well I have never equated a smack with violence, not once, and certainly not twice, because I don’t personally believe that a smack is violence. Re-read what I wrote and if you can find where I did that I’ll eat my hat or apologise for using misleading words.

My whole point in saying “Violence against children being treated in the same way as violence against adults - doesn’t that seem sensible to you?” was to try and get across the point that if section 59 is repealed, then the laws against violence against people will be equal if the recipient is adult or child. It was not to say that smacking a child is violence.

If you smacked an adult, would they report you to the police? Would the police follow it up? I hope not because it is so minor. If you smacked a child would anyone report it? Would the police follow it up? I hope not, because it is so minor. But if you beat up an adult or beat up a child then that is violence.

I would say that it is you pro-Section 59ers who are equating a smack with violence against children, not me.

Actually the main reason I stopped replying was that I figured that this thread had turned into a you said I said you said I said thread that was going nowhere and of no interest to any other readers.

However, if I have to clear my name…

Keith: I didn’t provide a reading list expecting you to go and read the articles. I simply provided my references for the assertions I made. It’s good practice to provide references and presumably if I hadn’t you would have accused me of making my facts up.

Dave: I’m not a “real nutter”, and I would ask you to remain civil and maybe you can try and understand that people can hold different views from yourself and still be intelligent.

I’ve given up replying, its pointless, lets just let it drop until it is studied by select committee eh?

We come back to the Greens trying to push the bill through on the basis it is not about banning smacking. Going from the comments here, it certainly is. Smacking = Abuse and Violence, so it must be banned.

Instead of LYING about that stand, the Greens should at least have the integrity to say that is EXACTLY the agenda, rather than trying to hoodwink the fence sitters.

Then the debate might be a bit more honest.

S194. Read it sometime. Read Bradfords bill. it says “The use of force on a child may constitute an assault under section 194(a) of the Crimes Act.

So now I expect a public statement from you stating that repealing S59 will mean a smack is a crininal offence under S194 or a complete explainatin as to why it won’t be.

GO on. I dare you.

e seem to be going somewhere with this discussion. Indeed, what section of the Crimes Act will legally permit smacking if the bill goes through unaltered?

Given that adults would then have no defence using a smack as a disciplinary measure, the same section of the Crimes Act which allows charges to be laid if one adult smacks another would apply to an adult smacking a child. The effect is criminalisation of the action, to be defended in court. The effect in Sweden was an increase of 489% in reported abuse cases and an explosion in social workers - something like 300,000 workers from a population of 8 million.

>you are absolutely right that there will be nothing in the crimes act that “will legally permit smacking if the bill goes through unaltered�.

>Smack…Hit…Not so different.

>What section of the Crimes Act will prohibit smacking if the bill goes through unaltered?

We seem to be going somewhere with this discussion. Indeed, what section of the Crimes Act will prohibit smacking if the bill goes through? Given that adults have no defence to smack a child as a disciplinary measure, can we ask what section of the Crimes Act allows charges to be laid if one adult smacks another? Therein would lie your answer.