to “Qieter Please” but didn’t get any takers:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/02/19/quieter-please/
The Green Charter doesn’t tell us how to make decisions, for instance, some ecologists would argue that the world is over populated. Attacking population, however, might interfere with current views on “social justice”.
Light smacking is to violence as abortion is to murder.
jh
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
eredwen Says:
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 am
A few observations:
A few men here want to preserve their “right� to “discipline� “their� child/ren.
How many of you have seriously looked at the alternatives and
…have attended parenting classes, (and which ones)?
…really understand the “literature� (ie: studies done and written up in learned journals) about this subject?
… would be happy to see others (caregivers, teachers, babysitters) “disciplining� your child/ren in the same manner that you do?
Does your child’s mother agree totally with your methods? Are you sure?
Above all, are you willing to take responsibility for the damage that others will continue to inflict on other children if the current law is not amended?
Or is a lot of this just “I was hit, and look, it didn’t do me any harm!�
bj, I suggest that you are not applying the academic rigour here that you would expect in your own areas of expertise (Translation: “Don’t make a prat of yourself�!)
eredwen
——————————————————–
More than a few condescending assumptions there Eredwen, I can see you floating around the room on a bag of hot air, all fluffed up like a mother hen on a hot nor-west day. However the point that I find most worthy of comment is this:
…really understand the “literature� (ie: studies done and written up in learned journals) about this subject?
Actually the answer is no, however, I did hear an e mail on 9 to Noon where a psychologist disagreed strongly that there was universal agreement on this matter.
In addition we do have social intelligence (and minds of our own).
And.. what matter would we be talking about were we presented with a study, since misrepresentation (deliberate or otherwise) seems to be the order of the day (ie) a light smack or strong regime of corporal punishment?
What sort of case did Sue Bradford present (ie) did she present relevant peer reviewed studies? Please refer me to the web page where the Mother of the Nation presents her argument (with relevant references).
toddle-loo
jh
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I was reading a bookk a while back called “A Mind of its Own” (about behaviour). One point people might find of interest is that religiousity isn’t necessarily positively correlated with generosity. I presume the same applies to people from the left and right. One of the nastiest people I ever met was from a family prominent in the “Peace Movement”.
jh
February 24th, 2007 at 2:51 am
“Life damaged by S59″ says:
… “Action is better than doing nothing to stop the appalling child abuse in this country. Smacking and hitting are two different ‘animals’ and the latter is allowable under present legislation. Hitting is destructive and so is totally unacceptable. Now I suppose this debate will rage over what is hitting and what is smacking.”
I reply:
Unfortunately we don’t seem to have got past the perceived “RIGHTS” of the individual parent (mostly fathers in this case)… presumably to go on doing, without question, whatever their parents did to them, regardless.
The repeal of Section 59 (because it has NOT been interpreted by the Courts in the way that was originally intended, with the result that some Kiwi children have been put at risk, or mainmed for life, or killed) is being seen only as a personal “threat” to these individual parents: “What if they (cannot?) continue to “smack”, which they have a “right” to do, without being prosecuted?”
The fact that this law needs to be changed urgently, for the sake of too many vulnerable Kiwi children who are put at risk or killed, is being ignored by those who cannot think beyond their own “rights”.
Our parents/caregivers “did their best” when we were children, but that was another time. There is always something we each can learn, in each generation … some more effective ways of dealing with our children, some gentler ways of dealing with “inappropriate” behaviour …
AND we are all part of Society … and what we decide to do affects all Kiwi children … and we all must take the responsibility for this!
February 24th, 2007 at 4:58 am
big bruv:
I will answer your posts … one more time (?)
Previously I have “given you the benefit of the doubt”, assuming that you wrote in the way that you do because you were not used to “arguing” in written form. (I taught Communications English in the Polytechnic system for many years and was willing to communicate with you honestly, well aware that our value systems and thoughts were very different. The post you took exception to was actually a summary of things that were said by others on this thread … My university training was in social sciences.)
On this thread, you said to someone else:
“Now if you want to debate this issue then I am keen to do so, if however you cannot answer the question then please stick to the rules that Eredwen is so keen on reminding us about and lay off the personal attacks.”
In contrast, here is what you thought appropriate for “debating the issue” with me:
… “Eredewn, whats next?..all men are rapists so we will make it illegal for men to be on the streets after 6pm? Is this issue really about men? and the man haters of the left?
… And by the way, they are our children Eredwen, I know you see them as members of the state but right now they are still our children.
… Are you serious?..since when the state have all the answers when it comes to raising children?
… for you to even suggest that parents should be attending parenting classes smacks of communism …
… it is the height of arrogance for you to assume that all mothers are against this,
… I note that you have again suggested this is a male thing, do you have a problem with men in general?
… Please stop telling lies Eredwen, smacking kids DOES NOT cause damage. Stick to the facts please.
… Eredwen, I am very disappointed by that response, you used to be able to argue your point quite well, I shall have to assume that you do not deny anything I have said.
I was really hoping that your reply would prove me wrong but sadly it seems that I was right all along.
… All along I was of the opinion that you did not like me because I am slightly right of center, however it seems that the real reason is because I am a man.
………
bb,
This is NOT an effective way to get your message across.
It was very unpleasant to read this “outpouring”, written in an inappropriate tone.
It indicated a great deal about your attitudes (especially to women), and very little/nothing that was accurate about my attitudes to anything!
“Could do much better” is my comment.
eredwen
February 24th, 2007 at 6:32 am
You flatter yourself Eredwen,you have been standing in the class room too long being right about everything. You are a hard-liner, and there is a critical mass in the “green” Party, whose far-left agenda is just large enough to keep the party in the looney area.
The (property developer type) opposition from the far right must break into a wide grin every time they hear “Keith Locke, Green Party”…. “Sue Bradford…. Green Party”.
The idea that the Green Party is supporting this bill because of the Green Charter is preposterous twaddle.
Mention Green Party; get an earfull!!!
jh
February 24th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Just watching “best of Mornings” TV One.
Sue Bradfords “seen 1000’s of submissions, sat on select committees, listened to debates…” Well quantity isn’t a substitue for quality, she still fudges the essential elements of the argument. What’s more she wouldn’t let the interviewer control the interview.
Contrasting her views with Dury Christian School was slack (missrepresentative) as they are on the extreme.
jh
February 24th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Under Sue Bradford’s law.
You and your child are in a supermarket, the child wants a drink which is sitting on a shelf in reach of your child, you happen to be trying to locate on another higher shelf the normal brand of a item your partner has asked you to pick up for them, for a single moment your attention is not on your child, they grab the drink from the shelf open it and start to drink before you realize whats happening, you realize and of course naturally you are very upset at your child’s not only lack of respect for your authority over them, but also toward the owner of the store you happen to be standing in, you take the drink of your child of which as a upstanding citizen of New Zealand you are now obligated to pay for, and as a result your child gets a nice big hug and told that everything is ok.
Or you slap your child around the ass tell them they are totally wrong and you are very upset with them, which is then seen by a person who agrees with Sues anti-smacking law 100% she gets on her cellphone calls up the police and reports the incident, there just happens to be a policeman in your local supermarket area/mall and they meet you outside where you are arrested for abuse and your child removed from you.
The police MUST investigate any complaint made to them even if they believe that complaint to be false or a waste of time, and if the law is found to be broken they do not have a choice in which laws they can and can not proceed to prosecute, they must act within the bounds and reasons of the letter of the law
Sue says that the police will not prosecute in such circumstances she is wrong
This law is about Sue believing her way of child raising is the best and only way, she is attempting to force parents to raise kids like she does.
Well Sue one of your kids committed suicide, thats the best indicator of what sort of parent you truly were
February 24th, 2007 at 11:35 am
jh, I/WE GET YOUR MESSAGE (loud and clear!)
You LIKE some Green Party policies, and want the Greens to be there to work for some things that you VALUE. However there are other Green policies (and attitudes) that you do NOT agree with …
Therefore you decide to behave like a little boy having a tantrum: throwing everthing within reach and saying the most hurtful and “daring” things he can think of to get attention.
When this happens, wise adults speak calmly to the little boy.
They are patient, but if he persists in this behaviour, they quietly leave him in the safety of his own room “until he is ready to come out and behave in an a more appropriate manner.”
Consider me to have gone out the door and shut it gently behind me.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Drjobinson,
You can’t turn your back on your child for an instant without the child indulging in sociopathic behaviour? That’s sad. You and your child need professional help.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
alistair Says:
February 24th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Drjobinson,
You can’t turn your back on your child for an instant without the child indulging in sociopathic behaviour? That’s sad. You and your child need professional help.
——————————————————————
Sounds like a normal child to me Alistair, and it sounds like Drjobinson, would have saved the family budget and given the child a quick smack (rather than your expensive “professional help”). I’m quite relaxed about that. [However, it depends on Drjobinson’s, temperament and level of social intelligence etc how well this was administered - primitive societies had lots of other “aunties” and dominant matriacs to moderate subordinate parents behaviour].
80 bouquets and 20 brickbats to Drjobinson.
jh
February 24th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
It interests me all this talk about left/right. The fact is life is about both -left I see as the need for community and interaction -right the need to be an individual with preferences and a need for space to achieve meaningful stuff.
So a balance is needed between these extremes and I would hope that Government and leadership is about the balance of these elements.
In the modern complex overpopulated world this balancing is becomming more and more difficult and more and more people are falling off - some bashing their children.
I feel our democratic processes of finding the balance are not coping because it is easy to find the balance in our smaller interactive communities and harder in large metropolis areas with less interaction of the whole. Town planning, the economics of providing a work force for large institutions and the damage to our health support systems by city “footprints” (eg. the effect of bad air etc. on our behaviour) all contribute to the violence around. More of it happens in the urban environment.
To me children don’t choose to live in these environments but adults do, and design them. Maybe this is an indication that our process of child rearing is incidental to our lifestyle needs so in actual fact we are already extremely to the right in the focus of what children need.
As the adults doing the damage are also products of this process it becomes an indicator to me that an assertion of the community good and need is required - thus a debate and legalising process affirming the rights of children to be considered properly.
This debate is far larger than one Bill in Parliament and probably needs to look wider at economics, town planning, waste, health, the placing of decisions closer to each community/individual etc.
I feel that the extreme assertion of the individual right is a symptom of people who are feeling disempowered and the same with the extreme left and neither extreme assertion can reach the balance needed. Our distrust of the process makes us suspicious of change, but in fact it is the size and complexity of the process disempowering us - thus appropriate decision making.
We have allowed the process of innocence till proven guilty to be undermined but if this is reignited then we have little to really fear. A policeman told me that the weight of evidence needed to make an adequate prosecution meant that a light smack would hardly register but the real violence does. The definition comes back to the same processes of police and court decision as to weight of evidence.
If bashers were getting off with the way the definitiom was then a slight change of balance to make this harder is pragmatic.
The real issues that are involved with increasing violence such as the environment we are creating that disempowers people, I feel is well covered in Green thinking and the tired old growth for growth sake social and economic planning will only result in extreme breakdown - I think of the indulgent Roman Empire with lead water pipes (Modern pollutants), self indulgent extreme entertainment (Grand theft Auto game), huge trading empires (multinationals), military domination (Iraq), barbarians (terrorists).
We all need a dose of balance.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Djrobinson,
I am surprised at the story you tell …
You write: “Under Sue Bradford’s law.”
(Not a “law”. Sue is asking for the removal of one “section” of a law because lawyers and child care experts say that “those words are not being understood in the way that the people who wrote the law meant them to be understood.”
Some children in this country are being SERIOUSLY beaten, and the people who do these beatings are getting away with it! This is why this law needs fixing, (and taking out those words will fix it.)
You write: “You and your child are in a supermarket … for a single moment your attention is not on your child …”
Most of us have “been there done that”! … and NO the child does NOT get a nice big hug and told that everything is ok. HOWEVER to “slap your child around the ass tell them they are totally wrong and you are very upset with them” is NOT the best way to deal with the situation.
It seems from the responses in the media that we need to have more “Parenting Skills”… TV programmes, classes, groups, courses in schools etc …
“a person who agrees with Sues anti-smacking law 100% ”
… might come to the help of the busy shopper and spend some time entertaining the child. (I often do!)
I don’t know where you got the idea of …”she gets on her cellphone calls up the police and reports the incident, there just happens to be a policeman in your local supermarket area/mall and they meet you outside where you are arrested for abuse and your child removed from you.”
(Were you thinking of attacking the child with an axe?)
“The police MUST investigate any complaint made to them even if they believe that complaint to be false or a waste of time … ”
… as they “must” under the law as it stands now.
However, (and this is what the proposed amendment is about) under the current law PEOPLE WHO DO ACTUAL PHYSICAL HARM to children ARE GETTING AWAY WITH IT ! Prosecutions taken against them fail, because of the the wording of that section of the law. To stop this from happening, the law must be amended!
We should all “be on the same side” … making sure that ALL our children are safe, and helping parents and caregivers to have the support, the knowlege and the skills to do this important task!
February 24th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Oldlux: Well said!
I’ll reply later … when time allows.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Alistair -
Either you’ve got perfect well behaved children who do not push the limits of the boundaries you’ve set for them or you’ve never raised children.
Eredwen
At this moment I do not have a lot of time to reply to you, but I will reply when I return. I am in agreement that we must protect our children, but as guardians we must do more then protect we must raise, and help our children mature into well rounded citizens of this country, our children will test the boundaries that we set for them, they will ignore us, and push us to our limits.
In the scenario I set out in my first message I gave 2 examples of punishment that could be administered you said both are wrong, well i happen to know both are used because there are different styles of raising children and no one style is correct as you seem to suggest in your reply, of course there are other ways of dealing with such a situation, you could call the police and have your child charged with stealing (opening something that does not belong to you is stealing), you could buy the drink as obligated and then make the child wait until they get home which makes them wait for their due punishment, in my opinion physiological abuse is worse then instant punishment
Anyway I will write more in reply to your statements when I return, I personally believe there are no prefect solutions to punishing a child, and since my children are obviously not as well behaved as Alistair’s and you allude to having all the answers perhaps you could enlighten me by explaining how you would handle such a situation
February 24th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
big bruv Says:
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 am
Andrew
“social engineering is merely a positive side effect�
Well at least you are honest, tell me, what other things do you believe the state should get involved in or change?
any issue of protecting people from assault.
otherwise why have a state?
but on social engineering, let’s call the abolition of assault social de-engineering.
the idea that you can whip little people into a compliant frame of mind is the ultimate in social engineering. the proponents of corporal punsihment word it that way themselves.
one parent once confessed to me that she felt terrible smacking her children because it felt like she was breaking their little wills, but, she added, the experts seem to recommend it (depends which experts you choose to follow).
at least she was human enough to see something wrong with breaking their will, not like the one bradford mentioned who was quite upfront about the fact that she smacks to bend their will.
so let’s here the pro-smackers accused of social engineering from now on.
peterexistsleft says:
“>>the purpose of the reform as far as i can see is the protection of the children
No, it isn’t. What it will do is criminalise parents who smack. The Burrows amendment will close the loophole which currently gives the real abusers a defence.”
uh huh. and the purpose of outlawing shooting people is what? to criminalize people who shoot people? or to protect people?
smackers are real abusers. not as severe abusers as some, admittedly, but it isn’t the job of the law to allow a certain level of crime.
peterexistsleft also says:
“Effectively, they’re saying to ALL the parents of New Zealand that parents don’t know what is best for their child. The state knows best.”
if a parent wants to have sex with their kid & the state outlaws that, is it arrogant of the state? does the parent know best?
you see, what this boils down to is that you think that on this issue, YOU are right. the state is merely arrogant if it disagrees with YOU.
well it doesn’t work that way. the state is there to protect all citizens, whether they have voting rights or not, & whether those from whom they are to be protected want the victims protected or not.
February 25th, 2007 at 7:44 am
toad Says:
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
This snippet from The Kiwi Herald:
Standing outside parliament under a banner announcing “Red bum good, blue bum bad,â€? National MP Chester Burrows today attempted to explain his amendment to the “anti-smacking bill’’ saying that he wanted to outlaw bad smacking while encouraging the kind of smacking that was ‘part of the great kiwi tradition; the stinging red bum delivered with love’.
—————————————————————————–
Another idiot mp. I shake by head. That doesn’t typify (I’m sure, the reason people oppose this bill)
We need an FAQ approach to this bill since I personally believe Sue B, Helen C’s side haven’t been straight about it.
Is it ok to smack a child in some circumstances? 80% Yes 20% No: there is always a better way. [I believe there are times when a smack is the best option (I gave an example earlier— personal experience)]
Does smacking lead to a more violent society?
etc, etc
their is far too much smoke and mirrors in politics. We need to make best use of the information age an faq, is just one example, of what we can do.
jh
February 25th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Eredwen
Wow!..intellecutal snobbery as well as a hard left hidden agenda.
OK so you flushed me out, unlike you Eredwen I am not pretentious, hell I even had to go and check out what the word pretentious meant before I used it.
I did not go to university (and here I will save you the time and effort of saying “that is obvious”) and I am not what you would call an educated person, I am however a person who has lived through times tougher than most.
Unlike you I did not choose to take time off and let the state pay for my up keep, I decided very early in the piece that If I wanted a better life for myself and my family then I was the one who would have to do something about it.
I have little time for the educated elite irrespective of their political leanings, most of the educated elite that I came across a younger person were hell bent on keeping me where I was, they positively discouraged me to have a crack at bettering myself.
Most of the educated elite had no idea what it was like to be poor, their hand wringing cries for social justice made me sick, all I (and many like me) wanted or needed was for these do gooders to get the hell out of our way and go and annoy somebody else.
It must really annoy you Eredwen that such an uneducated person has done OK, people like me really foul up your hard left view of the world.
I do find it interesting that you were a teacher, now I have a better understanding of why you are against those who do well in life, god forbid that you ever worked in a profession where the useless teachers were actually paid what they were worth.
February 25th, 2007 at 10:56 am
big bruv says:
“It must really annoy you Eredwen that such an uneducated person has done OK, people like me really foul up your hard left view of the world.”
……………………………..
I reply:
NOT AT ALL! That is one of the great things about Aotearoa/NZ.
Many Pakeha New Zealanders came here with “nothing” but their determination to make better lives for themselves and their families.
My great grandfather (whose surname I bear) was the illigitimate son of an illiterate factory worker from the slums of Leeds (in Yorkshire England). He worked in the (cotton etc) mills as a small child, and got his education in the “Sunday Schools” in those factory towns.
(He later emigrated to Auckland, as a widower with two small children, and was one of the founders of the WEA in Auckland… )
I think it is a shame that that big “chip on your shoulder” stops you from seeing/understanding what is actually being said … One thing that I have NEVER come across among the Greens is snobbery!
bb, I really don’t care what you think of me, but do yourself a favour and STOP being that “little boy from a poor background” inside your head.
I have noticed that it gets in the way!
You have “done well” and good luck to you!
Not everyone has the determination and drive and abilites (and chances) to do well as you have done.
Greens believe that all people are part of our society and are entitled to the support of that society … when they need it. It is called cooperation!
February 25th, 2007 at 11:50 am
yeah..b.b is this interesting mix of personal (little-boy) insecurities..
(hummer and all)
overlaid with a political ‘feck you..!..i’m all right(financially) jack..”
(this is a common syndrome in 1st generation working class monied..)
that ‘unease’ that it might be all gone tomorrow never leaves them..
(he’d be like that to his relatives too…many working class new-monied go all dog-in-the-mangerish..’feck off…!..it’s mine..not yours..!..”..to them also..)
and it does become their ‘god’/alter of/for worship..
and this all wrapped in rabid-right dog-eat-dog rhetoric…
whoar..!..
quite the mix..eh..?
hey..!..he should get together with those rabid-right gun-nuts..muzza and whaleblubber..
then..they could ride around together..with guns..in the hummer..!
whoar..!..
they’d all have raging hard-ons..eh..?
(and probably just at the thought of it..eh..?)
(let’s draw the curtain..and give them some time to themselves..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 25th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Eredwen
If anybody does not have the drive or determination to do well then they have no right to expect me to subsidize them.
February 25th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Most of what I wanted to say (in support of the bill) has been said, but that last comment of bb’s needs a response.
I have a (mildly) autistic daughter - in terms of raising a child with that kind of difficulty, the boundaries get pushed all the time. There are many accounts of such children being smacked, beaten, punished for not understanding what they were meant to be doing or why - all it does is make it even harder for them to understand, to withdraw even further from a confusing world. Worse, whatever progress or confidence they might gain is lost when coercion comes into it. You have to change the way you communicate with such a child.
The same should apply to any child! Communication and patience are the only effective tools. And I have certainly made mistakes with my children - which I regret. This youngest one taught me so much.
‘If anybody does not have the drive or determination to do well.. ” well, sometimes that confidence has been beaten out of people. My daughter struggles very hard to be independent in a society that jeers at her, mocks her oddities and takes advantage of her vulnerability - she looks more or less ‘normal’ and tries to be so. She has done reasonably well in some areas of study (and has a large student debt to prove it) and has tried out all kinds of jobs. Every time, she has been humiliated by never quite being what is wanted.
She does work: she cleans houses for a few mature people who treat her well and appreciate her honesty and dedication to the job. But it isn’t enough to live on and if they are away, there is no income.
So, she does have a benefit to provide that certainty that she needs. Why should society not help to support her and others who struggle? Would you rather she was starving or on the st