Let the s59 debate continue
So the extensive comments on our earlier posting The votes are in, and s59 is on the way out seems to have hit a technical limit. So for those of you who want to keep the debate going, here you are!
Bookmark to:
frogblog
hopping along the corridors of power
a political blog from the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand
March 19th, 2007 at 10:12 am
And here is the post from Zana that may have done the poor old camel in (too many comments on earlier post).
Hiya BJ, and thanks for your reply. These are very good points and they reinforce for me even more the reasons why I think the word “corrective� needs to go.
In my mind, the whole purpose of section one is covering behaviour and circumstances which I regard as “corrective� - that is, they are (by my interpretation) to correct/modify/stop the behaviour of the child in “real time�.
Unfortunately, as it has since been pointed out to me (thanks Dave), the word correction has an established legal meaning that is specific and does not line up with what my (and I assume many others) personal understanding of the word.
This is the thing that drives me absolutely batty about legalese - the lawyers have an elite language that means something to only them whilst appearing as complete gibberish or utterly ambiguous in plain spoken language that ordinary people use.
We’ve already managed to get insurance companies and financial institutions to sharpen up their act (somewhat) and start writing their contracts in much more layman friendly language that an ordinary person can understand, and I think it’s about time we started applying the same pressure to the elitist bunch of prats that call themselves the “legal profession�.
The way I understand the application of “time-out�, as promoted by TV shows like the Nanny, is that it is a real-time intervention and I argue that time-out should legitimately be acceptable under the terms of Section 1c “…for the purpose of preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour� and also Section 1a “…for the purpose of preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person�
Parents typically employ the time-out method as a way of intervening when a child is being obscenely disruptive or stubbornly engaging in behaviour that might harm themself or others - and they are either too hysterical or too willful to be reasoned with verbally in the moment. I do not regard this employment of the time-out as “punishment�, but as “performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting� in real-time.
But I also acknowledge that there are parents who might use the time-out method as a means of “punishment� rather than “real-time intervention�, and that is not only a misuse of the purpose of the technique, but would also count as unacceptable under the terms of Section Two.
I would also like to add here that this inappropriate use of the time-out method could quite rightfully be regarded as “psychological abuse by isolation� - and thus account for the statistics that Dave cites in this Otago Uni study - which I haven’t had time to read as yet and subject to my own personal peer review - research papers on issues that require qualitative methodologies can be very very tricky and prone to missing a bunch of inter-related facts (due to poor questionnaire structuring that doesn’t allow subjects to contribute significant related data, or have it adequately collated in the raw data processing) such as the time-out method being MISused as I illustrated above.
bjchip Says: The standard of law I am used to is that it is better for the guilty to occasionally escape than for the innocent to be punished. That is perhaps, a difference in my background from the usage here.
That would be my ideal standard of law also BJ, and I think if you meander through the many inspired writings that our Nandor has formulated on legal issues and law reform, you will find that it is very high on the Greens list of legal concerns as well. I am sure the majority of us here would agree too, as gut-wrenching as it is at times to see cases like the recent police rape trials get off scot-free - even though we knew they are clearly guilty as hell.
So, don’t sweat it BJ, I think we are both on the same page as you on that point - as well as the same side of the Pacific Ocean. And if you’re anything like me, you probably feel just as passionate about plugging up loopholes in ALL laws (common, tax, environmental, etc etc) that allow lecherous lawyers to pervert the true intention of those laws and the protection they are supposed to provide….
Which brings us back full circle to this S59 appeal… and it’s primary purpose… which is to plug this particular loophole.
I think in the course of this discussion that we are coming closer to the middle ground which we all share - which is that we BOTH do not want abusers to get off on a loophole as much as we do NOT want good loving parents to be prosecuted on an ambiguity.
So, I am curious to hear if others agree with BJ and myself on this Section 2 flaw, and have any ideas as to how we could shape up the wording so that it achieves both these objectives? Are there others who agree that the word “corrective� needs to go and can suggest a word (or phrase) which is more definitive to replace it?
Cos I am waaaayyyyyy too tired to be thinking that creatively at the moment - after having so little sleep last night. Hehehe Dave, I hope you managed to catch a few more Z-Z-Z-Z’s than I did!
Cheers m’dears,
Zana
March 19th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Retrieving my off-topic-thread-hijacking-response from elsewhere
The word “retaliation� springs to mind Zana (your long post got e-mailed despite the blog limitations) … I think there may be better words and phrases to put in place here, but I would probably accept that one.
However, I would also consider seriously including the inverse of Borrows’ amendment words in the sense that any act using an implement, striking above the neck, leaving lasting bruises would not be automatically be covered by section 1.
respectfully
BJ
March 19th, 2007 at 11:00 am
They almost had me fooled but I am back on the anti side.
59 Parental control 5
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
“Corrective� in law means any action taken to deter future similar behaviour.
As this is not allowed under section 2 (which overrides all of section 1) it makes smacking illegal in most cases except when it is done to prevent something.
So if I bit my son to prevent him biting me (before he bit me) that would be ok
But if I bit him after he bit me that would be corrective and therefor illegal.
Same at the supermarket, I could smack his hand to prevent him pulling over the stack of cans, but if he had actually done it a corrective smack would be illegal.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
OnceBitten Says: They almost had me fooled but I am back on the anti side.
Come on OnceBitten, this is just a silly thing to say. This repeal is not trying to “fool” or “trick” anybody here, so please try and dispense with the conspiratorial stuff and read my post again.
I believe we are on the same page as regards to the word “corrective” in section 2, except that my opinion is that they have foolishly used a word that is ambiguous and misleading as it is used in this particular instance.
It would be common sense to all good parents reading section 1 that these kinds of parenting techniques are corrective as well as preventative - because the whole point of good parenting is to intervene with our kids in a way that also “teaches” them that this is not a behaviour we want them to repeat in future.
The people who used the word “corrective” here seem to have overlooked that fact that in the minds of good parents, all the parenting they do is to either reinforce good behaviour or to redirect and modify bad behaviour - and it makes logical sense that the later is “corrective” in the “curative” sense rather than the “punitive” sense.
Whoever dropped that word into the bill should have bothered to check the thesaurus - which cites both “curative” AND “punitive” as synonyms of the word “corrective” - the former being a good positive word in the context of parenting and the later having cruel negative connotations in the context of parenting.
So I said it before (and for those who missed it) I say it again…. the word “corrective” needs to GO.
And it looks like we both agree on that point OnceBitten, so instead of wallowing in the victim approach that Sue is just trying to hogtie the good parent of NZ with this bill, let’s get pro-active together and put some “corrective” input into the rewording of this bill at it’s next reading - this is what’s called “participatory democracy” and is one of the core principles of the Greens.
So now we have a fresh new page (thanks to the Frogster), I propose that we embark on a fresh new approach to this topic and cogitate together on ideas for refining the wording of this thing which can be presented at the next select committee hearing.
What can we replace the word “corrective” with that does not negate the positive corrective/curative/preventative/protective intent of section one and also makes a clear statement that force used for cruel intentions is not OK?
BJ has already started the ball rolling on this by suggesting the word “retaliation”. So please go and grab your thesaurus OnceBitten and get creative with us to find a more appropriate word.
Cheers,
Zana
March 19th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
OnceBitten - Read again what zANavAShi is saying about “corrective” in his post and see if you can suggest something better in terms of wording.
This forum isn’t an official input but it IS collaberative if we can find ourselves any common ground at all… and I do believe there is some for some of us.
respectfully
BJ
March 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
PS: And a very big thanks to the Frogster for starting up a fresh topic where we can continue this conversation - that was a good scheme jelly bean!
See OnceBitten! the Greens are all about creative solutions for win-win outcomes.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Hiya BJ! (((((waves))))
I meant to add before that I enjoyed your second “inverse of Borrows’ comment and it has the seeds of a very good idea.
I haven’t had much time to mull it over yet, and I haven’t had a chance to lay my hands on a copy of the suggested Borrows amendments either - which as I understand, was worded in a way that looks like we are encouraging physical methods of parenting rather than promoting creative intelligent parenting strategies that do not require physical force.
I’d enjoy seeing more discussion from others on how we could practically implement that idea into the bill - cos let’s face it peeps, for all the good parents out there, I expect there are just as many who mindlessly repeat the same old tired parochial parenting that was passed down to them from previous generations and might not have as good of a sense of how much force is reasonable force as they think.
Cheers,
Z
March 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
My last post was a rebuttal and update on my personal view from my last post on Friday.
It was not meant to be taken as a direct reply to Zanas post.
It also was cut and pastes mainly from other posts on the last page which I considered personally relevant and thought might be helpful in bringing new readers up to speed without reading the last page.
I apologise if this was upsetting to anyone.
I notice there were no objections to the actual content of my post.
I will be searching my thesaurus as we are possibly on the same page here.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Zana
I am not restricting myself to whatever the heck it was that Borrows says.
Section 4:
Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as permitting striking a child with any implement other than an open hand, striking a child above the neck or striking, shaking or handling a child roughly enough to cause lasting bruises and/or internal injuries.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. I’d suggest a real lawyer turn that into real legalese and anyone with additions in mind should speak up, cause the nature of this is that it has to be as thorough as possible (Did Borrows even consider shaking, handling and mishandling? Abuse is not always a matter of “striking”).
Good on you OnceBitten…
respectfully
BJ
March 19th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
The point is that if Bradford and the Prime Minister can’t clearly articulate if and when smacking is permitted, and the lawyers can’t agree, then the law, as drafted, is rubbish.
Don’t criminalise good parents, else the only thing “on it’s way out” will be Labour Party, followed closely by the Greens.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Ouch, Zana! And BJ, for that matter. Us lawyers aren’t that bad, really! At law school these days they teach “Plain English Drafting” - that is, to say what we need to say in as few words and as plainly as possible. Still, to ensure clarity in the law certain words always have certain meanings, and other words are defined in the interpretation section of Acts.
While I don’t feel knowledgeable enough on the new s59 to weigh in on the debate, it’s a shame that while almost everyone seems to agree on the intention of the amendment, they just can’t agree on the execution of it! I will read up a bit more and get back to you.
Really I don’t think there was anything wrong with the original section -it’s just the judges who have made a right mess of things with their interpretation of “reasonable force”. (so don’t blame it on the lawyers! We just argue our best and trust the judges to get it right, just like everyone else does)
March 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Geez Peter if they were to do that they couldn’t retract it later
March 19th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I am now wondering if “reasonable forceâ€? was the sticking point before, is ” if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances ” is any better?
or am I just being un-reasonable?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
zANavAShi Said:
… I haven’t had a chance to lay my hands on a copy of the suggested Borrows amendments either - which as I understand, was worded in a way that looks like we are encouraging physical methods of parenting…
The Borrows amendment adds the term “correction” (i.e. punishment) to the list of purposes for which force that is reasonable in the circumstances can be used.
It then provides that force that amounts to conduct prohibited by an enactment that creates a criminal offence other than assault on a child, or by a male on a female, or common assault is prohibited, along with force that causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory and trifling; or any weapon, tool, or other implement is used; or it is inflicted by any means that is cruel, degrading, or terrifying. The full wording is here.
It has several serious difficultes:
1) It anticipates that the parent will be able to anticipate the degree of force that will cause harm that is more than transitory or trifling. Many parents will not, but will be subject to criminal liability on the basis of the effect of the use of force, rather than their intent. The parent who didn’t intend to bruise, but inadvertently did so, would be criminally liable.
2) The prohibition on infliction of force by a means that is terrifying is subjective. What is transitory and trifling to one child may be terrifying to another.
3) The amendment effectively prescribes a level of violence against children that is “okay” if the purpose is punishment. This sends the wrong message.
4) Some actions that would be permitted under the Bill as reported by Select Committee would be prohibited under the Borrows amendment. For example, the infliction of a moderate injury through, say a rugby-style tackle, should be justified if the child is in danger of more serious injury as a result of its actions. The Borrows amendment would make this illegal, as the injury inflicted is more than transitory and trifling.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Once Bitten said: I am now wondering if “reasonable force� was the sticking point before, is � if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances � is any better?
The difference is that the reasonableness will, under the Bill as reported by Select Committee, be determined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the force is applied. As I have said above, force that causes injury that is more than transitory and trifling (whatever those terms mean, which is another problem with the Borrows amendment) may be reasonable in circumstances where more serious injury to the child or someone else resulting from the child’s actions is a possibility.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Ok that makes sense we can rugby tackle our kids if they make a dash for the road, but cannot smack their hand if they made it to the other side.
Reminds me of a chicken joke.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Sarah
Don’t reckon lawyers here are quite as bad as they are in the states… different arrangements entirely… but I do have a long standing objection to lawyers becoming lawmakers (as happened in the US, most legislators there are indeed in/from the legal profession).
I’ve always regarded lawyers as “hired guns” and in an adversarial legal system, they HAVE to be in some degree “amoral” in that they accept a case to win. I do not blame the lawyer for thinking up the arguments that sent s59 from “reasonable” to reasonably meaningless. The Judge and Jury as you point out, have much more to answer for in that. The lawyer succeeded, and was probably a bit surprised, but it was his/her job to make every possible effort to get his/her client acquitted.
This is why I prefer explicit law, law that addresses actions rather than law about “intent” or “reasonable” interpretations by the police or the judge.
It is also why I am not bashful about WANTING a lawyer to work over the a piece of legislation to ensure that it does what we expect it to do legally. All well and good for us to want the law to work a certain way, but only legal training and experience can give any hope that it actually will work that way.
If you want to actually have rule of law, the law has to contain actual rules.
respectfully
BJ
March 19th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
OK Admin time to front up.
Does Sues bill mean we are able to use reasonable force in preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence.
But NOT as a punishment for the same.
As Toad stated “The amendment(Burrows) effectively prescribes a level of violence against children that is “okayâ€? if the purpose is punishment. This sends the wrong message.”
March 19th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Seems only the hardcore is left on this one.
I’ve been surprised at the sources of support for Sue’s bill, not least Bernard (?) Hickey of the Independednt Financial Review on Agenda on Saturday morning who was very strong in his support of the Re[peal of S59. More surprising to me was the views of Deborah Coddington (that’s right, ex-ACT MP) who says:
“Since 1999, when I wrote a feature on the death of 4-year-old James Whakaruru, I have advocated repealing Section 59. Research involved interviewing James’ whanau, where smacks were every-day - nay, every-hour - “discipline” for their kids. Mum’s busy; smack over the head. Dad’s hungover; smack around the ear. Stop grizzling; smack around the bum. Smack, smack, smack. That’s often the only touching many New Zealand children receive from those they look to for love and affection.
The only way to change these people’s attitudes is to change the law, and anyone who doesn’t agree should be consistent and oppose laws against speeding, seatbelt wearing, smoking.
Beatings, such as the one which killed James, started with smacks.”
and:
“Now the Act party argues that good caring parents will be criminals for administering a loving smack. In what way is a smack loving? Isn’t that what abusive husbands tell their wives, and why abused wives stay? He did it because he loves me? And why doesn’t Act advocate the abolition of speed limits because good drivers are turned into criminals every time they do 53 or 105km/h?”
and, finally:
“Some years ago, marriage used to be a defence against rape. I wonder what today’s politicians would say if we were changing that law today? Amendments defining the type of force husbands could use? Maybe when the wife deliberately refused him his conjugal rights? If she hit him? If she dented his car?
A stupid comparison you say? Tell that to those who argue the Government shouldn’t regulate what happens in the home. If persons in the home are being hurt then the state must step in to protect them.”
As Bernard Hickey said on Agenda - he thinks it’s good for New Zealand that we as a society are having this discussion.
For the full text of Deborah’s article:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=1042 9339
March 19th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Good post Kiwinuke, very interesting insights.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Bittern :
Does Sues bill mean we are able to use reasonable force in preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence.
But NOT as a punishment for the same.
That’s the intent, it seems to me. It’s certainly what I want it to mean!
For example :
1) a mother bites her toddler, having just been painfully bitten, not for the first time, to put an end to that intolerable behaviour (the biter bit, as the proverb says) : THIS IS OK UNDER THE INTENT OF SUE’S BILL!
2) a mother bites her toddler, to punish the child for throwing their food on the floor. THIS IS NOT OK UNDER THE INTENT OF SUE’S BILL!
Now, if the lawyers think that a cop might charge mother number one, or that a magistrate might consider convicting her, under Sue’s bill, then we’ve got a problem and the wording has to be tightened up.
Likewise, if mother number two might be immune from prosecution under Sue’s bill, we also have a problem with the wording.
I suspect that you would agree with me in both cases, or am I presuming too far?
But I don’t speak lawyer, so I have no idea if there’s a problem with the wording or not!
March 19th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
alistair
I also do not speak lawyer, hell just do what everybody else does who supports this bill…tell lies..the BIGGER the lie the better.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
If Debrah Coddington thinks repeal is the answer it must be a good idea “cause she’s an ex ACT MP!. We should follow the great minds in the community.
jh
March 19th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
The fact that this issue sparked up so much debate is ridiculous, really.
Children are the ONLY case where an assault can be defended on grounds of reasonable force. Assault against children is in no way more justified than against anyone else, so either we should repeal the section that allows reasonable force or we should apply it to everyone else.
Seeing leaving the section in place inspires juries to allow people to hit their children with sections of piping, I think repealing it is the right idea. We should be able to prosecute parents who do legitimately abuse their children, and police are smart enough to know when to use their discretion.
I also agree that “corrective” needs to be clarified to say “punitive”. Preventing further misbehaviour is good, punishing for misbehaviour happening at all is bad.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Kiwinuke, if James Whakaruru’s parents didn’t take any notice of the laws on serious assault, grevous bodily harm, and murder, do you really think they are going to go “oohh - we’d better not brake the anti-smaking law or we’ll get in trouble”?
This is not going to stop any parent who seriously beats their children.
Sue Bradford not only admits this, but says that it was “NEVER INTENDED” to stop these people.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:05 am
A “corrective” smack as a deterrent is the only thing that stopped my small boy continually trying to go onto the road, after everything else failed.
This would be criminal under the Bradford bill.
Do those that support the bill seriously suggest I should have kept perservering with corrections that failed (time out, loss of privaleges etc) ?
Do they really think it would be best to risk my child’s life to save him from the one single light smack that stopped this behaviour?
March 20th, 2007 at 5:03 am
I’ve been thinking about Deborah Coddington’s article:
Research involved interviewing James’ whanau, where smacks were every-day - nay, every-hour - “discipline” for their kids. Mum’s busy; smack over the head. Dad’s hungover; smack around the ear. Stop grizzling; smack around the bum. Smack, smack, smack. That’s often the only touching many New Zealand children receive from those they look to for love and affection.
And
Beatings, such as the one which killed James, started with smacks.
Conclusion:
The only way to change these people’s attitudes is to change the law
Except that smacking wasn’t the only element in the mix; otherwise we would all end up mutilating our children [the smoking pot leads to hard drugs or slippery slope, argument]
She advocates intervetion, but not just the Whakaruru “whanau” (amoral scumbags) , but for the whole of society.
Intervening in the Whakaruru “whanau” would be would be counter to our human rights (culture?) where no one is seen as scumbags but as “clients” of cyfs, and people are victims [refer SueB comments on the Kahui case:
http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.gre ens.org.nz%2Findex.php%2F2006%2F09%2F06%2Fsue-b-on-poverty-2%2F&ei=g73 -Ra-BOL3GiwHY76irDA&usg=__OiQhpg0e_4-dJa45GuYzvU26Rhg=&sig2=pzgrgU5m_b j4lp69gIl6bA
These people have a bad culture generally, they are the amoral, surounded by the amoral, nutured by a state system that views them with rose coloured spectacles.
and anyone who doesn’t agree should be consistent and oppose laws against speeding, seatbelt wearing, smoking.
Except that occasional smacking isn’t speeding, rather tootling along at 20 -30 km/hr. The other two examples also fall over with a bit of thought.
jh
March 20th, 2007 at 5:16 am
O/t Frog:
Just watching BBC, a lovely girl having to work as an indentured servant for free in India (I think), a few years ago (or generations ago) rich people managed to force them of their land. The same is taking place in China now and here (essentially) as the government forces us to compete with rich foriegners, and the economic chaos of rising house prices has allowed some people to get filthy rich for doing nix — All under the riegn of our air-brushed Queen Helen “ I’m the most popular prime minister ever!
jh
March 20th, 2007 at 7:16 am
It would seem that everyone IS now pretty much on the same page here (there never was any disagreement that s59 as written had to go).
Most of us seem to now agree there ought to be some further refinement of the wording of the amendment to bring the punitive/retaliative functions out of the realm of the permitted but NOT put good parents at risk of prosecution.
I don’t know how much of this is wishful thinking on my part but at least the misrepresentation of those of us who have favoured changes in the proposed change seems to be diminished.
I thought a bit about the strategic advantage in adding that “inverse of Borrows’ amendment” wording and I believe that it would add significantly to the power and acceptance of the bill.
59 Parental control 5
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of retaliation.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) justifies (a) striking a child with any implement other than an open hand (b)striking a child above the neck or (c)striking, shaking or handling a child roughly enough to cause lasting bruises and/or internal injuries. An exception to (c) exists where no other action is possible to save the child from worse injury or death.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) prevail over subsection (1).
The questions are not however, whether this diversely constituted and loosely organized mob will accept it
A. Legally does it do what we THINK it will do
B. Is it capable of being accepted by the hard core.
We aren’t officially anything, though given our overall makeup, if we CAN manage to agree on something the event is worthy of notice.
respectfully
BJ
March 20th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Great effort BJ but I am still unsure of subsection 2
Biting a child back is still retaliation no?
or smacking a hand after it pulled over that stack of cans is also?
Could you spell out the intended objective of this subsection in simple terms for me, affraid I may be missing the point altogether here.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Ari,
But it isn’t “assault”.
You can’t put an adult in time out, or “physically remove them from the situation”.
Are you arguing that a parent shouldn’t be able to do these thinks either, on the basis that it would be unacceptable to do to an adult?
March 20th, 2007 at 8:37 am
typo…things…
March 20th, 2007 at 9:07 am
yep its very well comparing smacking a child to assault on an adult, but when adults break societies rules we get punished by the legal system.
As minors are immune from prosecution for obvious reasons, it is up to the parents to meter out the appropriate punishment. I am not avocating recurrent physical abuse but a consequence for negitive or self endangering behaviour.
http://www.acestudy.org/docs/GoldintoLead
March 20th, 2007 at 9:26 am
bjchip Says:
March 20th, 2007 at 7:16 am
It would seem that everyone IS now pretty much on the same page here (there never was any disagreement that s59 as written had to go).
_________________________
My sympathies lie with the 20,000 or more children – on Police estimates – in family violence situations, and not with the imagined consequences of my Bill upon parental rights, “ Ms Bradford says. .
I agree with Lindsay Mitchell > Red Herring. There are only a handfull of cases, where people got of in cases where children have been severely beaten (Sue B’s words)…… Myth, Myth,..Myth and Myth…..
Bigfoot anyone????
jh
March 20th, 2007 at 9:55 am
20,000 families out of how many I wonder????. What other issues do these families have??? drug and alchohol abuse? insufficient commitment to providing a loving and stable environment for children (just wanna get on the DPB?), state sponsored feral societies?.
jh
March 20th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Why did the children cross the road?
Because once they reached the other side it was illegal to punish them.
It must be possible to write a law stating what is an appropriate physical punishment and under what circumstances it should be applied.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:49 am
PeterExitLeft says
You can’t put an adult in time out, or “physically remove them from the situation�.
Actually you can, not just in prison, but in sport and in the workplace. In ice hockey there is the “sin bin”, and in soccer the “red card” is a kind of extended time out. Workplaces can also fine defaulters, and initiate dsicplinary procedures which can result in suspension (a kind of time out) or dismissal.
To go further, a publican or shopkeeper can order an adult from the premises if they are intoxicated or having a tantrum.
What sporting bodies, refereees, employers, publicans and even the state corrections system are not allowed to do is thrash defaulters.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Not only can a publican order an adult from the premises but if they refuse to go he can remove them using reasonable force as they are trespassing
March 20th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
kiore1
Do you have children?
My daughter usually does what she is told. She has never, to my knowledge, been smacked. My son, however, can be disobedient.
He had one episode where he awoke at night, and tried to open the window. We got up, put him back to bed, telling him not to. He repeated the behavior. Five times. Finally, after a warning, my wife gave him a gentle slap, followed by tears, followed by a hug, then put him back to bed.
He hasn’t done it since.
Smacking worked. No one was “thrashed”.
So, who wants to criminalise my wife?
March 20th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
PEL
“So, who wants to criminalise my wife?”
Sue Bradford and Helen Klark
March 20th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
OnceBitten - I am not even sure of the status of biting. If it stops a behavior that is causing injury it might be construed as covered by section one, and not retaliative, and where did the child get bitten in return??? If you are unhappy SUGGEST something that may fix.
respectfully
BJ
March 20th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
The problem with section one is “preventing” also, ie pre-event or before the fact. So any action after the fact could be “correction” or “retaliation”.
Rewriting this Bill is a job for lawyers and above my ability.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
And above the ability who ever worded it in the first place!
March 20th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Peterexitsleft - I had a very similar suituation with my boy. A light smack worked like magic when non-physical punishments failed repeatedly.
This bill is supported by a fanatical theoretical idealogy.
But not a single person who supports the bill - not one - has come up with any proof that a light smack is worse then their suggested alternatives.
In fact the only research I’ve seen that separates out different punishments says that those corrected witha light smack are LESS traumatises, LESS violent, and get in LESS trouble with the law than those who get non=physical punishment.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Oncebitten “And above the ability who ever worded it in the first place!”
And also above the countrys top lawyers - they can’t agree on what it means.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
But we should have faith, let it become law and then allow the sensible police to make judgement calls.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Most trusted professions - 4.Mothers, 8.Fathers, 9.Teachers, 10.Judges, 11.Police officers, 12.Childcare providers, 21.Lawyers, 27.Real estate agents, 29.Car salesmen, 30.Politicians
March 20th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
SouthernDave
Indeed.
What I find most irritating is that I’m not telling them how to raise and protect their kids, but they insist on telling me how to raise and protect mine.
Perhaps they’d like to assume responsibility for my kids, too? And if my kids come to harm, which one of them will stand up and answer for it?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I have received some pretty sick but funny pixs and ppts suggesting alternatives to smacking. If you would like copies email me paulandkaren@clear.net.nz
March 20th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
PeterExitsLeft “What I find most irritating is that I’m not telling them how to raise and protect their kids, but they insist on telling me how to raise and protect mine.”
What’s more, it looks like their methods are not only more traumatic for children, but their children are slightly more likely to be violent and in trouble with the law.
Let’s face it. Making smacking a criminal offense isn’t about what’s best for the children - it’s about making a small number of parents feel better.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
I support the bill because I think that using force against other people is wrong. My support is not concerned whether they are “your” children or Doris Blogg’s children next door. Self defence is another issue that is covered by other laws so it is not even relevant to the s59 debate.
I would like someone to supply some evidence supporting why children need a bit of biffo to get them to behave, rather than suggesting that the onus is on s59 supporters to provide evidence to the contrary.
I have no doubt that most people love their children whether they smack them or not. What I have not yet seen from any of you are arguments supporting why the valid use of force should rely on an arbitrary distinction between children and adults.
Go figure.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Why is it that proponents of the bill never use the terms smack or light smack?. When talking about smacking, almost without fail they will replace smack with something completelydifferent that is far worse, like biffo, bashing, beating, hitting, violence etc.
The major problem with this whole issue is those people who can’t tell the difference between a light smack and biffo, bashing, beating etc.
Is it a good idea to deliberately try to confuse this further
March 21st, 2007 at 1:46 am
SouthernDave Says: The major problem with this whole issue is those people who can’t tell the difference between a light smack and biffo, bashing, beating etc.
Exactly! Which is why I use your exact same argument in defence of the bill.
Oh the irony!
March 21st, 2007 at 2:44 am
Whenever I see the term “light smack” it always makes me think of heroin, for some reason.
“There’s nothing wrong with light smack. It’s good clean fun. Not like that nasty dangerous crack stuff.”
March 21st, 2007 at 7:31 am
Stu Donovan Says:”I support the bill because I think that using force against other people is wrong.”
Does this sweeping statement include rugby? using reasonable force by a publican to remove a drunken patron? reasonable force by police in arrests? and using reasonable force to drag a kicking, screaming child from across the otherside of the road?
“I would like someone to supply some evidence supporting why children need” a light smack “to get them to behave”
Read above there are plenty of examples eg to stop them biting, stopping them climbing out windows and crossing roads, where other non-physical methods have failed. And come on now be sensible, Biffo is abuse.
“rather than suggesting that the onus is on s59 supporters to provide evidence to the contrary.”
Because there is no evidence to the contrary, you support the new bill you defend it.
“What I have not yet seen from any of you are arguments supporting why the valid use of force should rely on an arbitrary distinction between children and adults.”
Because adults have already been taught our lessons. When adults break societies rules we get punished by the legal system. As minors are immune from prosecution for obvious reasons, it is up to the parents to meter out the appropriate punishment. I am not advocating recurrent physical abuse but a consequence for negative or self endangering behaviour
The major problem with this whole issue is those people who can’t tell the difference between a light smack and biffo, bashing, beating etc. so It needs to be spelt out in a rewritten bill for ALL to see and understand.
And alistair Hugs not Drugs if I catch my son with any he will get a smack across his crack.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:52 am
Most people find that light smacking doesn’t lead to the hard Stuff:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/view-poll-results.html?section_id=6009&poll_id= 14588&option_id=22575
jh
March 21st, 2007 at 8:15 am
I’m off to the supermarket to buy some light snacks.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:18 am
>>I would like someone to supply some evidence supporting why children >>need a bit of biffo to get them to behave
I would like someone to supply some evidence supporting why children need a bit of incarceration against their will in oder to get them to behave
Stop the emotive nonsense and I’ll take you seriously
March 21st, 2007 at 8:26 am
Once Bitten
“I’m off to the supermarket to buy some ‘light snacks’.”
should that read ‘light smacks’?
March 21st, 2007 at 9:15 am
(1)(c) “preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour” seems to cover much of this The problem with section one is “preventingâ€? also, ie pre-event or before the fact. So any action after the fact… objection??
respectfully
BJ
March 21st, 2007 at 10:37 am
What does the law society say (at this point)????:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/organisation/story.cfm?o_id=500483&objectid= 10391107
The society strongly favoured change, but a majority of members believed simply repealing the section without any kind of replacement would create a legal vacuum.
jh
March 21st, 2007 at 10:39 am
Stu
A long time ago in a thread far far away I am sure I pointed out that we are not fully logical entities when we are young. We are small animals learning how to survive in a very hostile universe. You remember when you were 3 years old? I don’t. I learned a lot of stuff, but I don’t remember any of the learning.
As animals we have benefitted over many millions and millions of years of evolution by having a mechanism for avoiding death which is based on pain. If it hurts, don’t do it. If you do something that hurts, remember what it was so as not to do it again. There is absolutely no way to argue that the tool is not powerful and it works on us from birth.
It is not at all trivial to toss such a powerful tool away yet in the socializing of young animals into fully human adults we can possibly and with a lot of societal support, manage to teach without using pain to enforce respect for our authority as parents or to obtain immediate compliance in the face of life threatening circumstances.
It is an admirable goal, painless childhood. It isn’t achievable in reality and the real world itself is far from a painless place to live.
However, pain IS a powerful tool and while it is not damaging when used excessively or exclusively there has to be protection against it being used by an angry parent in retaliation and it is QUITE damaging when it is misused.
Without that tool however there needs to be more knowledge, money and support for parents to make socialization of our young animals possible. There must be much more effort, time and money invested to get the same result. That isn’t any part of the proposed amendment or the discussion, and omitting it means that failures of child-rearing become far more likely.
Failing to get the socialization however gives a generation with little or no respect for the society they are in. Not a guaranteed result, the statistics are unclear but no nation as violent as NZ is has ever tried to go so far so fast as this bill is attempting to go. Whether an increase in juvenile crime is tolerable to the society is not clear either.
In theory then, we might succeed. Practically this is an unlikely outcome when we work as hard as we do for as little as we get.
The necessity of parenting classes in our colleges remains uncommented.
The necessity of providing far better support for parents who MUST be present and rested in order to cope patiently with children through love and repetition and guidance rather than a spank on the bottom is lost as well.
The problem of failing yet again to apply practical limit or any definition of what can and cannot be done remains in the wording of the new bill just as egregious a flaw as in the current bill.
So spanking gets a pass from me, but if the words of this amendment are tweaked to something just a tad less likely to see us all in courtrooms (the actual job of parliamentarians and lawyers, NOT police), it can work.
Nobody here argues that s59 should stay as is. We all want the abuse to stop. The manner in which this is done is important.
respectfully
BJ
March 21st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
No Michelangelo that shouldn’t read ‘light smacks’? but I will share my trip to the supermarket with you.
most of the way around my boy was well behaved as we treat this time together as a learning experience naming the items that go in the trolley. Near the end he was restless and complaining which resulted in me carrying him and pushing the trolley full with our monthly shop. On the way home he deliberately poured his juice out over himself and the car, did he get a smack for this? No just a AH AH AH in a deep tone, followed by “we don’t do that” and me taking the juice off him.
You see I am not an extremist at either end of the scale, not an abuser nor a conscientious objector, but part of the 90% of middle New Zealand that will vote this Bill out of existence at the next election, unfortunately the RMA and Kyoto Protocol will become victims also of the preposterous piece of legislation.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Ta Once bitten
You are a patient and wonderful father - with a great sense of humour.
It seems that we all have a lot to vote for at the next election - has anyone told those in parliament yet?
March 21st, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Thanks for taking the bait Michaelangelo I suspect you knew it was.
I am hoping someone does tell the politicians and they come to a decision that stops child abuse but doesn’t criminalise good parents. That would be worth celebrating and supporting come election time.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
I see Comrade Sue has asked the govt to push this through the house under urgency, perhaps she is starting to worry that some members are wavering, or perhaps she is worried about the huge protest march organised for next week?
Either way I have changed my mind about this bill, I really hope that it is passed next week.
Initially I was disappointed at John Key’s silence on this matter but I now concede that he has pulled of a masterly political stroke, all he has to do now is wait for the Greens and the corrupt Labour govt to push this trough against the wishes of 80% of the population and next years election victory is assured.
Remember this post when the votes are counted after the next election, this piece of legislation (social engineering) will be the death of the Greens.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Opponents of the bill will march on Parliament next Wednesday.
Ms Bradford yesterday said she was concerned some of them were being influenced by hysteria whipped up around the bill,
[by your posts BB]
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4001964a11.html
jh
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
jh
Do you not see the irony in that statement from Bradford?..her of all people being worried about protesters being whipped up by hysteria..if it was not so serious it would be hilarious.
The arrogance of Comrade Bradford is breathtaking, she is quite happy to fly in the face f OVERWHELMING public opinion for no other reason than to score political points.
Make sure you remind her after the next election that she and she alone was responsible for the demise of the Green party.
I am genuine when I say that I do not want to see the end of the Green party, but in her case I will gladly dance on her political grave.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 am
Yes it appears that labour will lose the election over this bill, and United Futes suport will go down as well at the next election. This could only mean a surge for the centre right - meaning NZ first and National - at the enxt election.
Labour is down the tubes - and it has its tubes tied by the Green party.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:46 am
Oh BB you are so full of it sometimes. I remember Sue well from back in the days when she worked her butt off at the Auckland Peoples Centre and I can tell you for a fact that she is not a person who would do anything for the sake of political points.
Try and use your common sense for a change why don’t you - it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that any person who was looking to score political points would hardly seek to do it by supporting such an unpopular bill, would they? If you want to score political points in NZ, all you have to do is chant “tax cuts” like your hero brash.
(hey don’t you think he bears a striking resemblance to Montgomery Burns off the Simpsons? Would it upset you if we started a website like http://www.bushorchimp.com with pics comparing your hero donny boy to old monty?)
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 am
Last time a western govenment tried to push through something this unpopular was Maggie Thatchers politically suicidal poll tax - bye bye Maggie, bye bye Helen.
I have to agree with Big Bruv about Sue Bradford. She has become very duplcitous.
One day shes saying the police have culture of abuse and violence. The next she says they can be fully trusted to NOT arrest people for wehat she is going to make a criminal offense.
One day shes says the courts have got it completely wrong. The next shes says the courts can be trusted and they don’t get it wrong.
One days shes says her bill will not outlaw smaking. The next she says that if someone smacks their child in a supermarket they could very well find themsleves in court.
She simply changes her mind depending on what audience she has.
What other laws should we make to criminilise people but ask the police not to prosecute? This is antidemocraticv insanity.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:09 am
ENOUGH OF THIS BULL$HIT ALREADY!! I AM SICK TO DEATH OF HEARING YOUR CR@P ABOUT OUR CARING, HARD-WORKING GREEN PARTY MP’S!!!!
It is one thing to trash somebody from another blog, website or political party here, but it is beyond the realms of common decency and good manners to come to another persons home and trash them there.
You wouldn’t visit somebody’s home in the real world for the purpose of trashing them and insinuating that they are a liar or a fraud and you have no business behaving that way towards the members here and the representatives that we support who are ALSO members here.
If you want to conduct a civil discussion about the ISSUES that a Green member supports then by all means feel free to do so but will you all just kindly F%@# OFF with the character assassinations and go spew your vomit somewhere else where the members enjoy revelling in such excrement.
The Greens are the only political party in New Zealand who make their elected members available on line like this for us to talk to and if you cannot recognise this for the privilege that it is then I wish you would just LEAVE and let the rest of us get on with it in peace.
GROW UP AND GROW A SET OF MANNERS FOR F$#@ SAKES!!!!!!
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:27 am
BJ :
It is an admirable goal, painless childhood. It isn’t achievable in reality and the real world itself is far from a painless place to live.
I disagree that it’s an admirable goal. I feel very strongly that children should not be packed in cotton wool. They need to make mistakes, fall over and hurt themselves, learn their limits and the consequences of doing stupid stuff.
I have always given my kids plenty of opportunities to bump into obstacles and get hurt. This makes them wiser and stronger. I barely even needed to warn them of the greater, life-threatening dangers : they measure them instinctively. They are adventurous, but behave safely.
What then DON’T need is violence from adults to warn them of dangers.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:45 am
Zana “but it is beyond the realms of common decency and good manners to come to another persons home and trash them there.”
What about going into peoples homes and telling them the way they bring up their children is criminal.
Sue Bradford wants to make me a criminal - not just say I;m one, but actually make me one under law, along with nearly a million other caring Kiwi parents.
And you talk of common decency - her extreme arrogance disgusts me.
It’s amazing how upset you are (perhaps you should read you own advice about being decent).
All I did was point out how Sue continually makes a statement that so often contradicts one she made previously.
Are you angry at me pointing this out, or angry because she said it?
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:57 am
alistair “They are adventurous, but behave safely. What then DON’T need is violence from adults to warn them of dangers. ”
So what would you do if they were adventurous, and DIDN’T behave safely? In fact what if they behaved in ways that were outright life threatening, and nothing you tried stopped that behaviour?
Would you just keep on risking their lives while your correction methods failed?
Or would you try a light smack if it could mean the difference of them living or dieing?
My kids are very adventurous too, and it’s quite possible that on any given day there could be a dozen times where they’ll hurt themselves more painfully than a light smack.
Do you understand why I find the anti smacking attitude extreme, when something as minor as the thirtenth most painful thing on a given day can save a life when all other methods fail.
But you think this is so evil that I should be made a criminal for it.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 am
Or would you try a light smack if it could mean the difference of them living or dieing?
Well of course I would. But I’ve never found it necessary or useful.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:21 am
All the action always happens when I’m off line. I see a protest is happening next weds thanks for the heads up, My son and I will make the long trip to our capital to join in. This will be the first protest I have been to in my 20 years of being a voter. Now to be fair to Sue although she is a commie this has nothing to do with her stance, remember Stalin he murdered heaps of children. She is also not lying, her bill will not outlaw smacking if it is done to prevent negative behaviour, though if someone smacks their child in a supermarket they could very well find themselves in court only if the smack was a consequence of their negative behaviour (ie after the fact). Remember she raised two girls without having to smack them and ass.u.me that every child is like hers. Is it really her fault that her bill has more holes than a piece of swiss cheese pumped full of birdshot? Abusers still will get away with it, “I did that to prevent them…” and ordinary parents will find themselves in court, “I did that as a negative consequence of their actions”.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:06 am
Southern Dave
Very well said.
Zana
Grow up, one of the things you need to learn about life is that if you dish it out then you have to be able to take it.
Bradford is a proven liar and despite your emotional rant she is in this for nothing other than cheap political points and a desire to implement state control.
It is well known that one of the goals of hard line socialism is the destruction of the family unit, this outrageous bill is evidence of that.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:10 am
UNICEF have been actively pushing the section 59 argument that children should be treated like adults, that is, there should be no defence of reasonable force. Now this guy comes along and says children should not be treated like adults. D minus for consistency.
http://www.lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/
Interesting twist.
jh
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 am
And why are the Greens supporting a private members bill under urgency!?!
tinyurl.com/ysyn4b
You’ve seriously lost the plot. This is going to inflame voters even more than they are already.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:44 am
zANavAShi - Ad hominem abusive, I believe.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:43 am
PEL
“PeterExitsLeft Says:
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 am
And why are the Greens supporting a private members bill under urgency!?!
tinyurl.com/ysyn4b
You’ve seriously lost the plot. This is going to inflame voters even more than they are already”
And that is exactly why I want this bill pushed through the house.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:49 am
Heh heh.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:11 am
What then DON’T need is violence from adults to warn them of dangers.
A spanking is a very small pain compared to a 3rd degree burn, being bitten by a poisonous snake, assaulted by some stranger or drowned. Teaching using a small pain to avoid a much larger one is and always has been part of our socialization and learning process. Since you know childhood isn’t painless and we both agree it probably should not be, the question then becomes whether parents should be permitted to use this tool to try to teach their children and socialize them.
I shudder to think about making laws about WHY something is done. It is automatically a dogs-breakfast of a problem because the state of mind of the person doing whatever-it-is, is not observable and cannot ever be introduced in evidence. Only the external actions and demeanor can be assessed, and this is fraught with difficulty.
That is only ONE aspect of this law (or any that replace it) which I am concerned about. Applies to Sue’s version and the version I posted earlier… I prefer to have law that is clear and related to observable acts, rather than intentions. Probably you have little or no trouble with this specific preference. It goes to the issue of “correction” vs “punishment” vs “retaliation” which has been brushed against but is critical to the wording of Sue’s version and my derived version.
My preference is to define the actions that cannot be taken, the singular exception to the prohibition, and leave it at that, leaving motivations out of it. In service of this the wording would become something like:
59 Parental control 5
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies (a) striking a child with any implement other than an open hand (b) striking a child above the neck or (c) striking, shaking or handling a child roughly enough to cause lasting bruises and/or internal injuries. An exception to this clause exists only where no other action is possible to save the child from worse injury or death.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
…………..
I am at some odds with myself because I WANT to prohibit “retaliation” by parents, but that conflicts with my desire to have the LAW be clear as crystal and easy to enforce. Bad parenting will continue to exist until we manage to put “parenting” into the school curriculum and learn that respect is not earned by recursive retaliation.
Could take a generation.
So we are denying this powerful tool to the parents, but we cannot and will not prevent accident and painful injuries. The child must learn to avoid them and avoid the dangers, the child must learn to follow rules of behaviour so as not to endanger either the child or others. All this learning can POSSIBLY be done without any spanking… but it is the quickest and most potent tool there is.
The question becomes, why are we denying this tool to our parents? The child WILL feel some pain in childhood. We’ve restricted the administration to parents specifically IMHO because the children’s behaviour is their responsibility. Why will we deny parents the ability to enforce their authority?
Saying this is about “violence” is all well and good, but the problem is oversimplified by such a measure. Spankings are not the sort of violence that damages kids, and we know that as well as we know that there’s an element in our society that is quite happy to damage our kids for us. This isn’t a conflict… it is raising a child.
I say that we Greens have gone a bit too far here and the observation made that Key is playing for a strategic win that annihilates us by letting us have a bit of rope is as like as not, truth.
respectfully
BJ
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:23 am
Hope to see you all at parliment on weds. If I lived on the Chattams I would still make the effort. My son will be the one ripping around on his eco-friendly electric quad bike.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 am
Details of March on Parliament.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00226.htm
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 am
Well said zANavAShi !
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 am
eredwen, shouldn’t you at least pretend to be consistent?
“so PLEASE treat people on this blog with respect.”
tinyurl.com/2hdssc
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 am
I vacillated a lot on this bill. I was for it, then I was against it, now I’m for it. The rhetoric on the right is pretty heated, and the many changes the bill has undergone have been confusing. Also, I keep wondering, why this bill? Why stake the Greens’ reputation on something that, while bold, is not the reason people like me vote Green?
(I’ve just heard a podcast of Sue on Morning Report. She sounded calm and reasonable and made a lot of good points. Nice to see she’s ratcheted things back a bit after some testy exchanges a couple of weeks ago.)
Anyway, what swayed me to support the bill again is the demagoguing of opponents of the bill. That parents will find themselves in the lock-up? That they’ll be criminalised nationwide? Please.
Also: major children’s orgs like Plunkett, CCF, and Save The Children are on board, and that’s good enough for me.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:12 am
zANavAShi and eredwen by the same token you must have been happy with my post http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/03/19/let-the-s59-debate-cont inue/#comment-25235
Freedom of speech/protest for those who agree with 99.9% of the Greens policies?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:33 am
Plum
The problem with the bill is not that the intentions are so bad. The intentions are good enough and there is a lot to like in the bill, but there are some legal definitions for “correction” which appear to gainsay Sue’s intent and there are real problems with leaving definitions up to the police and courts rather than spelling them out.
We’ve dug ourselves into a hole and being in it, we seem intent to dig ourselves out of it. This is not something that makes me proud to be Green.
respectfully
BJ
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:34 am
>>That parents will find themselves in the lock-up? That they’ll be >>criminalised nationwide? Please.
Yes. If you make something against the law, you criminalise it. That is the point of making something illegal.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:35 am
DPF has it right I think… the effort now is to get it behind us as fast as possible, cross our fingers that no good parents wind up in court before the next election and hope the public forgets. I don’t like our chances.
respectfully
BJ
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
hello b.j/cassandra…
still spreading your gloom/doom i see…
a commenter over at farrars’ summed this whole debate up in a very tidy fashion..
he said..”..decent people have nothing to fear from this bill..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 am
Plum we all support what the bill is trying to achieve.I too have swayed but from against,for and back to against.
I don’t think these organisations will support it with 80% of us in jail. Have you read and understood ALL of this story?http://www.stuff.co.nz/4001964a11.html Do you think the remaining 20% will want to pay for this incarceration?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 am
and plum said..
“.. I keep wondering, why this bill? Why stake the Greens’ reputation on something that, while bold, is not the reason people like me vote Green?..”
aside from the ‘correctness’ of this piece of legislation as being reason enough to support it..
the mechanics of it all are..
this is a private members bill…not a party bill..
and as such it went into the lottery that is ‘the ballot/hat-draw’..
and up it popped..
(which brings us to today..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 am
Isnt it interesting - merely an observation and not an intended judgement or criticism - that sometimes the words that are used by another have such an effect on us and visaversa. Words are simply just that words. it is the intention behind the words and the reactions that are the real issue.
As I have said before we speak to hear ourselves so that we can become aware of our deeper innate qualities and perhaps those that we need to become more familiar with - patience for example.
Here is a one of the bits of wisdom that we used on the self-development courses that we facilitated over the last 10 years - that everyone has found useful - “What ever anyone says, does, feels, thinks or says has everything to do with them - and nothing to do with you; however whatever you notice about your own thoughts, reactions, feelings, words and actions in relation to this, has nothing to do with the other person/situation - but everything to do with you.” In other words try not to miss the opportunity to recognise what your reactions are telling you.
As we exchange ideology, thoughts, aspirations, personal views - I believe that it is important to be supportive to oneself and to the others in the blog, family, workplace, etc…. As I have said we are really saying more about ourselves and intentions. By doing this we will understand far more about ourselves, our creative powers and our lifes purpose.
This awareness attitude follows through into the things that we discuss and into the life that surrounds us, our society, organisations, etc….. When someone reflects something back to us - each of us will feel/understand/respond to it slightly differently - how we deal with what we have noticed within ourselves is the gift that has come to the surface.
So how we feel about ourselves will ultimately fashion the reaction/response or way that we view and interact in the world outside of ourself. I often (when I remember!) ask myself - what is the intention, feeling, quality that I want to convey behind my words and actions. So I find, much to my delight, that I am always the student.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Phil - He’s wrong - respectfully BJ
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
phil u Says:this is a private members bill…not a party bill..
I say they should treat it like one then eg allow concience voting and follow due process.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Just to be quite clear that lawyers regard the current version and any currently proposed future version as imperfectly useful
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0612/S00267.htm
respectfully
BJ
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
“decent people have nothing to fear from this bill”
Unless they experience custody cases turned nasty, and interfering zealots…
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Real Child Abusers have nothing to fear from this bill.
Family Law Section Of The New Zealand Law Society says: The proposed amendment does nothing to assist the police or the Courts in defining what level of force, if any, is appropriate and the Section’s view is that it will only increase legal uncertainty as to outcome when prosecutions are brought. Furthermore it will enable a more indiscriminate use of force than had otherwise been justified under the old legislation.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
phil u reported “he said..â€?..decent people have nothing to fear from this bill..â€?
Nothing to fear from the govenrment telling you that the way you bring up your childrens is so evil that you are a criminal, but “most won’t be arrested”?
And this, aimed at those parents who bring up the LEAST violent, LEAST criminal, LEAST traumatised kids.
If they have nothing to fear, why are you so desperate to tell them they are all criminals?
If they have nothing to fear, if this is really true - then that makes the bill totally pointless.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:53 pm
dave - Or would you try a light smack if it could mean the difference of them living or dieing?
Alistair - Well of course I would. But I’ve never found it necessary or useful.
So because you haven’t found it necessary, you want to turn other parents into criminals?
Your kids may have ceased to push the boundaries after non-physical punishment, but when this fails to work you expect parents to either risk their kids live or be criminalised - what a fantasdtic choice.
Perhaps your kids do not push the boundaries or are as adventurous as you think.
Sometimes the methods Sue Bradford used (according to her, locking them in a room and yelling at them a lot) don’t work for all kids, all of the time, or are not appropriate for a certain situation, or are far more harmful and traumatic, or have to be used over and over before they have effect.
However those who believe they know better insist that despite not knowing the child, the parent, the situation, their methods MUST be used even if they are patently more abusive, more traumatic, have to be repeated, and still don’t work, when compared to a solitary light smack.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:11 pm
wow..!..the level of passion/invective around this ‘right’ to hit their children by opponents to this bill is somewhat mindblowing..
um..don’t you (frothing ones) flinch at that (repeated) smacking-footage shown on the news..?
or do you critique/admire the style/technique of the smacker..?
“..look..!..he’s got her up in the air..held by one hand..while he lays into her backside with the other..!
very efficient..!..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Phil - It is what I predicted would happen when this first came up in another thread many months ago… when the s59 bill first appeared (was selected).
Yes, I appear very much as a Cassandra here. I predict and nobody believes me and my predictions come true. Damned depressing. We’ll see how bad it gets. You should recall that I also predicted that the police would probably do their best with it, and we might avoid trouble for a fair while behind their being willing to create the legal definitions that this law doesn’t. Inevitable trouble doesn’t necessarily show up immediately.
The party however, is going to be in deep poo.
respectfully
BJ
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
How do Greens feel about using urgency to ram this silly bill through the house given the late Rod Donald’s stance on “urgency”.
It seems that the Greens have fallen a long way since the days of Rod Donald.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
oh..!..absolute alarmist rubbish..!..b.j..
six months from now..etc etc..
and get some perspective b.j…
the same cries of impending anarchy were shouted up and down the land when caning in schools was abolished..
do ya wanna go back to that..?
talk about a feckin’ storm in a teacup..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Phil - I do not know what you are talking about. Alarmist about Greens being tossed out of parliament? Yes I am, but that isn’t in 6 months and has nothing to do with impending anarchy and caning.
respectfully
BJ
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I agree with phil.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
are you really so feckin’ linear..?..b.j…?
and of course..no..you don’t reply to the caning in schools point..eh..?
are you a virgo..or a tauus..?
(with aries rising..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
taurus..but you know that..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Phil - I am so damned straight they use me to calibrate rulers
Sagittarius if it is important to you. I don’t pay it any heed.
BJ
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
This is not about caning in schools.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Phil - Sagittarians do like the last word - usually
nice one BJ
As we are congregating into star signs - mine is Aqarius with moon in Gemini.
As for the Greens - watch this space!
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Why do you SUPPORTERS of this bill think it’s ok to bash, thrash, beat or horse whip our kids?
Family Law Section Of The New Zealand Law Society says: The proposed amendment does nothing to assist the police or the Courts in defining what level of force, if any, is appropriate and the Section’s view is that it will only increase legal uncertainty as to outcome when prosecutions are brought. Furthermore it will enable a more indiscriminate use of force than had otherwise been justified under the old legislation.
Or is the “cult of personality” so strong that you would believe Sue if she said the sky is green? Read the facts.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0612/S00267.htm
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Phil “wow..!..the level of passion/invective around this ‘right’ to hit their children by opponents to this bill is somewhat mindblowing..”
I’m sure you are not so silly as to really beleive that this is about being able to hit children.
People who are doing a very good job of bringing up their children will no doubtedly be angry at being told by people like yourself that they are so evil to their children that they are criminals.
And you seem to forget that children have a right to have boundaries set to keep them alive, safe and out of trouble.
And just because the methods you use fail on some children, they shouldn’t lose the right to have boundaries set to keep them safe.
Yet by supporting the bill you are taking the rights of these children away.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
sth dave..
“..Yet by supporting the bill you are taking the rights of these children away..”
um..the right to be hit..?
have you thought of asking them..?
and no..i’m not talking about some child currently under such a regime..being asked by one of their ‘hitters’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
phil can’t you read? read my last blogg, the one above this one
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
phil u “um..the right to be hit..?
have you thought of asking them..?”
Yes they have been asked - in the world renowned University of Otago long term study.
Those who received non-physical punishments were MORE traumatised by them than by a light smack.
Also a much higher percentage thought non-physical punishments were much WORSE than a light smack
Clearly you want make it forcable by law to traumatise our children MORE.
The same styudy says our children are LESS likely to be violent adults than yours, and LESS likely to get in trouble with the police than yours.
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
The Bill has died a painful death details here http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/03/19/let-the-s59-debate-cont inue/#comment-25293
Or does no-one read new bloggs anymore.
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:15 pm
yeah..?..
well why don’t you ask my son..?
and others like him..?
not those already brutalised/innured to the violence being done/having been done against them….
the thought of me hitting/slapping/smacking him..on my part..and him being hit/slapped/smacked by me..on his part..
is totally beyond the pale for both of us..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Phil read this carefully every word use a dictionary if necessary.
Why do you SUPPORTERS of this bill think it’s ok to bash, thrash, beat or horse whip our kids?
Family Law Section Of The New Zealand Law Society says: The proposed amendment does nothing to assist the police or the Courts in defining what level of force, if any, is appropriate and the Section’s view is that it will only increase legal uncertainty as to outcome when prosecutions are brought. Furthermore it will enable a more indiscriminate use of force than had otherwise been justified under the old legislation.
Or is the “cult of personality� so strong that you would believe Sue if she said the sky is green? Read the facts. That means open the link below.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0612/S00267.htm
Your arguements are no longer valid. The Bill is Dead
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:32 pm
phil “well why don’t you ask my son..?
So what ever works for one person (you) and one child (your son) in partuicular situations (yours) should be enforced by law onto every iother parent, every other child, in all situations - just because it happens to have worked for you?
Time out, removal of privaleges, telling off etc all failed repeatedly to stop my child going onto the road.
If I used your methods, my son would be dead.
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Frog have I been excluded or are Phil and Sth Dave just ignoring me?
The Bill in its current form is dead.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/03/19/let-the-s59-debate-cont inue/#comment-25293
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
They ignored me when I pointed at that as well Once-Bitten. I didn’t claim that the bill was dead however, just pointed out that the opinion of the law society is that in any of its current variants it is bad law… which is something I have been saying to unlistening ears for a while now already.
This is Frogblog OnceBitten - we don’t exclude people. Greens do not in general, like to exclude anyone.
respectfully
BJ
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Oncebitten,
You also have some of the countries top lawyers saying the bill as written is an “unmittigated piece of nonsense” and a “dog’s breakfast”.
However you are quite wrong about the bill being dead. In a weeks time Sue, phil u and others will be able sit back in their armchairs satisfied that they have criminilised hundreds of thousands of New Zealand’s best parents because they don’t follow thioer child rearing dictate.
It’s not surprising that a group so fanatical about iforcing their ideas onto others are also anti-democratic.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Thanks BJ I was wondering thats all, due to phil using an outdated arguement probably due to how he gave up cigs lol.
Hopefully they can rewrite the Bill to stop abuse but not alienate 80% of the population. Hopefully this will then be remembered at election time with a corresponding 80% of the voe for the Greens. Now that would be worth celebrating.
SouthernDave Now the The New Zealand Law Society is on-board I don’t think it will survive in its current form, hopefully in the rewrite they will listen to (t)reason.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Well said Eredwen
(just kidding)
jh
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Southern Dave said: “Time out, removal of privaleges, telling off etc all failed repeatedly to stop my child going onto the road.”
Supervision and a gate works wonders.
aladin
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:18 pm
My son climbs over any fence or gate that can practically be put in his path, he has learned how to open locked doors. Supervision is a wonderful thing Aladin, but YOU HAVE TO BE THERE EVERY SECOND. A five minute distraction and he’s across the damned street and tossing pebbles into the brook.
In short Aladin, there isn’t any faster way to teach and there isn’t any safe way to give less than 100% attention and not teach.
Teaching him NOT to do something takes only a couple of episodes, caught in the act… and then he is far safer. HE is always wherever he is, monitoring himself. We can never match that.
respectfully
BJ
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Dave said: “Time out, removal of privaleges, telling off etc all failed repeatedly to stop my child going onto the road.�
Aladin,”Supervision and a gate works wonders.”
Spoken like someone either doesn’t look after children, do grocery shoppng, walking buses etc……..or like someone who has never had this problem.
Or perhaps like someone who has never had to answer a phone - do you ever have to go to the toilet????.
Real world calling aladin - come in please……..
Oh sorry - I shopuld have realised (with your name) - you live in a fictional world.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I’ve just completed a preliminary check on the above posts (both threads) for indications of:
thoughtfulness,
politeness,
inclusiveness/encouraging two way communication,
consideration for the feelings of others,
arrogance,
rudeness,
put downs/discouraging two way communication,
disrespect for, or ignoring the feelings of, others,
There are noticeable differences between the “pro” and “anti” groups.
(Whether these differences also relate to the way in which the members of each group were brought up themselves would be interesting to find out.)
“As the twig is bent, so does the tree grow.”
Some enterprising Social Science student may wish to follow this up!
March 24th, 2007 at 12:20 am
eredwen - I totally agree. A quick summation of some of your points…
arrogance - some of the most extreme I’ve seen - labeling most of New Zealand parents as criminals for the way