Just who is Ruby?
For your edification – and as a slight aside from the battle royale currently raging - Frog is keen to comment on the red herrings (or should that be roll mops) about Sweden that are still thriving in the media and blogosphere.
Frog feels it’s only fair to respond to the lone rantings of one woman – oops, I mean the considered thoughts of the Nordic Committee on Human Rights – by sharing some of the information we have received from various Swedish experts, academics, child advocates and senior officials.
Dr Tapio Salonen,
Professor Social Work,
School of Health Sciences and Social Work
Vaxjo University, Sweden
Email: Saturday 24 June 2006
“In my view Harrold-Claesson represents a quite extreme view on this matter which neither represents the official or the popular standpoint in this question in Sweden”
Dr Sune Sunesson
Professor Social Work,
Lunds University. Sweden
Email: Saturday 24 June 2006
“We have never heard of the so-called expert, Ms Claesson. The truth is that the ban against parental “smacking” is considered both good and effective.”
Stina Holmberg
Criminologist
Head of Department at “Brottsförebyggande rÃ¥det”, the Swedish National Board for Crime Prevention, Sweden
Email: Mon 26/06/2006 21:31
“Before your e-mail I had never heard of Ruby-Harrold-Claesson, even though I have been working somewhat in this field. I googled him [sic] and he seems to be some kind of weird doctrinarian”.
Dr Christian Diesen
Professor of Procedural Law
Dep. of Law, Stockholm University
Tue 27/06/2006 01:13
“Never heard of the Swedish expert…”
Tue 27/06/2006 21:33
‘Now I have checked Mrs Claesson up and remember her from a TV-debate here some years ago where she appeared as a very odd (and, from a Swedish perspective, extreme) spokesperson for parental rights. She is not a member of the Swedish Bar Association and not qualified to appear as an appointed defence lawyer in criminal cases”.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
frog:
A good move and well researched!
No doubt you’ll keep frogblog informed of any further information.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
eeredwyn you gullible. All you had to to do get this was to go to the save the children website….. This is not frogs research. http://www.savethechildren.org.nz/new_zealand/media/documents/press_re leases/S59_comments_27Jul06.pdf.
No doubt Save the children will keep frogblog informed of any further information
March 29th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Rather than a red herring or a rollmop, this Swedish business is a surströmming or Swedish fermented herring.
One of the world’s most underappreciated delicacies, on a par with kaanga pirau.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:49 am
Frog,
Interesting the person that you earlier quote for your Swedish stats has also been discredited by her peers. I think it may have been Dr Durrants statistics that Cindy Ciro and Sue Bradord got caught out with (i.e. one death every four years, where there were 40).
Dr Durrants method of counting deaths from abuse in Sweden rules out all intentional deaths (thereby ruling out the majority of Swedish deaths), and killings of newborns, and neglect etc , but includes all these cases when counting deaths for all other coutries statistics.
This is the person our tax dollars are used for to pay to bring to NZ to preach to our govenment depts.
For an INDEPENDENT look at the Swedish stats, from the respected Oxford Journals, see The Swedish Myth -
http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/1/125
Full text available here -
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Child_deaths_in_Sw eden.pdf
March 30th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Thanks for the links SouthernDave. I didn’t think a social policy research paper could be that readable.
Frog - Ruby Harrald-Clarkson was always a sideshow.
There are many many good reasons for advocating a smacking ban. I just think it unfortunate that neither Sue or anyone else favouring her bill seems to be making them.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:55 am
What do you call the type of paradox that isn’t a contradiction?
I understand the under-lying premises now.
(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: 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).
Opposing logic gates with a qualifier?
Not everyone will get this on their own
And the public display of petitio principii mirrors that of parliament and
the media
If not explained soon it could back fire
March 30th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Frog feels it’s only fair to respond to the lone rantings of one woman – oops, I mean the considered thoughts of the Nordic Committee on Human Rights – by sharing some of the information we have received from various Swedish experts, academics, child advocates and senior officials.
_____________
Was this a random selection?
Some questions :
1. What is the importance of Sweden to this debate?
2. What is the concensus re child researchers re light ocasional smacking.
3. Why don’t Sue Bradford’s team produce an FAQ covering all the arguments involved? So far all we have had is bits of information and a lot of rhetoric.
jh
March 30th, 2007 at 11:58 am
The latest Colmar Brunton (Feb) has the Greens on 7%, that would have been before “the battle royale currently raging”?
jh
March 30th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Edge “I didn’t think a social policy research paper could be that readable.”
I agree - it makes some very valid points. I think if we are going to draft new criminal laws, they should be based on independent assessment of other countries - not statistics and research that is completely wrong because it it has a conclusion, then finds statistics (or skews statistics) to fit with the preconceived idea.
There’s some very valid advice for policymakers. He sticks with the issues that affect child abuse rather than going off on a tangent on a fashionable single issue that has virtually no effect.
Swedish Myth is worth reading
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Child_deaths_in_Sw eden.pdf
March 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
What realwoman in nz are saying about swedes
http://www.realwomen.co.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6131&sid=9cbc1afa7be3 0e65c22939f3549391d2
March 30th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Child deaths
Deaths from maltreatment, per 100,000 children aged under 15
1. Portugal 3.7
2. Mexico 3.0
3. USA 2.4
4. France 1.4
5. Hungary 1.3
6. NEW ZEALAND 1.3
7. Czech Republic 1.2
8. Belgium 1.1
9. Slovakia 1.0
10. Japan 1.0
11. Austria* 1.0
12. Canada 1.0
13. Switzerland 0.9
14. Britain 0.9
15. Poland 0.9
16. Finland* 0.8
17. Denmark* 0.8
18. Germany* 0.8
19. Australia 0.8
20. South Korea 0.8
21. Sweden* 0.6
22. Netherlands 0.6
23. Norway* 0.3
24. Ireland 0.3
25. Italy 0.2
26. Greece 0.2
27. Spain 0.1
*Countries which ban smacking
Source: Unicef, 2003. Includes deaths “of undetermined intent”.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10368213
March 30th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Sue Bradfords Speech to the Enlightened MP’s:
When Pakeha colonists first got here we brought a culture that taught that children - along with women and servants - were the property of their father and husband, and that they were mere chattels to be brought into line by force.
Section 59 is the last legal vestige of that culture. It is no longer legal for employers to beat employees or servants, or for husbands to beat wives. It is still, in the supposedly enlightened 21st century, within the law for parents to beat children.
Didn’t the Maaori keep and eat slaves?
jh
March 30th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
JH - in the five years to 2003 CYFS reports 38 children under 15 were killed in NZ (I can’t find the CYFS stats but heres a TV3 reference to it -
http://campbelllive.tv3.co.nz/home/TonightArchives/July2006TonightArch ive/tabid/174/articleID/417/Default.aspx
For our 1,050,000 children, that’s 7.6 per year or 0.7 per 100,000.
That puts us right beside the posterboy of non-smacking - Sweden.
Of course the figures used for the UN are very old (because some countries don’t have new stats, so they use very old ones for everyone).
Of course we can do a lot more about abuse, but if we actually wanted to do that first we would have to address the issues, and it doesn’t seem we want to do that.
Instead of looking at the factors that contribute to child abuse (CYFS lists 35 factors), all the effort is put into the anti-smacking bill (not one of CYFS 35 factors for abuse).
Do we really want to face up to child abuse, or do we just want a bandaid that does nothing to stop abuse - it just makes some proponents feel good by having “at least done something” (when they haven’t)
March 31st, 2007 at 5:57 am
My bill on its own won’t change the culture of violence against children in this country, but it is one of a wide range of measures that are necessary if we are ever going to be able to hold our heads high in the community of nations as a country that really is a great place to bring up kids. SB
March 31st, 2007 at 7:02 am
JH
Is that the same Comrade Bradford who said ” Men who hit their kids are sexual perverts”
Take nothing Bradford says seriously, the facts prove she is nothing but a liar with a Communist agenda.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
# big bruv Says:
>Is that the same Comrade Bradford who said � Men who hit their kids are sexual perverts�
don’t know. If you have a source for that quote, then maybe we could work out if it was the same person.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:14 pm
kahitkatea
From Stuff
“Ms Rankin also took aim at Ms Bradford, saying comments she made last October that men opposed to the bill were sexual perverts who get a kick out of kicking children “says it all.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4008760a11.html
Of course Rankin could be making it up, but it’s a very dangerous statement to make at a public rally if she is.
She has also said that the “most important thing” for the section odf the population that opposes her bill is to beat, hit smack and assualt their children.
Wacky wild extremist statements.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Kahikatea
The link has been provided by SD, will you now concede that Bradford is a liar?
March 31st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
big bruv Says:
>The link has been provided by SD, will you now concede that Bradford is a liar?
I will accept that link as proof that either:
a) Sue Bradford said it or,
b) Christine Rankin lied or,
c) Christine Rankin misheard or misuderstood something Sue Bradford said
I agree it seems improbable that Christine Rankin would make it up, but it also seems improbable that Sue Bradford would have said it
March 31st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
NZ public with a clear majority know that this is a meaningless piece of social engineering being foisted on us,
and now helenrad say the bill don’t stop smacking, and it do also stop smacking but not so much as before, the public will remember little bits and pieces here and there of this tragic 60’s socialist nanny and her pledge card for NZ economy collapse,
March 31st, 2007 at 3:48 pm
kahikatea
Comrade Bradford made the comment, I cannot believe you would feel that she is not capable of saying something like this.
She has done nothing but tell lies since this bill came into the house.
So, I ask again, will you now concede that Comrade Bradford is a liar?
March 31st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
kahikatea - logical arguements.
Unfortunately Sue doesn’t have good record on this issue when it comes to demonising her opponents (85% of NZ).
Neither does she have a good record when making claims to support her bill, like Sweden only has one child abuse death every four years, when the actual figure is FOURTY TIMES higher.
The fact is that Sweden (at 0.6 per 100,000), and NZ’s stats to 2003 (at 0.7 per 100,000) are not vastly different.
And the very lowest figures in the world are in countries where light smacking is allowed.
However these comparisons are probably not valid anyway, because the factors involved in child abuse are well known, and smacking is not one of them. Not even our own CYFS has listed smacking in it’s 35 factors that contribute to abuse.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:01 pm
SouthernDave, that’s not a fact. It’s selective use of stats chosen to bolster your view.
Using UNICEF methodology NZ has a death rate of 1.3 per 100,000. More than twice that of Sweden. If you want to halve NZ’s rate (presumably by removing deaths of “undetermined intent”) that’s fine but be intellectually honest and adjust Sweden’s in the same manner would you? Thanks.
Big Bruv. Give a quote, a full quote. And then we can discuss what Sue said. Until then yours and Rankin’s smears are contemptible.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Pip
If you have sites that provides the UNICEF methodology, Swedish methodology and comparison with NZ methods I would be pleased to see them, but my impression was that it is based on self-reporting by the various nations involved, and that the statistical comparisons are simply not as useful as we would like.
The findings are certain to be controversial, primarily because governments do not use a uniform methodology for determining maltreatment or even the cause of death, and because of differences across nations in the willingness of families to report maltreatment or of police to investigate it.
Recognizing these problems, UNICEF researchers used statistics provided by the governments on both known cases of abuse or neglect as a base-line and then added to those totals all child deaths that were recorded as being of “undetermined cause.”
Perhaps the Swedes don’t have so many “undetermined cause” deaths at all? Perhaps they determine other causes where we leave them indeterminate… perhaps…anything.
Basically I have no real confidence that any such adjustment would be meaningful…. the other categories available can easily muddy the water. Would be happy to see a more complete set of statistics though.
We don’t do well on the death statistic, but I doubt we do so poorly because we are beating our children to death… consider how such events hit the headlines here and how we react to them…
respectfully
BJ
March 31st, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Pip - UNICEF used figures that are a DECADE old. All I did was use newer NZ figures for five years up to 2003, which were substantially lower than horrific figures from the 90s.
The whole thing is a bit of a red herring anyway. Smacking is not a factor in child abuse.
Another red herring - s59 is not a major factor (or even a minor factor) why over 100 cases per year of assault on a child do not result in convictions. If s59 is not used in these cases, then even repealling it completely will not make an iota of difference to these cases.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Sure, sorry. I concede my accusation was not as razor sharp as I’d like. Still, if the stats are irrelevant, bat them aside as irrelevant, if they’re dodgy and based on self reporting without consistent methodology, slag them for that. But don’t arbitrarily alter one set of stats without any attempt to maintain any comparative value. That’s still dishonest.
(And BJ, yes, I have no confidence that any such adjustment would be meaningful, that’s the point, but if it can’t be done, then changing one set arbitrarily shouldn’t be done either.)
March 31st, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Pip - I’m not trying to be misleading - simply state that NZ comes out really bad in the stats because the figures used are from a time when things were much worse.
So when people quote that we are worst in the world (also meaning near the bottom of the OECD, or in the best 10% world-wide) they should also perhaps state that these figures, although from recent UN studies, are from statistics that are very very old.
Either way, we’d do better reducing child abuse if we addressed the factors associated with it, instead of those that are not.
As the Oxford Journals put it when looking at anti-smacking legislation, law makers like to go for easy fixes to make it look like they’ve done something, even if what they’ve done is pointless, and quite often even detrimental.
See Swedish Myth
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Child_deaths_in_Sw eden.pdf
April 1st, 2007 at 8:33 am
A case of PC’ness if you ask me since some possible causes would be no-go areas.
We are lead to believe that impartial experts are behind this legislation but………
The debate raging this week on the issues of Maori beneficiaries and family violence has highlighted a concerning trend of beneficiary bashing, Green Party Maori Affairs Spokesperson Metiria Turei says.
“It seems that in the wake of the tragic death of the Kahui twins, beneficiaries have unfairly become a convenient target for the posturing of politicians and commentators,� Mrs Turei says.
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR9958.html
The phenomenon of Post Colonial Traumatic Stress Disorder and its effects it appears are now culturally integrated in to the psyche and soul of Maori.
http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/2004/safety/child-abuse-neglect.ht ml
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=146&objectid=149643
Rather than an argument, we have just been dished an opinion. It is time for political parties to cut the rhetoric and spin and and give us analysis.
jh
April 1st, 2007 at 11:15 am
Pip Says:
March 31st, 2007 at 5:01 pm
SouthernDave, that’s not a fact. It’s selective use of stats chosen to bolster your view.
Using UNICEF methodology NZ has a death rate of 1.3 per 100,000. More than twice that of Sweden. If you want to halve NZ’s rate (presumably by removing deaths of “undetermined intent�) that’s fine but be intellectually honest and adjust Sweden’s in the same manner would you? Thanks.
Big Bruv. Give a quote, a full quote. And then we can discuss what Sue said. Until then yours and Rankin’s smears are contemptible.
I will have to post this again as it seems frog is in full censorship mode.
Pip, there is nothing contemptible about the truth.
Bradford has told lies about this bill from day one, she did indeed call all men who smack their kids sexual perverts.
I take that personally, as far as i am concerned she is scum.
No doubt this will be censored, it seems that you can only attack right wingers on this blog without your comments being censored or deleted.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Big Bruv. Agreed, there is nothing contemptible about the truth. But you have done nothing to demonstrate that you are telling anything like the truth.
Give a quote, a full quote. And then we can discuss what Sue said. Until then yours and Rankin’s smears are simply contemptible.
Contemptible.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Oh yes, I suspect if your posts are being held in moderation, it’s more likely because it’s picking up some terms you’re using rather than any grand conspiracy. But you’re free to feel victimised and paranoid.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
According to Sue Bradford, violence against children is a culture brought to New Zealand by Pakeha - it is a legacy of colonisation.
Chirstrians who support her are called moderate, and Christians who are against her are called extremist nutters.
She says men who are against her get a sexual kick out of smacking their children.
The verbal abuse against anyone who is against her is appalling. It is abusive, bullying and threatening with being a criminal.
This from someone who talks about how to educate by using positive methods - that abuse and threats should never be used.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
# Pip Says:
April 1st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Give a quote, a full quote. And then we can discuss what Sue said. Until then yours and Rankin’s smears are simply contemptible.
——-
On the other hand Sue could issue a statement denying she made the statement.
jh
April 1st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
jh, Big Bruv put his stated claim in quote marks. H claimed Sue said something quite specific and called on others to concede that she was a liar on the basis of what he claimed she said. Clearly he knows what he’s talking about and can source his quote, right?
Certainly if Sue Bradford said that all men who smack their children are sexual perverts who get a kick out of kicking I’ll concede that she was wrong, and ridiculously so.
All Big Bruv has to do to get his point is give the evidence about something he’s clearly confident about - he put it in quotes. Or you could. Or SouthernDave could. But none of you will. That’s contemptible.
Naming people as liars and worse and not being able to back up your reasons is contemptible.
April 1st, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Pip “Naming people as liars and worse and not being able to back up your reasons is contemptible”
And this is worse than Sue saying that the very large section of new Zealand who oppose the bill - that the the most important thing to them is to beat, hit, smack and assualt their children?
Unfortunately Sue has a habit of taking the views of the most extreme opposition, then insinuating it applies to (or actually applying it) to a much greater section (or even all) of her opposition.
It’s very misleading, it’s very offensve, and it doesn’t work. It simply get’s people’s backs up and galvanises the opposition against her and her bill.
Rather than convincing people to back her bill, there is more and harder opposition than ever, and a lot of this is to do with the way it has been presented, and the bullying, abusive way she has tried to force people to back it - effectively labelling them child abusers if they don’t.
April 1st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Pip, I agree !
… and add that, by putting his accusations in writing (as he frequently does), big bruv exposes himself regularly to the possibility of a charge of Libel … (which could cost you lots of your precious “MONEY” big bruv!)
big bruv reminds me of those “silly little class-disrupting clowns” that one sees in many a Middle Syndicate classrom of our Primary Schools.
Were you one of those big bruv?
Or are your “look at me! look at me!” tactics more recently aquired?
April 1st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
This is an example of a anti-smacking bill
(1) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
This is an example of a good parenting Bill with a place for smacking
(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.
This is a Bill that allows a place for smacking in the context of good parenting, but not abuse by smacking
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).
It is set out in a deliberate paradox that is not a contradiction
because the two premises are a paradox that is not a contradiction
April 1st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
eredwen - that’s funny. Considering that Christine Rankin was speaking at a public rally, all the major media outlets - tv1 etc - have all reported them, so why would the news reports repeated on a blog site all of a suden have a great risk of a libel charge to bb?.
(any more than insinuating to a number of different people on this site that their children are not safe with them?) .
It seems to be a clear policy to demonize any opposition to this bill.
April 1st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Southern Dave:
I read, watch and listen carefully (and critically) to Green MPs’ interactions with the public. (and I give my feedback directly to them if there is anything ambiguous, doubtful or negative to report.)
I have not come across any of Sue’s statements or interactions that gave me the impressions that you seem to have gained …
You and I are hearing etc with different “points of view”, but are you sure your information is first hand (i.e. straight from Sue Bradford herself and not reported by someone else?
April 1st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Remember when they used a double negitive in Parliament that was mis-taken for a negitive rather than a positive.
“Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.”
April 1st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Yawn.
SouthernDave, I’m sure you have a reference for “And this is worse than Sue saying that the very large section of new Zealand who oppose the bill - that the the most important thing to them is to beat, hit, smack and assualt their children?”
Not saying it’s untrue, I don’t know everything Sue Bradford has said about this. But it does seem likely that that is another misrepresentation, at the very least.
If you’re going to accuse people of being misleading, or offensive, or liars, then demonstrably undertaking the exact behaviour you’re accusing others of is contemptible.
Now, about supporting the original quote that got my back up. I’ll let you into a secret, you have to google carefully, because what people have said she said, she didn’t say.
April 1st, 2007 at 4:46 pm
eredwen - “You and I are hearing etc with different “points of viewâ€?, but are you sure your information is first hand (i.e. straight from Sue Bradford herself and not reported by someone else?”
Yes, eredwen, I’m sure - everything was first hand.
Like the reason a massive part of the NZ population oppose her bill is because the most important thing to them is to beat, hit smack and assualt their children (on NewstalkZB)
I’m not sure where the Rankin accusation came from, but in the past I did read something very very similar that Sue said about men getting a sexual kick from smacking children.
She says there sexual pervesion is a reason for smacking, and there was a close connection between this and the groups opposing her, particularly those made up of mainly men, and some schools.
She’s also said a culture of violence against children was originally brought here by Pakeha, and is a colonial legacy.
Both of the above were from her speeches, so those were first hand as well.
And I’ve heard her say the reason that people are opposed to her bill is because they feel guilty for beating up their kids. (that one was on tv and radio).
April 1st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
The trap I fell into and other anti-billers did too.
If your Premise is “This is an anti-smacking bill” then your assumptions are invalid but seem logical to you. “If you don’t support this bill, you are a child abuser”, appears invalid.
If your Premise is “This is an anti-abuse by smacking bill” then your assumptions are valid and seem logical to you. “If you don’t support this bill, you are a child abuser”, appears valid.
This bill has to be read and discussed in context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise_%28argument%29
April 1st, 2007 at 5:08 pm
pip “I’m sure you have a reference for “And this is worse than Sue saying that the very large section of new Zealand who oppose the bill - that the the most important thing to them is to beat, hit, smack and assualt their children?â€?”
Yes =but I get the feeling you’re not really interested in anything that backs this up. If you are
- go to 4min 03 sec on
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/audio2/21113938.wma
Or that a parent who smacks their child in a supermarket could quite well end up in court (at 3min 25sec)
Or that her bill won’t stop mongrels beating up their children, “Nor was it ever intended to” ( at 7 min 56sec)
Pip “If you’re going to accuse people of being misleading, or offensive, or liars, then demonstrably undertaking the exact behaviour you’re accusing others of is contemptible.”
Actually I can’t recall making offensive and abusive comments insinuating a whole group of people are sexual perverts, or child abusers, or religious nutters, or guilty of beating their kids, or that it’s a racial issue.
April 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pm
SouthernDave. I don’t believe Sue said what you say she said. In fact, in the only cases I can verify, I know she didn’t say what has been claimed here.
So, when did you hear her say that on Newstalk? They have an audio archive. I can’t find it, but I’m sure you could. Right?
It’s weird that an entire list of complaints about things that Sue has apparently said contains only one quote. And that’s of another commenter on this thread.
I’m pretty certain that the only direct quotation of Sue on this thread is a misquotation. So, stop vilifying her through hearsay.
I mean, you’re accusing people of being misleading in political debate. You wouldn’t be misleading in doing that would you. Cos while that’d be quite funny as satire, I don’t get the feeling you’re joking.
April 1st, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Sorry, Southern, I’ll just go off to listen.
April 1st, 2007 at 5:35 pm
First quote is a reasonably accurate one. Though it is taken out of context. The context strongly supports the case that she is talking about the most important thing in the context of the debate over this bill, rather than the most important thing in life.
That people’s right to use physical discipline is the major reason to oppose the bill is a common argument, wouldn’t you agree?.
Whether half the people involved hold that view is debatable, but I think it’s a reasonable argument, given the number of banners demanding the right to smack on the demos last week. Do you want to produce a counter case?
The other two quotes are hardly surprising. Why do you think they’re important?
And sorry, I wasn’t accusing you singular of being offensive, the offensive bit was in relation to Big Bruv. But misleading, yes. Deliberately so? Don’t know, but certainly I have as much reason to think so as you do of Sue.
April 1st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Pip - re most important thing to be able to beat, smack, hit assault your children..
Of course this is not the main reason people are against the bill. Personally there are a million reasons not to want Sue’s bill.
I want to be able to stop my son being killed by running onto the road -when every other method failed.
I want to be able to give my children boundaries, that for certain aspects are quite strict boundaries (safety, interacting with other people etc).
With these boundaries set, I find they need very little correction of any sort (18 months since the last light smack and six months since the last time out for my 6 year old). We have happier children and a happier household.
My children have the right to be brought up with some rules and self discipline so they have the best possible chance in life. Children disciplined with methods where the maximum is an occasional light smack, perform better than ALL other groups, including those who do not receive physical discipline top performing in so many areas including highest academic achievement, lowest mental health problems, lowest crime rate, lowest drug taking, and lowest violence as an adult)
I want to trust my neighbours, teachers, police, people at the supermarket, etc - not have a society where people are suspicious of each other.
I do not want most NZ parents to be labelled criminals and child abusers when they are doing the best job of any group bringing up their children.
I do not want all this effort going into legislation that in Sue’s own words will do notihing to stop abusers and was never indended to, when the same effort COULD go into stopping abusers.
I could go on, but you might note that nowhere above, is the MOST IMPORTANT THING for people opposed to the bill to be able to beat, hit, smack and assault their children.
What an offensive thing for her to say.
Is it any wonder why so many good parents are so angry at Sue?
April 1st, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Is it any wonder so many good parents are so angry? No, when the argument is so distorted it’s not surprising at all.
In fact, in this discussion, you raise a falsity (unless you can show that this bill will stop you using force to stop your son running onto the road), an irrelevancy (unless you can show this bill will stop you setting boundaries for your children), an opinion (unless you have evidence that it was your smacking rather than your other parenting skills that made your children happier [than what?]), a reversal of rights, so rather than you having the right to use physical force, your children have the right to have physical force used on them, something that can only be described as a plea to paranoia, and a sideshow.
In fact, when you strip out all the padding, one of the few real arguments in there is that your children have the right to be smacked. Sounds like Sue is reasonably accurate. Though admittedly she falsely suggests that you want the right for yourself, rather than your children, but I’d say that was a pretty minor detail. Wouldn’t you?
And you still haven’t stopped misquoting her. So I don’t think her misapplying the owner of the right can be such a serious affront.
April 1st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Sue could have been pissed when she said it.
jh
April 1st, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Pip
Will you now agree that Bradford has told a pack of lies about this bill?..to say nothing about her scandalous statements.
Eredwen
Bring it on!, I would not mind exposing the lies she has told about this bill in the courts.
April 1st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Pip - in the REAL world, corrections for children happen AFTER they have done something.
In the FANTASY world of s59 repeal, all actions have to be done BEFORE or AS a child does something.
Some actions are allowed to PREVENT an action - but it will be a criminal offence to DETER or CORRECT by using force. (the law is so badly written that not even the coutrys top lawyers can agree which is which)
The one action (a single light smack) that stopped my boy running away in carparks and on roads will be illegal.
Under Sue’s bill, I, and my son, will just have to risk using methods that were not working.
This appallingly written law is not even about stopping child abuse - an ‘unmittigated piece of nonsense” as described by one QC.
I think your “minor detail” is the understatement of the year. Sue’s versions means she thinks most of NZ parents are child abusers,
April 1st, 2007 at 11:08 pm
blah blah blah yawn don’t know about anyone else, but I’m sick of hearing about how your son won’t be safe around roads if S59 is repealed
dunno about Pip, but no BB I am still unwilling to agree that Sue has lied. Perhaps you could lay out your case with referenced quotes instead of just echo chambering.
SD’s violence against children is a colonial legacy “quote” which was suposed to be in one of her speeches caught my eye. Now I’ve searched the Greens site:
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=site%3Agreens.org.nz+%22colonial+lega cy%22
and the only time “colonial legacy” is used is in a speech by Ahmed Zaoui where he is talking about France.
Narrowing the Greens speeches by Childrens Issues by Sue Bradford
http://www.greens.org.nz/docs/more_docs.asp?class=speech&cat=115&auth= 91
produces a lot of pages which I don’t have time to read.
A search of scoop has no Green MPs using that phrase.
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ascoop.co.nz+%22colonial+ legacy%22
just Ahmed Zaoui and groups like Global Peace And Justice Auckland.
similarly a search of Hansard produced no Sue Bradford speeches where she mentioned colonial legacy at all. Its not possible to bookmark search results in the Hansard search, but I searched for:
+speaker:(Sue Bradford) colonial AND legacy
+speaker:(Sue Bradford) Pakeha AND children AND violence
and found nothing. Maybe you can do better? I am sure am interested to know what Sue said.
April 1st, 2007 at 11:25 pm
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=site%3Agreens.org.nz+Pakeha+chi ldren+violence+Bradford
finds the quote as first result!
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech10600.html
I take it back, so your precis did have a kernal of truth but clearly Sue is not saying that violence against children is a colonial legacy, she is saying that protection under the law for gentlemen who are accused of assualt is a colonial legacy.
April 1st, 2007 at 11:52 pm
stuey: Thanks for that search, and clearing up the mystery!
I remember reading that piece at the time.
However, I would never have related it to the stuff supposedly “quoted” by our visitors here, as both its intent and meaning are very different from what they describe.
April 1st, 2007 at 11:53 pm
stuey - “I take it back, so your precis did have a kernal of truth but clearly Sue is not saying that violence against children is a colonial legacy…”
Really? - how about this one then….
Sue B - “I think that the concept of parents right and duty to bring up their children with violence was a belief system brought to Aotearoa by our Pakeha missionary and settler ancestors, and is part of the legacy of European colonialism with which we are still wrestling.”
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech10204.html
Sorry, I probably put you wrong on google by using “colonial legacy” when you should have been seraching for “legacy” of “colonialism” - pretty much the same thing though.
Interesting that the factors associated with child abuse are quite well studied - CYFS has published 35 factors - but they never came up with colonial legacy, (or smacking for that matter).
As the Oxford Journals said, polititians who propose smacking bans are are doing nothing to stop abuse - all they are doing is decieving themselves, thinking “”at least we can say we’ve done something” (my quote marks) while avoiding the real issues.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:22 am
“Around one child a month dies at the hands of a parent or caregiver in New Zealand. In Sweden, the average annual deaths attributable to child abuse for the past 30 years or so has been less than one every four years”. - Document circulated on behalf of Barnadoes, Plunket, Save the Children, Children’s Commissioner and EPOCH last year
“The rate of child homicide & in Sweden is something like one every 4 years� - Sue Bradford on TVNZ’s Close Up 19 July 2006
• “Dr Kiro says people need to realise since Sweden banned physical punishment in 1976, only four children died in the following 20 years�
Children’s Commissioner speaks out against culture of violence – Press Release - Dr Cindy Kiro - 03/11/2004
I’ve seen a report (not independent) that said Morgan Johansson, Swedish public health minister, said (2006)
“Every year, eight to ten, sometimes as many as twelve children die in Sweden due to violence. This has been true for several years,”
The most recent UNICEF figures are 0.6 and 0.5 deaths per 100,000, which works out at 12 and 10 deaths per year for Sweden’s 2m children. (which backs up the ministers statement)
So why is Sue, Plunket etc under reporting Swedens deaths when they are FOURTY to FIFTY times higher?
And why is the Childrens Commissioner under reporting them by a factor of TWO HUNDRED to TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY times?
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 am
big bruv says: “Bring it on!, I would not mind exposing the lies she has told about this bill in the courts.”
bb, I must disappoint you, as I very much doubt that anyone among the Greens would regard your repetitive rants as anything more than an ill judged and irrelevant sideshow.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:14 am
I must concede that Sue has come up with one way of massively reducing the child abuse death rate. What we need to do is follow Sue’s methodology for counting Swedish deaths.
We can rule out newborns, all outright murders, all bashings that weren’t done as part of discipline - in fact anything that cannot be proved as having arrisen out of discipline. If we use Sue’s methodology, we can rule out the Kahui twins, baby in the bath, and 98% of all violent child deaths.
If using the counting methods of Sue, Plunket, Barnardoes etc, so that 98% of dead children don’t count in Sweden, should we be counting them here?
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:51 am
Pip
Nobody is wholly clear on what the bill will do at all, partly because the bill says it’s up to the police. Will it make smacking to keep the kids from running in the road “illegal” in fact? Nobody actually knows.
Some people supporting the bill are citing invalid statistical comparisons to justify it.
Unicef data is self-reported national datasets with Swedish vs NZ being based on entirely different premises.
Data of Swedish to Swedish experiences as shown in the peer-reviewed journal cited above, is also not even conclusive in showing that they succeeded in doing what they attempted.
Data relating to mild smacking vs no-smacking vs flogging with farm implements shows little difference between the first two with the difference favouring the light smacks.
It is 3:30 AM and I find myself trying to find actual documentation from the Swedish statistics office… and you know what, I’ve had enough.
You who support this bill as written need to consider just how DAMNED confusing it has to be if it has me trying to read swedish.
Not how confused everyone else is.. but how insanely lacking in actual ACCURATE information the entire environment is. This is really starting to p!ss me off. Incomplete and poorly documented statistics are being used to back up a thesis that is about to be applied to the entire country through a law that the law society regards as fatally flawed. The when I dig at it I find a lot of reasons to believe that the body of statistics disproves the thesis.
What Sue may or may not have said a long time ago is irrelevant. The issue is what the bill says and what it does. Getting personal about the individuals behind it is simply wrong…
I doubt that a correct and accurate quotation could be obtained even if we wanted one… and the whole damned question is irrelevant - DO BOTH SIDES UNDERSTAND THIS??!
Demonizing the PM or Sue or the Religious Right or anyone else here is not going to help anything.
FOCUS people… FOCUS!!!
Thank you.
Now I will try to go back to sleep.
grumpily
BJ
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:46 am
Totally agree BJ.
Why am I against the repeal of s59?
Because it gives discretionary power to the police. No law should do that.
The police are there to enforce the law as it is written, no exceptions. Not Prime Minister, not me. You cannot have the Police being judge, jury and executioner.
The court is the place where descretion is granted by the judiciary.
In turn the judiciary will advice the lawmakers (our representatives in parliamant ) if laws are unworkable or unfair or plain stupid.
That is how the system should work.
The current system where Police have desretionary powers is wrong as it could lead to victimisation (if you have followed the programme “house” on TV you will know what Police vistimisation is all about) and corruption (not raiding tinny houses even if you know they are active in selling illegal drugs is corrupt - maybe nopt corrupt but dereliction of duty at least).
We should get the legalise in the s59 repeal to be absolutely black and white so that the Police know exactly how and what law to enforce and the judiciary know exactly how to interpret this law.
From that point of view the parliamant has let us down.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:04 am
Burro - Donkey, Ass, Jackass.
Burros’ Paradox - Writing an amendment to define level of force in child abuse.
This is not an “anti-smacking Bill” but an “anti-abuse by smacking Bill”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise_%28argument%29
“If there is an exception to every rule, then every rule must have at least one exception, excepting this one” …is there an exception to the rule that states that there is an exception to every rule?
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:41 am
Why are we even debating statistics on this? It’s so impossible to read what might be causing statistics that the only thing I think they can tell us is how urgent of a problem child abuse is, not what to do about it. Even if New Zealand had the lowest child abuse statistics, we would still be justified in doing everything we can to oppose or reduce it. And on the other side of that coin, even if Sweden does not enjoy an exceptional reduction in child abuse because of its ban, it may very well still be worthwhile to ban corporal punishment all the same, if only to show that on principle it is something that does NOT deserve any support in the law. I think even if repealing §59 had no effect on child abuse of itself, it would send a worthwhile message.
I find it ridiculous that the spectre of worrying about being able to rescue or restrain your child where necessary has even been raised: The law for adults follows the same pattern as it would for children after removing §59, and yet do we see people convicted for reasonably using force to prevent people from being hit by cars, or for restraining their friends when they’re getting violent? I’ve certainly not seen such a case.
Let’s keep the debate in perspective, shall we?
Even if repealing §59 as proposed would do bad things, we should remember that the intent is to stop abuse. So let’s remember that, we’re all on the same side (or should be) of wanting to stop or hinder abuse, even if we disagree on how to do it, and work forward from there.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:42 am
Huh, apparently I can’t use section symbols here. Just read the “§59″ as “Section 59″ and you’ll be fine
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:41 am
Ari
The only way to know if you are doing anything worthwhile is to measure it.
The Swedish data also includes some whopping increases in child - on - child violence, variously explained.
My impression at this point is that a modified bill (and I HAVE suggested some modifications to Sue) would work to do achieve the goal you propose without risking that increase, without getting 80% of the country off-side, without risking the next election and without possibly harming good families.
it may very well still be worthwhile to ban corporal punishment all the same, if only to show that on principle it is something that does NOT deserve any support in the law
But if the data shows as some of it clearly appears to show, that the smacking is not harmful and even slightly helpful to the results when raising a child, then why should it not have support?
We are not talking about a conflict. I don’t regard raising my children as an ongoing battle. It is raising children! I don’t regard this as being contrary to the principles of the party as a result.
Most good families should be unaffected by the bill as stated given a liberal interpretation by investigating officers… but the odds approach unity that in time SOME good families WILL be ripped apart. As far as I am concerned this only has to happen once, one innocent punished, for this to be bad legislation.
I have no doubt that it will happen and the only question is whether it happens in the time between the bill and the next election.
respectfully
BJ
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:02 am
If either a Burro (spanish) or a djonkey (nordic), isn’t a Buridan’s Ass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass
Would they eat the wrong stack of hay or the Straw man?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Then would an entirely rational ass follow the spirit of the Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_the_law
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Ari
The message the bill sends is basically that it’s up to the cop-on-the-beat whether you get charged for putting an electric shock collar on your kid to teach him to stay out of the street, or whether you get charged for beating him to prevent demons from stealing his soul. This is WAY less edifying than having an actual definition that says “this is the limit, past this and the society holds that you are no longer parenting” which is something I, the law society and I have no doubt the police, would like to see in the bill.
In addition I’d change it to “retaliation” vice “correction”… because “correction” has some specific legal meanings that confound what Sue has said is her intention, and I am concerned about the loonies who believe in demons and their lack of sense. That’s another issue not addressed at all… and it should be if we go down this path.
The good intentions are thick on the ground here, the road map however is not in agreement with the direction our leaders claim to be taking us, and the climate seems warmer already.
respectfully
BJ
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
BJ - your pragmatisim is again to be applauded.
Ari - .”….we should remember that the intent is to stop abuse.”
When asked if it would stop someone beating up their child, Sue said it was never intended to do that.
And BJ mentions the inevitable result of children ripped away from families. In Sweden 35,000 children have been taken away from their families - 30,000 more than NZ (for twice the population of children in Sweden).
That number could fill a city much bigger than Timaru.
Slight changes to the bill could have 85% of the countrty behind it, instead of 85% against it (although I believe the demonisation of those against it has contributed to why so many people don’t want it).
SOLUTION
Take the Borrows ammendment, and simply apply what is NOT allowed to the current definition of reasonable force - it’s common sense, simple, and everyone can understand it.
The current law just needs to be ammended so “resonable force” does not include objects, hits to the body or head, nothing that causes an injury etc.
It doesn’t specifically allow smacking (Sues worry about the Borrows ammendment), but it doens’t specifically ban it either.
In other words, the status quo exists for a light smack on the hand, leg or bottom, and pretty much everything else is specifically illegal.
The main problem with this solution is that we are all still barking up thee wrong tree, as in 99% of cases where someone gets off an assault on child charge, it is for reasons other than s59.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Spirit of the Law = This is a Anti-Abuse Law not a Anti-Smacking LAW
Slight changes to the bill could have 85% of the countrty behind it, like explaining what the spirit of the law is
Take the Borrows ammendment, in context and discover it prescribes smacking as an abuse
The current law just needs to be ammended so “resonable force� does not include objects, Does already
It doesn’t specifically allow smacking, but it doens’t specifically ban it either, Does already.
In other words, the status quo exists for a light smack on the hand, leg or bottom, and pretty much everything else is specifically illegal. Does this too, But NOT smacking as abuse.
The main problem with this solution is that we are all still barking up the wrong tree, It ISN”T a anti-smacking bill.
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Once-Bitten - I was having trouble following your discourse. You appear to want something other than what is on the table to be sure, but just what it might be I have no clue… an anti-abuse law of some sort I imagine, but that is not available in any form of what has been offered. The debate currently is over what is on offer, not on some speculative ideal law which actually prevents parents from doing grievous harm to their children through irrational punishment, either physical or mental.
“Politics is the art of the possible”
This law and anything remotely resembling it, won’t solve the abuse problem. I think everyone here KNOWS that. Just what it will accomplish on current form is pretty muddy, but in some forms it could help a little or hurt a bit more, but I doubt it will do anything to end abuse.
If it is enforced laxly to avoid hitting the good-parenting folks with criminal charges it will not catch many abuser’s out.
If it is enforced stringently it will catch some good parents out, get a HELL of a lot of bad press and be repealed/abandoned forthwith.
It does not address the societal pressures that are conducive to abuse.
While I sympathize with your frustration that it does nothing much of any value, I re-emphasize that it is the bill on the table that we have to address, and any modifications to it that make it more or less useful. We aren’t writing new legislation here.
respectfully
BJ
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Following the spirit of the law but not the letter is generally viewed more favorably than following the letter but not the spirit. In a court of law, judges usually review the intent of the players involved.
If you view sues bill, in the spirit of “Its an anti-child abuse law” all the pro comments make sense
If you view sues bill, in the spirit of “Its an anti-smacking law”, all the anti comments make sense
Sue said “This is not an anti-smacking bill”, understand that and “spirit of the law”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_the_law
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Bad law is eventually enforced against good people. Always. Spirit vs Letter vs whatever did they mean 120 years ago anyway… and a bad judge or a good judge on a bad day and bang, slam, thank-you m’am and someone’s kids don’t get to see their mommy or daddy (or both) and the state IS the bad-guy. That’s real, and it will happen no matter the good intentions in the spirit of the law.
Given the extreme likelihood that it will be used and abused in divorce and custody proceedings, I have very little doubt that it will tear families further apart, and CYF will have some nightmarish scenarios to deal with as well, as though they do not have enough already.
respectfully
BJ
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:59 pm
If you approach sues bill as an “anti-smacking bill” you can never reach a conclusion, so cannot prove innocence.
If you approach sues bill as an “anti-abuse bill” the letter and the spirit of the law will BOTH make sense.
Sues Bill is Perfect
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
OnceBitten -
Sorry - My understanding of the wording of the law is that if I should raise my hand to my child to teach them anything, I am a guilty of felony assault with no recourse. That is the “letter” of the law. Since this is not abuse as far as 80% of New Zealanders, including me, are concerned just how is it that you get “Sue’s Bill is Perfect”. You don’t approach a the strict interpretation of the law from a viewpoint at all. It is legal.
Furthermore, the degree to which a parent does anything at all in the prevention of some activity that as specified in section one of the bill in the sense that section one DOES permit force to be used if not for “correction”, the degree of force used is not IN ANY WAY restricted. Catch ‘em in the act and whack ‘em up-side the head with your fist or even a tire-iron to stop ‘em… .that’s LEGAL in Sue’s bill. A Literal interpretation… unlikely to succeed, and damned if I believe its right but it’s there and it will surely be tried as defence and it may even work once or twice. Every system has its bad days and the lack of any definition of boundaries simply sncks.
Lastly, we haven’t addressed the plague of demons possessing our kids in any way. There’s sects that believe that this is the literal truth and kids die because Mom, Dad and Grandma are trying to exorcise demons. That’s not addressed even in passing.
Perfect? Nope. Fixable? Yep.
respectfully
BJ
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Section (2) minus Section (1) = Guilty of abuse
or “All force as a punishment” minus “reasonable force in the circumstance in the context of good parenting” equals “child abuse”
You CAN smack just NOT in the first instance.
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Hmmmph… in spite of myself I got curious. Took me almost 10 whole minutes.
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech10204.html
Sorry guys…
respectfully
BJ
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Sweet BJ, took me a while too!
So IS it an Anti-Smacking Bill?
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
What… you think *I* know?
- BJ
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Me Neither lol.
Now read the one about the spanish burro and the nordic donkey
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
good speech..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Simon Barnett said tonight on Cambell Live that when he interviewed Sue Bradford, said to him that she would call the police if she saw someone smacking.
This IS an anti-smacking bill.
But the only way they can get the support of NZ is if they trick people into believing it isn’t
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:44 am
Good speech, Sue!
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:45 am
Southern Dave, I also saw Cambell Live and the anti-billers were basing their arguements on a flawed premise.
This is a Anti-Child Abuse Bill. Good Speech Sue!!
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech10204.html
Stop beating that Straw Man.
Burro and djonkey are wrong.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:54 am
When taken in context and examined carefully it is clear that she is not casting aspersions on all, but identifying a small subset of miscreants who are already among the damned… part of a long list of the categories of opposition she sees. It is also clear how the words were easily twisted to mean something vastly different after one or two retellings.
However, this is also telling…
is simply aimed at giving babies and children the same protection against acts of violence that adults have.
They do not have the same protections as adults have BECAUSE they are under the protection of adults. They need protections from abuse BY those adults but there is no logical nor consistent interpretation of their position which allows them to have the same protections as adults… because the adults have to actually BE in control in a way that NO adult ever is in control of another adult… not even when a policeman or judge is in control of a criminal.
This is IMHO, one of the fundamental errors underlying the legislation. Children are not adults.
If it is not INTENDED as “anti-smacking” it should be altered to make that clearer and it should not abandon the duty of clarity that falls on parliament when it exercises its right and duty to make the law.
respectfully
BJ
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:43 am
How it works.
By defining “All force as a punishment� in section (2)
By defining “reasonable force in the circumstance in the context of good parenting” in section (1)
And doing the math, Section (2) minus Section (1) = Guilty of abuse
If you think it doesn’t work this way, do you think it doesn’t allow reasonable force to save you kid from the road either?
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:19 am
Once-Bitten…
Section 2 doesn’t say all force is a punishment, it says no force may be used for the purpose of correction. This is vastly different from your construction.
The bill does not define either reasonable nor unreasonable force with any limit whatsoever, only that there may be reasons to use force, which it enumerates, but it fails to identify how much is too much.
“Correction” is not an unloaded word, it is freighted with a legal interpretation… and there is ample reason to believe that many uses of force under section one can be interpreted as being partially corrective.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c313.htm
This bill makes it necessary to investigate all allegations that a smack was used in a corrective manner and leaves little room for error in the courtroom or the minds of the police.
What it means is that I cannot use a smack to teach my kid to stay out of the road, but I can break his head in the process of knocking him out of the road. Not a perfectly “reasonable” interpretation and few juries would fail to convict, but the LAW is not clear and the defense can be made, just as it can be made now.
I have not ever claimed the bill unfixable. It can be made usefully different from the current lack of definitions, but it is not currently acceptable to me … it eliminates the smack that teaches and it fails to refine the concept of “reasonable”.
respectfully
BJ
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:44 am
If it had section (2) on its own it would be a anti-smacking bill only
If it had section (1) on its own it would be a good parenting bill only
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma
You can smack in the context of good parenting.
You can’t smack for just a correction alone eg they annoyed me
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Oncebitten - this is one of the reasons the bill is so weak.
Sue tries to define when smacking should and shouldn’t be used.
So a child CAN be smacked harshly and repeatedly to PREVENT them from doing something like getting a biscuit from the tin without permission.
But they CAN’T get a single light smack after they nearly get killed running onto the road - something that could very likely save their life.
It is obviously rediculous to try to legislate for all these circumstances -
1/ it can’t be done
2/ no one knows what the law is.
3/ a criminal offence can easily be said to have happened in a legal situation.
The court is the place to decide for a thousand different circumstances what is and isn’t “reasonable”
Will they get it right all the time? No.
Will they get it right substantially more often than polititans writing bad law? Of course.
Getting it wrong just 3 times (arguably none) over more than a decade is a pretty amazing success rate for the current law.
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Sth Dave - this is one of the reasons the bill is so strong.
Sue defines when smacking should and shouldn’t be used.
So a child CAN’T be smacked harshly and repeatedly to PREVENT them from doing something like getting a biscuit from the tin without permission. Because this isn’t reasonable force in the circumstance.
But they CAN get a single light smack after they nearly get killed running onto the road - something that could very likely save their life. Because it is reasonable force in the circumstance.
It is obviously ridiculous to try to legislate for all these circumstances -
1/ it can’t be done but it has been done
2/ no one knows what the law is. its an anti-child abuse bill
3/ a criminal offence can easily be said to have happened in a legal situation. How?
Reasonable force is already in use in Law
To understand it you must first understand reason
What reason using the bill, makes you think “Anti-smacking Bill?”
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Oncebitten “Sth Dave - this is one of the reasons the bill is so strong.
Sue defines when smacking should and shouldn’t be used.”
Ha ha - that’s funny. Not even the countries top lawyers can agree on what it means.
And does Sue think she is so expert at child rearing that she’s knows what is and isn’t best in every situation, including all those she hasn’t yet thought of yet. She is obviously SO expert, that she is better than the parents who are on the spot, actually know the child, and actually know the situation.
You are also wrong about the child running onto the road, because the smack is a correction, so the defence of reasonable force is specifically not allowed.
In the biscuit tin example, if you think that is not “reasonable force” under Sue’s Bill, then is would also not be allowed as “reasonable force” under the current law.
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
If you think this is a anti-smacking bill it won’t make sense. Because it will appear to give you one thing with section (1) and take it away again with sections (2+3).
If you realise it is a anti-child abuse bill you will see it defines “all force as a punishment”, subtracts “reasonable force in the circumstance and context of good parenting”, leaving only child-abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_the_law
If you approach this law with the wrong intent it will find you guilty.
If you approach this law with the right intent and you are innocent it can’t help but find you innocent.
If you approach this law with the right intent and you are guilty it can’t help but find you guilty.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
off topic i know..but..
the greens rocked in the house at questiontime today..
sue kedgely got ‘performer of the day’..
for her efficient questioning/expose that the odourless/tasteless/deadly chemical methyl bromide being used in over 6,000 sites last year..!
some of those sites near schools…(kings’ college being one of them..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
OnceBitten
One more time. It does not define “all force as punishment” .. no words to that effect appear. It is not an assumption, and it would be incorrect if it WERE assumed. It uses the word correction in section 2 which brings down a specific legal definition that cannot in any certain way be excluded from motives for any act covered by section 1. It relies entirely on intentions to determine guilt. Intention is not knowable to people external to the person doing the intending. You can hire all the mind-readers you like. If you smack your kid pursuant to section one you may get away with knocking him unconscious or breaking bones, and you may use whatever implement suits your fancy. “Reasonable” is the same word here as it was in the original bill. The available defense is still the same.
In short, improvement on the current situation seems to be incredibly small if there is ANY, and problems for good parents are statistically certain to show up.
Methyl Bromide is often used for sterilization of medical equipment IIRC. We should take some care how we word a prohibition.
respectfully
BJ
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Sorry, that was too quick. Kudos to Sue for hauling the misuse in the open into the open. respectfully
BJ
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Put yourself on Trial and find where you really stand!
Was that “injury” abuse?
was the force used, reasonable in the circumstances to prevent greater injury?
(If you say no to the first question AND yes to the second question you are INNOCENT)
Was that smack abuse?
was there any other way of preventing the child from continuing to engage in disruptive behaviour in the circumstance?
(If you say no to the first question AND no I tried everything else first to the second question you are INNOCENT)
Now put milder forms of child abuse by smacking on trial (excessive force, indiscriminate, repetitive, etc.)
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
here’s a thought…
why don’t once bitten..southern dave..big brother..and b.j..
just go off and start their own blog..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Southern Dave said: So a child CAN be smacked harshly and repeatedly to PREVENT them from doing something like getting a biscuit from the tin without permission.
BJ said: “Reasonable� is the same word here as it was in the original bill. The available defense is still the same.
This is where you both misunderstand the Bill. It is a simple matter to determine what force is reasonable to prevent a particular action. The amount of force that is reasonable is the minimum amount that you perceive, in the circumstances as you see them, to be necessary to stop the behaviour from ocurring or continuing to occur. This is similar to the current self-defence justification - if you use force greater than is necessary, in the circumstances as you perceive them, to achieve the lawful purpose then you are acting unreasonably. It is an objective test. Under that test, smacking a child harshly and repeatedly to prevent it from getting a biscuit from a tin would be unreasonable, because it is far in excess of the force required, in anyone’s perception, to achieve the objective.
The current section 59 is a subjective test. The amount of force that is the minimum necessary to punish a child cannot be determined on any objective basis. That is why we get juries acquitting parents who beat their children with riding crops and bamboo canes, and why we see outfits like Family Integrity advocating that smacking should be a fifteen minute process. Under the current test, smacking a child harshly and repeatedly as punishment for getting the biscuit from the tin would, for some people, be unreasonable, but for others reasonable.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
toad - I think the reasons the jury aquited on the riding drop case includied
- the action stopped the child from trying to stove his fathers head in with a baseball bat,
-that other corrections failed to work,
-and that the child behaviour improved so much
(which is why the school found out about it all - they asked why his behaviour had improved so much)
Funny how these things are always missed out when people are tryong to make it sound as bad as possible.
Just like the “fifteen minute process” of smacking is misrepresented (deliberately?). I’ve heard this mentioned a number of times by those on Sue’s side, but they always (every single time) fail to mention that 10-15 minute period is so that the reason for the punishment is fully explained, and the consequences of the behaviour is fully explained, and so that child and parent can start again.
Usually when I’ve seen this Sue’s side try to falsely make it sound as if the smacking is for 15 minutes.
This is a far more effective way of changing bad behaviour than simply putting in time out, removing privaleges etc.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Toad
I do not agree that this is objective. It may be interpreted that way but I do not see it in the language.
The amount of force that is reasonable is the minimum amount… Is this truly the definition of “reasonable” when it is placed in context here? “reasonable in the circumstances” is going to always be interpreted by a jury. Which in some places, may be 100% in favor of mortifying the flesh to chase out demons… and the cop could be Shipton’s evil twin…. or they jury could be all on the other side… believing that force of any kind against the child is morally indefensible… and the judge agrees and a good family is broken. Law is about clarity. Justice is about interpretation. You are IMHO, relying on the judicial process to cover flaws in the clarity of the law. I regard that as wasteful and expensive and ultimately damaging.
I really can’t be behind such a vague piece of legislation. I am very sorry to say it, but I cannot bring myself to support such an abrogation of parliamentary responsibility. It is ENTIRELY possible to define what is TOO MUCH and make sure that this enters the mind of the public in no uncertain terms. This is an opportunity lost in that regard and the use of intention and the word “correction” bring even more mud to the water.
I don’t see this discourse improving anything though, and I have said my piece to Sue and it isn’t interesting at all, so I reckon I’ll take part of Phil’s suggestion. I have other things and better things to do with my time.
respectfully
BJ
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:28 pm
so have you got any academic evidence that the 15 minute smacking process is “a far more effective way of changing bad behaviour” than non-violent methods?
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Stuey “so have you got any academic evidence that the 15 minute smacking process is “a far more effective way of changing bad behaviourâ€? than non-violent methods?”
Yes -
“Eighteen studies in the 1996 review investigated alternative disciplinary tactics as well as smacking. Only grounding was more effective than smacking, in two studies of older children. In contrast, nine alternatives were associated with more detrimental outcomes in children than was smacking”
This is from renowned physcologist Robert E Larzelere, in this case in a letter publsihed in the British Medical Journal -
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7248/1538/a
Personally I’ve had amazing results from a light smack, WITH calm explaination, AND starting out afresh (not angry).
And almost always doing this just once has completely changed a bad habit/behaviour, forever - no need for any further action, ever.
And when this has happened, it’s almost always been after time out, loss of privaleges, explainations, telling off, etc has failed repeatedly.
I don’t use this method very often, but when I do the results are quite stunning - an immediate drastic improvement in behaviour. happier children, happier adults, less correction of any type needed - just a far healthier environment overall, particularly for the children themselves.
Long term, the Otago Uni study showed children with the most positive outcomes (academic, drug abuse, crime, and violence) were those who were disciplined with non-physical methods AND occasional smacks.
Not far behind were those who receievd no physical punishment, and those who were hit, and way back were those who were abused.
April 4th, 2007 at 6:34 am
Here is something different from Sweden that the Greens can have a look at and which will win them more votes than they are currently losing on the s59 debate.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&Article_ID=14379
But I dont think Sue Bradford will see it that way!
April 4th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Here are the facts on the Riding Crop lady:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/riding-crop-case.html
Who is Ruby Harrold-Claesson:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/Ruby%20Harrold-Claess on
Ruby is passionate about children and hates to see them abused. More so than those promoting the repeal or Select Committee amendment of Section 59. The worst abuse of children is abortion and child death. So that is roughly 18,012 children a year in New Zealand. 18,000 abortions and 12 child deaths. The repeal of Section 59 will not stop either of these.
Ruby has had bad press from Sweden. This is true. This is because it is against the law in Sweden to speak against Sweden outside of Sweden. So all those who have spoken badly about Ruby have done so so that they will not loose their jobs. Ruby is now no longer paid for legal aid work she does in Western Sweden. She still does legal aid work but does not get paid for it by the Government. The Government owes her a lot of money. Ruby is still able to and still does work as a Lawyer in all of Sweden.
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz and the time taken to correct a child.
Their booklet said that it can be a 10-15 minute process - It can take even longer as you talk to your child or children if there are a number of children involved. You talk to each child to get to the bottom of the troubles. The booklet says that sometimes that is all that has to be done. If appropriate do not smack at all.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Gerrit
We don’t have a wealth tax now, so we can’t repeal one. I notice that they aren’t changing their income tax at the same time. The reason they give as compelling is that if they have a regime that is harsher than the rest of the world people will leave.
IMHO this is not a problem with Sweden having a wealth tax but with the rest of the world not having one
respectfully
]
BJ
[ trying to figure out if there’s a way to yank your chain even harder
April 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
BJ,
Just trying to hijack the thread. s59 repeal is turning people off big time. Noticed disccusion levels?
I guess the Police complaints process and police attitude will be the next hot topic and which will let the s59 debate drop into a big black hole. To be bought back up at the next election to bag the Greens just like you have predicted.
While I dont per se have an objection to a wealth tax there are two points worth considering.
1. As the Swedes and other countries have discovered the wealthy can move very easily (and have tax havens in the Isle of Man, Bahamas, etc.) To countries where the tax liabilies are much less. Are you better to get “some” tax from the wealthy or let them slide offshore and get none?
2. The wealth tax when collected better be spent on improving the living conditions of the country. It horrifies me to see a 9-12 Billion surplus in New Zealand. Some time in the future the government is going to have to allocate it to be spent ( surplus being unallocated funds).
Get ready for a lolly scramble about 14 months from now. How bad will that be when we should be pumping the surplus into infastructure. And not collecting more tax then is required to implement to policies of the elected government.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Barbara - I’ll give you credit that, unlike Big Bruv, you at least cite your information sources, even if they are the Family Integrity blog and booklet.
I think your interpretation of the Family Integrity booklet is correct, in that it does not advocate the actual smacking itself lasting for 15 minutes.
But is does state “collect the smacking rod” which implies that a cane or stick or something similar should be used.
It also states: “I freely admit that I do not understand the connection between a physical smack on the bottom and a rebellious spiritual condition of the heart, nor how the first drives out the latter. But the Scripture declares it is so, therefore I am obliged to believe and practice it.”
No logic or reasoning here, just blindly following an arguable interpretation of Proverbs 22:15 - “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him.�
It further states: “Children are not little bundles of innocence: they are little bundles of depravity.”
For me, Family Integrity lost all integrity when they published that booklet.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
toad - I agree. The reliance on blindly following a religious doctrine rather than common sense is worrying.
However the reliance on blindly following a doctrine of ideology of no smacking rather than common sense is also worrying.
If smacking is going to be benned, you’d think proponents would be able to come up with some sort of evidence that it is harmful.
If they are going to take such a drastic step as criminalising most parents, you’d think there should be at least some requirement to prove it is a bad thing - apparently not - blind ideology is enough.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Gerrit - I’ve suggested a half-dozen or more things to get something else posted. I am WEARY of s59 and it’s all been said enough times that there’s no point in saying any of it again. Said my piece, addressed Sue directly… can’t do more really and shouldn’t try.
Except this is the thread everyone is stuck on and darned little more is showing up.
Barbara, thanks. That was a lucid and reasonable addition…
Toad.. I am an atheist and I know how arguable the interpretations are, but I also have no doubt whatsoever that the scripture is encapsulating some fairly important truths so that people can swallow them… and swallow them whole without questioning. Darwin hadn’t been born when that stuff was written but IMHO religions survive much in the same way individual organisms and species do. They provide for better or worse systematic behaviours of the society and the societies that survive are the ones that have the better behaviours. Christianity emphasized forgiveness in place of retaliation, and managed to put community ahead of individual “rights” in some respects. It placed a deity ahead of royalty, controlling the excesses of the latter but enabling excesses on the part of the high priests. It provides confidence in answers that may not be correct but are in many cases decent approximations.
As to making a statement of what children are, I am inclined to say “They are all different”… and reflect on “Lord of the Flies” as well as on the latest pronouncement of UNICEF that tries to equate them with adult humans.
The effective spectrum of behaviour is enormous and neither UNICEF, nor Golding, nor family integrity capture it in their singular viewpoints. I disregard them all as equally inaccurate.
respectfully
BJ
April 4th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
cops are now requesting modifications to their equipment in the guise of OHS
Padded handcuffs for resonable force in arrests
Viabrating handles in their battons to prevent RSI
Settings on their Tasors for stimulate, stun and kill
April 4th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Toad
Now you are being a little bit naughty, I provided a link that proved Bradford was telling lies and somebody deleted the post.
It seems that somebody in the Green world is afraid of the truth getting out.
frogmaster says - Absolute rubbish BB, we do not censor opposing viewpoints on frogblog, as is made crystal clear by reading some of the recent debates. Post your link again.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
big bruv - I’ve posted plenty of links to Sue’s comments that sound pretty radical and probably weaken rather than strengthen her arguement on s59….
….but Frog has never censored any - ever.
Try again.
April 6th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
# eredwen Says:
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:44 am
Good speech, Sue!:
Section 59 debate – psychological
1.It is clear that they see our attempt to repeal section 59 as an attack not only on their rights as parents, but also on their abilities to look after their own kids properly. I think they also often feel guilty, or are afraid of being made to feel guilty, by this attempt to change the law.
Guilt is a huge motivator, making people very resistant to change,
2. Before I leave the psychological aspect of this debate, there is one other matter that I think underpins some of what is going on here. It has been hard to talk about in Select Committee, and in public, because of its very nature, although a few submitters have raised it.
This is the question of the connection between sexual perversion and the beating of children and young people. Very few of us want to acknowledge it up front, but in fact the more I’ve been immersed in this issue, and the more I’ve heard groups predominantly made up of men proclaiming and lauding the right of adults to beat children, and in some cases talking or writing about t