bjchip Says:
April 4th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
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.
—————————-
If smacking is going to be banned, 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.
—————————-
Well said!, what’s wrong with the Green party?????????
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
jh

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

phil u Says:
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..?
…………………
How about starting a wiki?
What is Section59 of the Crimes Act?

Why do some people want it repealed?
_ They claim guilty people are escaping conviction
– Is it an attempt to ban smacKing?
Is smacking harnfull?

Why do some people want it amended?
What amendments have been suggested

jh

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Astonishing Recommendation By Parliamentarians

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

A newly-released report on youth sexual health, prepared by the cross-party New Zealand Parliamentarian’s Group on Population and Development (NZPPD) has highlighted New Zealand’s high teenage fertility rate as a major concern and recommended increasing benefit levels and extending assistance to a younger age.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell was astonished by the recommendation.”The link between teenage birth and the availability of benefits is obvious to those people who live and work in the communities where rates of teenage birth are highest. Increasing benefit levels would have the opposite effect to what the Parliamentarians are trying to achieve.”

“Teen parents frequently are, or become, single parents. European research released late last year, based on a sample of 6,580 single mothers, showed that the level and availability of benefits corresponds to the number of lone parents. Where benefits were increased the number of recipients went up.”

“The Parliamentarian’s report also claims that, ‘poverty is a major issue for teenage parents as little or no benefits are available until they reach 18.’ ”

“This is simply untrue. Sixteen and 17 year-old teenage parents are eligible for the Emergency Maintenance Allowance which pays the same rate as the DPB. At June 2006, 612 single teenage parents received this benefit. A further 2,947 single teenage parents received the DPB.”

“So the recommendation is not only flawed but based on misinformation. Increasing benefits to teen parents is not the way to reduce the teenage birthrate.”

ENDS

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

This may help you out with the libel suit BB:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjBKFKc2igU

jh

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

# 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 the right methods of administering the rod and so on, the closer the unspoken connection gets.

Personally, I have no problem with sadomasochism carried out between consenting adults using safe sex practices – what I do have a problem with is a legacy of hidden sexual violence practised on children and young people under a mantle of so-called discipline.

Section 59 of the Crimes Act, has been protecting the perpetrators of a vicious mix of sexual and physical abuse for generations, and I don’t want this forgotten. I just want it stopped.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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.â€?

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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 ]

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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-Claesson
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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)