The right to hit cats
At Tuesday night’s launch of the book Unreasonable Force, Labour’s Ruth Dyson threw out a challenge for a brave, true and god-fearing blogger to pick up.
She noted that at the moment, it is a criminal offence for ordinary god-fearing cat owners to hit, kick or otherwise beat their cats as a part of good pet correction. New Zealand has an appalling rate of cat abuse in this country and it can be traced to the breakdown in the pet owner-cat relationship. The government’s response has been to criminalise good pet owners who correct their disobedient cats with a light smack.
The real causes of pet abuse are that too many cats come from single parent families. Their mothers are often promiscuous, and young. Cat attendance at church has been falling for decades and the government has turned a blind eye.
So, now you can do something about it. Join my new lobby group, Cats First. Sign our petition calling on the government to restore the right of pet owners to hit their cats, by adding your support in the comments section below.
I, Frog, am calling on our community of bloggers and blog readers to pick up Dyson’s cause. 300,000 signatures and we can have the first blog-driven citizens’ initiated referendum. All Cats First needs is your support.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
i’m from/with ‘the dog-group’..
we have ‘issues’ with this..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
and..many of our members..
..eat frogs..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 21st, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Oh man, thankyou for that laugh frog. You’ve gotta admit something’s fishy when we want to have less legal protections for our kids than we do for our pets, right?
February 21st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Does this apply to mother cats?
February 21st, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Cat attendance at church has been falling for decades
That’s because we have better mousetraps.
What, people expected cats to believe in any divine being other than themselves?
February 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Only a frog that’s never observed a queen training her kittens would argue that smacking is anything other than a perfectly natural expression of love and affection.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Right, because clearly this piece is talking about cat parents, and not pet owners
Excuse me, I need to put this on my wall, right next to “Family Fist”.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
A cat is indeed a strange animal to use for this example, given that cats are the chief offspring whackers of the animal world
Cats don’t go in for naughty corners.
I like cats. You know where you stand with a cat.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“..You know where you stand with a cat..”
yeah..!..outside..!..in the servants quarters..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 21st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Dogs have owners, cats have staff…
Yes, I am part of a cat’s staff.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
As long as I still have the right to hit those who hit animals then I am all for it.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
>>in the servants quarters
Like I said, you know where you stand with a cat
February 21st, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I prefer to stroke pussys
February 21st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Comparing apples with pears of course.
Does this book take account of the findings of groundbreaking Otago Interdisciplinary Health and Development Study?
What is at issue is the assertion that it is never ok to smack.
One thing that separates the left from the majority of the population is the degree to which they detest their own society.
Red Green motto : Change Society, then the environment
The left stymie population policy (for example) as they cannot stand the idea of limits on immigration or the possibility that society will stay the same.
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:57 am
Ari said: Excuse me, I need to put this on my wall, right next to “Family Fist�.
In case anyone missed Ari’s “Family Fist” reference, it refers to this Mike Moreu cartoon - one of my favourites too!
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:35 am
When I first heard of Cats First, I mistakenly though it was a “Bring Back the Cat” lobby group.
As in ‘cat o’ nine tails’; ‘hardly room to swing a cat’ etc (at least I hope that’s the meaning in the latter expression, rather than a real moggy).
You know, some real and effective physical discipline, not this woossy ‘light smacking’ nonsense.
Might pass on “Bring Back the Birch” though - that has other unfortunate connotations.
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:08 am
Ask a cat. A gentle tap of the paw can be an effective method, in the right circumstances. Depends on the kitten.
We’re not talking claws here….
There’s a difference….
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:45 am
Opponents tag bill an electioneering stunt
“Green MP Nandor Tanczos dismissed the bill as “a new low in dog-whistle electioneering” which would not achieve its purpose.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=1049382 4
………Lila Hare remarked that the lack of condemnation of the “murder” of [?] left a “hollow feeling in your gut.”…………. The truth is people have had a guts full of what libertarians have on offer. “my freedom begins where yours ends” ..Rousseau.
What’s more the big issues are oil, house affordability (the financial institutions) and immigration to feed the property industry (with no eye on the quality of life or sustainability); the Greens have fluffed the chance to ride the winning horses in on those one, instead you’re riding the Smacking and Ahmed Zaoui donkeys.
El Leftos Extremos
ps Looking forward to Sues refutation of the findings of the (groundbreaking) Otago Interdisciplinary Health and Development Study.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I thought I’d let my cat comment here as I don’t think people should dictate to cats:
“Mewl. Purr purr. Mieow”.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Jh: Thanks for that link. What the hell has gotten into Act lately? They’re almost living up to their label as a Libertarian party again. Pretty cool.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
That translates to “Feed me now, else I’ll shred you”.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
People don’t have much liberty when they don’t feel safe Ari, what’s more it has been noted that “all this driving kids too school” started after the murder of Teresa Cormack. Let’s not confuse the Green Party with the environmental movement; the Green party demonstrates different priorities.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Boy Racer Bill Committee Stage (Rushed Through)
“Second, the bill is an unwarranted breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Ron Mark clearly has not listened. Again he has put up specious arguments. He said that the Greens were inconsistent for supporting impounding of vehicles for disqualified drivers, but has ha been pointed out, a disqualified driver is guilty of a quantifiable and clear breach of the law. Under this bill we are talking about someone having his or her vehicle impounded simply because an officer believes that person has committed an offence. ”
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech6174.html
tch, tch, tch, tch,…………..
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Is pro-beating lobby writing National’s policy?
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR11627.html
(Note the language from the Mother of the Nation/ Insightfull Socialist)
…………
“If you want to gather honey don’t kick over the beehive”
Dale Carnegie: How to Win Friends and Influence People
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Big Bro,
At last, I agree with you!
OK, so I, a little old lady, do not go around hitting anyone, but I sure as hell wish I could come down heavy on people who ill treat cats & dogs. We are dog people now, (3 smallish ones) but in my earlier life I served cats.
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
“OK, so I, a little old lady, do not go around hitting anyone, but I sure as hell wish I could come down heavy on people who ill treat cats & dogs. We are dog people now, (3 smallish ones) but in my earlier life I served cats.”
Haha, I can understand that too, Joy. Seeing people mistreat their pets makes me feel like applying some section 59 as well, even though I’d never do such a stupid thing.
“People don’t have much liberty when they don’t feel safe Ari, what’s more it has been noted that “all this driving kids too schoolâ€? started after the murder of Teresa Cormack. Let’s not confuse the Green Party with the environmental movement; the Green party demonstrates different priorities.”
Sorry, I don’t quite get what you’re saying to me here, Jh- let me try to explain my last post and see if that clears things up a little. I was referencing the fact that Act joined the Greens and the Maori Party in condemning the anti-tagging act as a PR stunt that restricts people’s rights to use spray cans for legitimate artistic or other usage that doesn’t vandalise property, while not making anyone any safer in reality, and offering no real extra effectiveness in stopping tagging compared to existing- taggers will either get other people to buy spray cans for them, or they’ll simply use other materials to tag with.
I don’t see how this makes anyone any “safer”, assuming that law is what you’re referring to. If we want to address crime, we should address the causes of crime primarily, rather than attempting to limit access to the means of crime or trying to make examples of caught criminals with harsh punishment.
The cause of tagging is a perception of disenfranchisement with the rest of society, that it doesn’t hear their voice. It’s little wonder given that we don’t even mandate teaching ethics/citizenship in school. For taggers, trying to stop them from tagging in this sort of hamfisted way (as opposed to educating them of alternatives and making them more easily available) probably seems like the equivalent to us of suppressing internet free speech, or confiscating a photographer’s camera.
And I also somewhat disagree with your assertion- some liberties come only at the cost of risk or discomfort. You risk unnecessary luxuries, such as excess money, to start a company. You risk your reputation to stand up for what’s right. You risk the subversion of the democratic process by allowing free speech. etc… The only risks we need to eliminate are ones that endanger human rights and social justice. Tagging, to my mind, endangers only property rights, which are a distant fourth priority to me, politically speaking.
I don’t disagree that other parties have made some commitments to environmentalism, by the way, but not only do I think that the Greens have the only policy that is anywhere near satisfactory in that regard, I also think that the Green movement in general shares a lot more of my Left-Libertarian values than any other party in New Zealand right now has shown themselves to.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
>>The cause of tagging is a perception of disenfranchisement with the rest of society, that it doesn’t hear their voice
I think there is a risk of over-intellectualizing tagging. I think it’s more a case of minors annoying elders, purely for the sake of it. A Clockwork Orange mentality. It’s only disenfranchisement as far as any teen is disenfranchised.
They know what they’re doing is wrong. That’s why they do it. Give the treatment that, deep down, they expect.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:32 am
The cause of Tagging is no different than the cause of dogs peeing on lampposts and fire hydrants. The tagger is saying “this is my territory” and for that reason, the fact that such a claim is placed either on our own property or on the commons in which we all must live, we instinctively object. No band of apes could mistake this behaviour and no individual human is well equipped to ignore the anxiety it brings in from the parts of the brain we’d like to ignore in our efforts to be civilized.
Taggers may defend their tags with their lives, and they may kill. Ordinary men may be pushed with no less effect, and kill as well. It can only be this way if it has a fundamental tie to identity.
They tag to claim territory. They need other ways to distinguish themselves and other ways to form an identity that the society can value. They are not limited to tagging either they are also vandals. Graffiti by contrast, is an art form. Not a great respecter of property rights either but far less threatening than the tags IMHO.
Not saying there aren’t a whole raft of things you can’t claim contribute, but the kernel of the problem is not logical… it is instinctive.
respectfully
BJ
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:37 am
How did the Police respond when the speed limit signs at the expressway end of Philpotts Rd were tagged? Catch the toerags that vandalised the signs? Nope, they sent four highway patrol officers (in 3 cars and a motorbike) to operate a speed trap. 19 Feb at 8.50am. Obviously the primary school complained about the increase in speeding but as usual the plods didn’t bother to investigate and just trotted out their standard “solution”.
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:05 am
Bluepeter: Kids don’t just annoy their elders because they can. I agree with you that people will push boundaries if they feel there’s nothing stopping them, but I’ve only ever heard people reason it out that they did it “because they could” in hindsight. Beforehand, people usually do things for the thrill of danger, because they think it will be fun, because they’re good at it, because it’s how they express themselves, etc…
I’m certainly not denying that actually enforcing the law here won’t help, or that one of the many motivations involved is rebellion against authority. (hello, that’s what “not feeling like you have a voice” is. You’ve not yet learned to function independently so you lash out to draw attention to yourself and to relieve the feeling of powerlessness) Just like there are many other preventative approaches we can take- which we’re not.
But we didn’t need the frankly insulting and demonising attitude towards youth that the “I don’t trust you with a spraycan, ever” message presents.
BJ- that’s certainly what the more hardcore element is doing, I agree. The hardcore element are only going to be stopped by better enforcement of the law, and really, is that a priority when people are still recovering from the murders over the summer? Best to focus on stopping people becoming taggers in the first place, imo.
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:05 am
jh said: Boy Racer Bill Committee Stage (Rushed Through) …
tch, tch, tch, tch,…………
And has this little piece of silly legislation actually worked to make the streets any safer?
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:31 am
jh said: ps Looking forward to Sues refutation of the findings of the (groundbreaking) Otago Interdisciplinary Health and Development Study.
JH, do we really ahve to go over that one yet again? Sue has nothing to refute.
What that study demonstrated was poorer outcomes for children who had been subjected to physical discipline than those who had not.
When the physical discipline was restricted to a level of “light smacking” the outcomes were about the same as for those who were not subected to physical discipline.
So the research did not show that there was any better outcomes among any of the groups of children who were hit, and showed significantly pooer outcomes for those subjected to more severe physical discipline. It therefore provides no justification for physical discipline or any sort.
And, of course, it is impossible to legislate for a “light smack”.
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:52 am
>>I don’t trust you with a spraycan, ever
I agree. That has to be one of the stupidest ways of not dealing with the problem, along with upping the fines on people who have no money.
I like Keys suggestion. Boot camps focused on education and, in this case, cleaning up tagging. There’s nothing a teen will want to avoid more than having their freedom curtailed.
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Toad, Why is it impossible to legislate for a “light smackâ€?? Because politicians aren’t university researchers and too stupid to be able to define “light smackâ€?? Even when the Otago study has provided them with a workable definition.
Or do you mean the lawyers who draft legislation would never allow that simple definition to be used? Good God, laws that everybody can understand! Heaven forbid that lwayers might only be able to afford a 5 series instead of a 7 series.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
It’s not impossible, of course. However, the zealots just don’t like smacking, and no correspondence will be entered into.
I think it would be interesting to keep a track on the rate of child-on-child violence from this point on…
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I love the irony that hitting cats is illegal but not hitting children. However, the name of your ‘movement’, Cats First!, sounds like it wants to make hitting cats illegal rather than changing the current law to make it legal. Now, i’m not for hitting any pets and especially any children, but maybe a name like “Cats before Children!” would be more to the point.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
“I like Keys suggestion. Boot camps focused on education and, in this case, cleaning up tagging. There’s nothing a teen will want to avoid more than having their freedom curtailed.”
Key’s suggestion is terrible. The “boot camps” only work so well right now because they’re voluntary, and kids go to them knowing that it is what they want to do to get ready for their adult life. Much better would be other such targeted educational initiatives that appeal to kids that fall through the cracks- and Labour is already investigating such programs and looking at funding them if no government equivalent exists.
That said, I do agree that making taggers clean up not just their own graffiti but other graffiti too when they’re caught is an excellent example of the kind of ideas that come from restorative justice- which is a key Green policy
John Key is way behind and has ideas that only appeal at all because New Zealanders have this morbid fascination with punishing criminals as hard as we can, despite the fact that it just doesn’t work.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Actually BP, I would propose that we simply put EVERYONE through basic military training… every single one of us learns which end of a rifle is which, how to do basic first aid and basic communications protocols and procedures, and the basics and value of military discipline. That keeps it from being a “punishment” and does some other things as well. I think most of them are useful.
respectfully
BJ
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
BJ: The issue with that is that it takes people out of the economy and out of higher education for however long your basic training takes. If it’s short and can be done in a couple of months tops, then this doesn’t impact society too much, but take out even a year for basic training and it slows down people’s entry into society pretty significantly.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Ari, I know a number of OECD countries have compulsory military service. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that it creates any of the problems you mention in those countries.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Why not reward taggers by tattooing the tagger’s tag on their forehead? If they are really proud of what they are doing they will want to be recognised by the entire community, so it will be an unusual reward rather than a cruel and unusual punishment. That way there’s no civil liberties issues.
February 24th, 2008 at 12:22 am
I think 6-9 months would do it. It isn’t painful once the initial shock to the system is managed…the kids come out at the same rate they go in, and at the same rate they would were it not there, but just a little bit more ready for the world. An extra understanding of what they really want, a chance learn something more about themselves, and a bit of respect for others of different backgrounds to their own. .
February 24th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Ari,
“but take out even a year for basic training and it slows down people’s entry into society pretty significantly.”
Totally disagree with your statement as the time spent doing basic training will INCREASE their entry into society by teaching self discipline, self reliance, personal responsibility, respect for others, how to operate in a team environment, etc., etc.
I think if all 17 year olds were to do a years basic training, society would be far far better place.
Part of the basic training regime would be driving tests so that they would know how to handle a motor vehicle correctly. In fact raise the driving age to 17 and only issue licenses after the basic training.
Not sure how you would cover new immigrants for driving tests, but I’m sure there is a way.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Kevin said: Toad, Why is it impossible to legislate for a “light smack�? Because politicians aren’t university researchers and too stupid to be able to define “light smack�?
Chester Borrows attempted it, by proposing an amendment requiring that it didn’t cause or contribute to harm that is more than transitory and trifling, didn’t involve the use of a weapon or tool or other implement, and wasn’t inflicted by any means that is cruel, degrading or terrifying.
There are several fundamental flaws with a definition such as this:
1) What may not be be cruel, degrading or terrifying for one child may well be for another. How is the parent to know, in advance of the inflicting of the punishment, the emotional impact of the punishment on the child?
2) It is possible to give a “light smack” with an implement, and also possible to give a severe beating with an open hand.
3) It assumes that a parent will know, before the inflicting of the punishment, whether it will cause harm that is more than transitory and trifling. A physical punsihment inflicted on a 10 year that does not cause harm that is more than transitory and trifling may well cause substantial harm if inflicted on a 1 year old. How can parents be expected to know the extent of the harm it will cause until after it is actually inflicted?
4) It permits parents to raise the justification defence of “correction” after the event, when their motivation at the time of the event was actually anger or frustration.
These are the type of difficulties you get into if you attempt to define the extent and nature of physical force that is permissible for the purpose of correction. If the Borrows amendment had been passed, good parents could have faced prosecution in some circumstances, while in others abusive and violent parents would have been able to mount a successful defence.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Kevyn: I didn’t mention any consequences, so I don’t see how you can refute them
I’m more pointing out that it causes social costs in that people have less time to save for houses and so forth. The issue is really whether the form of compulsory service you’re aiming for is more value than the time you take to complete it- ie. the program needs to be productive and time-efficient.
Toad: Nice reply, good summary of what I think about Chester’s old proposal, too. There’s also a fifth point:
It defines a level of violence against children that is acceptable. It’s generally bad practice to lay out what actions are explicitly legal, and better to define actions that are explicitly illegal. That approach caused a lot of different potential problems with the proposal, including the following:
* Will unacceptable violence then be excused because it’s seen as similar to acceptable violence? We’ve already seen a slippery slope collapse under “reasonable force”, so it’s possible that the interpretation of acceptable violence might broaden. Is a glove an implement? What about scratching someone with fake fingernails? etc… can lead to troubling broadening of the law in this sort of case.
* It allows very disturbed individuals to commit violence with the intent of very minor abuse with full protection of the law, if they are well-informed about the limits of the defence of violence for parental correction. Abuse is bad in and of itself, not just because of any physical harm it may inflict- the souring effect it can have on families, the psychological issues it causes, etc… are very real and tragic consequences of abuse.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
ari, I didn’t refute any of the consequences you didn’t mention. I simply said there wasn’t any evidence that any of the consequences you didn’t mention were actually happening.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Yep, missed that one Ari. I agree.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
And just posted over at Kiwiblog 30m or so ago:
So why don’t you spankers try singing Aerosmith’s “Back in the Saddle� with the line “Back with the Paddle� if you’re really bored. Puts whole new context on it for spankers, whip percussion and all!!!
Not that many of us blokes can hit Steven Tyler’s high notes.