Section 59 Update
The Parliamentarians have popped off for dinner, after a surprisingly demure series of speeches on the Crimes Amendment Bill. Sue’s was typically simultaneously measured and passionate (read it here or listen the the audio) and included references to the despicable business with that paragon of free speech and direct democracy, cyfswatch. This has garnered an awful lot of media attention, but Sue is determined to shine a light on such behaviour, not be intimidated. Not to mention what it says about some of the people who are so, so desperate to retain their ‘right’ to hit their offspring….
One of the best speeches so far has been surprisingly, (well, this frog was a little surprised), Brian Connelly of New Zealand First. A moving and personal speech, Donnelly described his journey of discovery as a teacher following the outlawing of corporal punishment in schools.
Frog’s racing off to bask in the dappled media spotlight, will be back post-vote - expected to be about 8.20 tonight!
February 21st, 2007 at 8:30 pm
My take on the vote tonight and the way ahead is over here
February 21st, 2007 at 8:41 pm
How do Greens feel about a piece of legislation that 87% of parents do not want introduced?.
What gives Bradford the right to tell us how to rise our kids?
The politicians (and the Greens in particular) do not have a mandate from the people for this, the level of arrogance is breath taking.
Is this not just another example of nanny state getting involved in our lives when it is not the need?
I fully intend to ask my local MP what way they intend to vote on this issue, if they do not vote against this bill I will never vote for that MP again.
It strikes me that the Greens are using this piece of legislation as a way of saying to the electorate “see we can be of influence in the NZ political scene”, the issue of political influence is now more important to the Greens than protecting children from child abuse.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:59 pm
People that stab their kids don’t stop to think it is against the law.
Using “reasonable force” as a defence has hardly ever succeeded, and you need to ask Russel what he thinks of the jury system when they examine those cases and have an in depth look at the evidence and circumstances.
And if he is still not convinced the jury will get it right, we could help by defining “reasonable force” so there is no question that violence, as opposed to discipline, is abhorrent to all.
With this bill, no kids will be saved from abuse, but some over zealous social worker will remove a child from a loving family, on suspicion of a smack. When that day occurs, I hope the politicians who vote this in can take a careful look at what they have done, at the anguish they will cause that child and family, and reconsider.
When it’s happened several more times, as it did in Sweden, will they have the integrity to face up to their actions.
That is my honest, heartfelt opinion.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Zen
I was not surprised to learn yesterday that Bradford has been telling lies again when it comes to this piece of legislation.
Apologists for this bill often quote European countries as the example we should be looking to as evidence of a no smacking law being the way to go.
I think it is Sweden that has one of the worst records for child abuse and smacking is illegal in Sweden where as Holland has the least cases by far.
Guess what is not outlawed in Holland.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Heard Sue B on radio this morning, think she came across really well - must be really stressful getting this close to getting a private members bill through without the support of a large staff.
Don’t know whether it passed second reading. I assume so. But whichever way it went, she’s done a damn fine job so far. Congrats.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Damn good job at what Pip?
So far she has done nothing but tell lies and half truths.
As soon as i hear one Green PM use this legislation as an example of what the Green party can do in cooperation with the govt then I will know for sure that this is not about child abuse at all, it is all about getting the Greens some recognition and turning thousands of parents into criminals.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:26 pm
b.b…as you well know..you ran away from this question..
(hence..i am surprised to see you trying the same ‘line’ on again..)
let’s see if/what zen does ..eh..?
one simple question zen..stay focussed on it..
can you explain to us why those countries that haven’t hit their children since the mid-fifties..
and have higher taxes/strong social support systems.. (that’s the thread b.b. ran away from..eh..?..)
why the children from those countries came top in that survey recently..
the one that evaluated how well different societies care for/protect their children..?
remember..that one we did/do so bad at..?
what do you think we are doing wrong zen..?..(bottom..weren’t we..?..)
(keeping in mind the no-hitting/strong social support of those countries..)
i await with interest your reasoned response to that specific question….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 21st, 2007 at 9:30 pm
A damn fine job of steering a bill through parliament, not an easy thing to do for small parties who have to persuade people to their position.
A damn fine job of doing that with a piece of legislation which provides opponents plenty of soundbites, even though most of them are not backed up by anything particularly substantial.
(”I think Sweden has one of the worst records for child abuse” - I want people like you to make social policy)
You might know it for sure, but it doesn’t mean you’re right. Plenty of people are wrong about things they know for sure.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Pip
I note that you did not mention Holland who have the least cases of child abuse and they do not ban smacking.
Anyway that is not my point, I want you or the Greens to tell me what right they have to force a piece of legislation on the 87% of parents who do not want it?
That is not a sound bite that is fact.
And if you want sound bites then listen to Bradford, she has some classic ones, nothing based on fact of course but the are good.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Pip
One more thing, and trust me on this, my idea of social policy would be your worst nightmare.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Phil
I did not run away I just find it tiresome to try and decipher your “contributions”
I assume you are not including Holland in your surveys Phil?
Bruv (outofcontrolegowhoar.co.nz)
February 21st, 2007 at 9:51 pm
i don’t doubt that for one moment..b.b..
so..given that..what are you doing here..?..if not trolling..?
b.t.w..feel up to answering that question yet..?..b.b..?
that one zen is wrestling with..
do you think..that like you..he will run away from it..?
he might even echo you..and claim to be ‘unable to understand’ what i am asking ..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 21st, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Perhaps you might be so good as to answer the question Phil.
What right do the Greens (or any party) have to introduce this legislation when 87% of parents do not want it?
February 21st, 2007 at 10:01 pm
big bruv, the bit I noted was that ‘you thought’ - didn’t do any checking - I suspect you would be one of my worst nightmares because you are obviously willing to make policy on guesswork and anecdotes - that’s not a smart way to make policy.
I didn’t comment on Holland because I don’t know whether they have the least cases of child abuse, nor do I know whether that is a product of their law - perhaps they don’t need one. On the other hand, I think you’ll agree that we don’t have the lowest number of child abuse cases.
So maybe you could explain why the difference between the abuse rates of Holland and Sweden should have an impact on our legislative process.
And why that would be more useful than, say, a correlation of countries which do not allow parents to defend assault charges with the excuse that they only assaulted their child with generally lower rates of abuse.
Or whether abuse rates dropped after the removal of the right to assault children.
But if you can give me some solid stats, I’ll think about it.
I’d be interested in a discussion about direct democracy. I’m not sure this is the time or place. Let’s just say this is one reason I oppose binding referenda. Haven’t checked, but is that 87% a Stuff poll?
Anyway, see it has passed second reading. Congratulations Sue.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
yeah..bottom line..b.b..it’s a done deal…
no matter how much you scream and wail..eh..?
and i think you got that 87% somewhere off the top of your head..eh..?
you are a big believer in ‘just repeat the lie’..eh b.b…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 21st, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Pip
You did not comment on Holland because it does not suit your argument but the answer to your question is simple.
Holland has the lowest rate of child abuse stats and they allow smacking, it is not I who introduced the Europeans as the people to emulate it was comrade Bradford.
Using Europe as an example (Well socialist Europe anyway) is another example of the lies and half truths this bill encourages and leads me to think that there is an ulterior motive to all of this.
Passing this bill will not make one little bit of difference to the child abuse stats in NZ and the Greens know that.
Not ONE child who has died at the hands of abusive parents would have been saved by this law.
You suggest that I would make social policy based on guesswork when Bradford is doing exactly that with this bill, if she (and the Greens) were honest about this they would come out as say where the real problem lies in NZ with child abuse, you know where it is and I know where it is yet NOBODY is going to say it.
I am interest in your comments about binding referendum, why you would be against this interests me greatly, surely in any democracy (apart from NZ) the majority should rule….but perhaps thats a subject for another day.
Now please somebody……what gives Bradford the right to go against the wishes of 87% of the parents in NZ?
February 21st, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Phil
Ha ha..shall we talk about lies?
Paintings, Doone, Field, Speeding, Benson Peep, etc….
I am afraid that I am not in the class of this govt when it comes to repeating a lie.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:27 pm
come on b.b..you can do better than that can’t you.?
just the old paintergate/speeding red herrings..?
(that’s a bit of a blo*dy disappointment..eh..?..)
would pa-thet-ic pretty much cover it..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 21st, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Pip
This might help
Sweden experience is a warning to us
Child abuse increased 489% in 13 years following ban
Assaults by kids against kids increased 672%
2000 Swedish Govt report - “we see no tendency to a decrease in bullying at school or in leisure time during the last 20 years”
Sweden’s Foster Care rate is double NZ’s - twice as many kids being removed from their families
European Crime and Safety Safety - UN, Euro Commission - published this month - Sweden has one of the worst assault and sexual violence rates in EU
And the lies and half truths…
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 particualry like this one from Sue Bradford “The rate of child homicide & in Sweden is something like one every 4 years”..now that wins an award for the out and out lie of the year.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Phil
No answer then aye?
Oh well, i would expect nothing more than personal abuse from a left wing nutter when faced with an argument he could not win.
Sleep well.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Given the Greens concern for children I thought this piece was inter sting as well.
Are the Greens serious about stopping child abuse?
2003: P (Methamphetamine) reclassified as a Class A drug - only the Greens opposed
2006: Opposed an increase to the Drinking Age
2005: Intentional Possession of Child Pornography (the worst of child abuse) -Only the Greens opposed the maximum penalty being 5 years - wanted it lower at 2 years
2007: Want to decriminalise Marijuana
SOFT ON THE REAL CAUSES OF CHILD ABUSE YET THEY WANT TO CRIMINALISE PARENTS WHO GIVE THEIR KIDS A SMACK
A good piece I thought.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Hi Big Bruv,
Isn’t it called Parliament?
Any Private Members Bill can only pass if it gets the majority support of the house.
The fact that so many MPs from other parties (yes, even National and United Future) support this legislation can hardly be described as the Green party ramming unwanted legislation down the throats of the overwhelming mass of opposed New Zealanders.
Go on, fess up - that bogus 87% figure you’re quoting is from the NZ herald website eh? Cute trick not to disclose your source lest everybody laugh at once.
Check out the really scientific and unbiased way they framed the issue to get that result:
“Should it be legal for parents to smack their kids?” - answer, overwhelming yes.
I’d really like to see them have the courage to ask an equally oversimplified and loaded question like: “Should it be legal for parents to beat their kids with a length of four by two?” and see what response they get to that. That’s just one example in Napier last year of a case successfully defended on the grounds of reasonable force.
And the kids who are brought up in these dysfunctional hones Big Bruv? Any care fro them? If they end up on those crime statistics it’ll be all their own fault and their own choices eh? nothing to do with a culture of violence toward children in some parts of our society.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Bro, it’s good etiquette to quote, and even better, to link, to your sources. For the moment, I’m presuming you’ve pulled your Swedish stuff out of your *rse.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:38 pm
I’ll give you some help, Bro, by linking a relevant site :
http://www.nospank.net/durrant2.htm
You’ll find, if you pay attention, that it’s a question of reporting, not of number of incidents. As long as people generally consider that it’s OK for parents to hit their children, the rate of reporting of child abuse is very low. Once the law changes, more and more people consider that it’s unacceptable to hit kids, and police and social services are suddenly inundated with reports.
The same has happened with respect to sexual abuse of children. When cases are highlighted, and public discussion takes place, the reporting rate rockets up. It’s not because more incest is suddenly taking place, it’s because people are at last daring to come forward and talk about it.
Children need to be protected. Sometimes, sadly, children need to be protected from their parents. Would you dob in your neighbour if he regularly beat his kids, Bro? I would.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Also : You called Sue B a liar because she said that the rate of child homicide & in Sweden is something like one every 4 years. You haven’t provided any alternative statistics. Put up or shut up eh Bro?
The page I linked above supports her number :
Child homicides attributable specifically to physical abuse (excluding homicide-suicides, neonaticide and postnatal depression) are virtually non-existent in Sweden. Between 1976 and 2000 (the most recent year for which statistics are currently available), a total of 4 children died in Sweden as a result of physical abuse.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:05 am
interesting how b.b ..despite being asked to produce the source of his wild statments/bullsh*t..just can’t/won’t ..eh..?
as i noted earlier..he..like many righties..
just follows the dictum of ”lie early..lie often..”
(and then just repeat..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
and still no answer from him or zen..?
figures..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:27 am
Sue Bwadford talks about “misinformation:, somebody point to the place where the case for and against repealing S59 is clearly laid out (and I’m not impressed by parlimentary speaches, which are more about who is who than following logical thread):————–
From the earlier debate on Frogblog (as I recall) it was an issue of S59 works well except that “sometimes juries stuff up badly”. My concluion was that this wasn’t about S59 itself but was aimed to send a message for society that leads to behaviour which will have the same effect as: children can’t be changed at swimming pools in public, older men musn’t be seen talking to children etc, etc.
The study about the best funded….? that some of you keep reffering to; this is all rather shoddy referencing. Where are the studies? Are they peer reviewed? Are the conclusions unanimous.
The “Greens” get the “credit”; Labour provided the troops………….??????
jh
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:30 am
Those idiots who threatend Sue Bradford scored an “own goal” (and Russel made use of it(above)).
jh
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 am
Is there that much difference, from the childs perspective, between a grab and a gentle slap? Why should one be a criminal offence and the other not?
This bill is state interventionist nonsense that won’t do anything to prevent child abuse. This is Bradford et al insulting parents, effectively saying that parents can’t tell the difference between a gentle slap and smashing someone over the head with a baseball bat. Only the state can?
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:52 am
Phil, at 5:05am you say “still no answer … from zen”
I only have time to spend a few minutes every now and then at Frog blog. I’m really busy at the moment, but happy to return and respond to your questions as soon as I can fit it in. You may wish to address mine in the meantime.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Under Sue Bradford’s law.
You and your child are in a supermarket, the child wants a drink which is sitting on a shelf in reach of your child, you happen to be trying to locate on another higher shelf the normal brand of a item your partner has asked you to pick up for them, for a single moment your attention is not on your child, they grab the drink from the shelf open it and start to drink before you realize whats happening, you realize and of course naturally you are very upset at your child’s not only lack of respect for your authority over them, but also toward the owner of the store you happen to be standing in, you take the drink of your child of which as a upstanding citizen of New Zealand you are now obligated to pay for, and as a result your child gets a nice big hug and told that everything is ok.
Or you slap your child around the ass tell them they are totally wrong and you are very upset with them, which is then seen by a person who agrees with Sues anti-smacking law 100% she gets on her cellphone calls up the police and reports the incident, there just happens to be a policeman in your local supermarket area/mall and they meet you outside where you are arrested for abuse and your child removed from you.
The police MUST investigate any complaint made to them even if they believe that complaint to be false or a waste of time, and if the law is found to be broken they do not have a choice in which laws they can and can not proceed to prosecute, they must act within the bounds and reasons of the letter of the law
Sue says that the police will not prosecute in such circumstances she is wrong
This law is about Sue believing her way of child raising is the best and only way, she is attempting to force parents to raise kids like she does.
Well Sue one of your kids committed suicide, thats the best indicator of what sort of parent you truly were
February 24th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Djrobinson has repeated an identical post on both Section 59 threads.
Therefore I am repeating my REPLY to that post … on both threads:
I am surprised at the story you tell …
You write: “Under Sue Bradford’s law.�
(Not a “law�. Sue is asking for the removal of one “section� of a law because lawyers and child care experts say that “those words are not being understood in the way that the people who wrote the law meant them to be understood.�
Some children in this country are being SERIOUSLY beaten, and the people who do these beatings are getting away with it! This is why this law needs fixing, (and taking out those words will fix it.)
You write: “You and your child are in a supermarket … for a single moment your attention is not on your child …�
Most of us have “been there done that�! … and NO the child does NOT get a nice big hug and told that everything is ok. HOWEVER to “slap your child around the ass tell them they are totally wrong and you are very upset with them� is NOT the best way to deal with the situation.
It seems from the responses in the media that we need to have more “Parenting Skills�… TV programmes, classes, groups, courses in schools etc …
“a person who agrees with Sues anti-smacking law 100% �
… might come to the help of the busy shopper and spend some time entertaining the child. (I often do!)
I don’t know where you got the idea of …�she gets on her cellphone calls up the police and reports the incident, there just happens to be a policeman in your local supermarket area/mall and they meet you outside where you are arrested for abuse and your child removed from you.�
(Were you thinking of attacking the child with an axe?)
“The police MUST investigate any complaint made to them even if they believe that complaint to be false or a waste of time … �
… as they “must� under the law as it stands now.
However, (and this is what the proposed amendment is about) under the current law PEOPLE WHO DO ACTUAL PHYSICAL HARM to children ARE GETTING AWAY WITH IT ! Prosecutions taken against them fail, because of the the wording of that section of the law. To stop this from happening, the law must be amended!
We should all “be on the same side� … making sure that ALL our children are safe, and helping parents and caregivers to have the support, the knowlege and the skills to do this important task!
February 26th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
BrianS asked this over on NoRightTurn, & I’d be interested to hear from the regulars here. So far, the response on NRT has been utter silence …
“If smacking is assault then time-out is imprisonment.
So, to be consistent, time-out should be banned. But I don’t see anybody here calling for this.
Why not?”
February 26th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Phil U - I haven’t forgotten my reply to your questions, I just haven’t had the time to put into this yet. I’ll get there.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Why not?
Dunk : Because nobody is contesting the right of parents to constrain the liberty of their children. What we contest is the right of parents to cause pain and physical harm to their children.
So the analogy has the market value of a bucket of spit.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Duncan Bayne said: “If smacking is assault then time-out is imprisonment”
The days are long gone that it was acceptable for adults who were convicted of crimes to be flogged. But they are still imprisoned. Depriving a person of his or her liberty, be they an adult or a child, as a consequence of anti-social behaviour is acceptable to society. Beating an adult is not acceptable as punshment, so why is it that the law condones beating a child as a punsihment? Simple as that.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Toad
Even I can’t be completely certain that public flogging or stocks would not be more effective and less damaging than imprisonment for some criminals. “Shaming” is a powerful way to tell us social animals that we’ve done something that is anti-social. Also, that is the “official” punishment line.
Most small groups will engage in beatings or shaming of some sort when a behaviour needs to be extinguished quickly and memorably. I observed this on a gasoline tanker with the behaviour that needed to be extinguished being smoking.
As for the child, we are not discussing beatings. Nor whippings.
This society is not IMHO, ready to take the step to completely remove spanking from the parental repertoire of methods to modify behaviour. It may reach that stage after a generation without the farm implements and with appropriate parental supports (more than exist now).
The question of whether this is a useful thing to do is open, given the Swedish results.
respectfully
BJ
February 28th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Alistair
I am not so sure, for the analogy being drawn is between punishments. Not demonstrating that the law we are proposing to change is about imprisonment but questioning why it is not. That follows too, from the wording of the UN document on which this is all based, and asking why it is excluded while spanking is included is actually quite legitimate IMHO, given the basis on which this furore is all predicated.
I can accept that we aren’t doing it, but the question of WHY we aren’t is a valid one. The effective reasoning would be exactly and completely the same.
respectfully
BJ
May 18th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I have been a caregiver for state wards (or cyfs kids) for several years now. Many of these children come from good homes, with educated, wealthy parents. All but one have had parents who have never “smacked” their children. Yet these children lie, cheat, steal, are disrespectful, rude, selfish and irresponsible.
The reason for this behaviour? They were put in “time-out”, so they absconded. They had privelidges removed, so they went to a friends house. They were not allowed to have something they wanted, so they stole it. When this occurred, well-meaning social workers organise family group conferences where the child is asked “how do you feel?” and other trite and ineffective questions. Basically - these children did not have consequences, therefore, do not have respect for anyone at all.
Policy dictates that all state wards recieve pocket money each week, regardless of their behaviour (ie: caregivers are not legally allowed to suspend these payments if the child has misbehaved or refused to do their weekly chores). They are also entitled to new clothes every three months (paid for with our taxes), and if they decide not to go to school or are expelled, they are sent to glorified babysitting services where they spend the day swimming, bone-carving, watching movies and sitting around smoking cigarettes. I liken this to prison, where inmates are treated to SKY tv, free gym memberships, free food, rent and power, while the rest of us eek out a living and are also confined to home and work due to lack of disposable income to entertain ourselves anyway.
From the point of view of a parent and a caregiver I am appalled at the absolute ignorance of those behind the smacking bill.
Congratulations - you have just given New Zealand’s future criminals yet another opportunity to disregard the expectations of the rest of society, and another excuse for their disgusting, disruptive and damaging behaviour. Now destructive adolescents have another law to hide behind, which will protect them from what they truly need - a bloody good spanking!