Euphemisms
It’s funny the debate was meant to be about removing a defence against the criminal assault of children. But opponents didn’t like that language so instead we spent a lot of time talking about “smacking”. Now we’re being subjected to a further amendment of language away from the actual legal definition of what we are debating. It now seems that what opponents to the removal of s 59 of the Crimes Act want to talk about is “good parental correction”. (I’ve never smacked to correct a parent, how does that work?)
Yup, next year we all get to vote on the following topic:
“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
…and the answer is, ‘it always was’. What has changed is that the defence of reasonable force has been removed for parents. Which is not to say that there are no other defences. There are all the remaining defences laid out in section 59 along with all the defences that keep you safe from day to day as you go about assaulting non-children-type people by patting them on the back, pushing past them on the bus and squeezing in next to them on the elevator.
Anyway, should the referendumers get their way it will make for interesting court cases around the definition of ‘good’ parental correction. (How ‘good’? ‘Good’ like icecream that brings a smile to your face or ‘good’ like christians who want to do unto others as they would have done unto themselves?)
August 25th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Most people know what the question means Frog, it is a good question as it isn’t asking about how the law should be changed but just what people want the end result of any change to be - whether they want parents to be able to smack their children or not. Nice and simple.
The only problem I have with the question is that it is negative - if you want to smack your children the answer is “No” and if you don’t want to smack the answer is “Yes”, which could make for a few people voting the wrong way if they don’t read it properly. But this is a minor problem.. Overall it is a good question.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Off-topic, but related.
Oil price drops 5.4%. Biggest drop since 2004.
I know you usually like commenting on the oil price Frog, but have been quiet of late. Do you think this indicates supply is meeting demand?
August 25th, 2008 at 11:30 am
>>It’s funny the debate was meant to be about removing a defence against the criminal assault of children. But opponents didn’t like that language so instead we spent a lot of time talking about “smacking�.
The Greens defined it. In their own press release: http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844
Historical revisionism now Frog?
August 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Mr Dennis said if you want to smack your children the answer is “No�
Well, that reveals a lot about the agenda that I’ve always suspected has been there, but few will admit to - those parents who want to smack their children! Not about whether they should have the right to smack their children, and if so in what circumstances, but about them wanting to smack them. A bit like wanting frog’s icecream to bring a smile to your face, eh?
August 25th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
A New Plymouth solo mother has been accused of using a home-made whip to repeatedly punish her three-year-old son.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4663854a12855.html
Good Parenting? Haven’t heard the Silly Sausages Trust on this one.
3 years old, eh? Guess he’ll think twice before picking his nose again. Or whatever he was doing that required a few doses of ‘good parental correction’.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Mr Dennis! ‘ Overall it is a good question ‘
Please tell me you’re not serious. Please! You’re just trying to provoke debate, right??
August 25th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Kids are not adults toad, some people actually understand that.
The real question is do children require a different status in society to ensure they become successful adults.
The greens believe that children are the same as adults as soon as they are born.
This is some of the most stupid logic I have ever seen grown adults engage in.
Smacking is a very important to the development of some children, it can litterally save their lives.
Like always the left wing social experiments will ultimately end in the deaths of innocent people just like bio fuel experiment.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Dangermoose
If you can’t tell the difference between a smacked bottom and beating a kid with a whip there is probably no hope for you. As per usual the left have to demonise ALL oposition to maintain their flawed position.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Blue Peter
“The Greens defined it. In their own press release: http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844”
I wonder how long that will stay on their website
Place bets now!!!
August 25th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Shunda - you use ’stupid’ and ‘logic’ in the same sentence then go on to establish a concrete link! You are foolish to generalise with,
“The greens believe that children are the same as adults as soon as they are born”
It’s very careless to paint all and sundry with a broad brush like that, and weakens all of your arguments. Especially when you are clearly wrong.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
# BluePeter Says:
August 25th, 2008 at 11:28 am
> Oil price drops 5.4%. Biggest drop since 2004.
> I know you usually like commenting on the oil price Frog, but have been quiet of late. Do you think this indicates supply is meeting demand?
I would guess it’s due to a drop in demand. Perhaps a drop in demand for petrol for cars in North America due to the end of the holiday season, and a drop in demand for diesel for construction machinery in Beijing, because of building projects being finished in time for the Olympics. Because people react so little to changes in oil price, and most oil fields are now running at full capacity (have been since 2004), a small change in demand can have a big effect on price. Welcome to the age of oil price volatility.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Shunda barunda said:If you can’t tell the difference between a smacked bottom and beating a kid with a whip there is probably no hope for you.
Problem is, Shunda, that there seem to be a hell of a lot of parents out there who can’t.
And where do you draw the line? What about the parent who uses “reasonable force” each time - but uses it 20 times a day? What about the parent who uses a wooden spoon or the “rod of correction” advocated by Family Integrity:
“Little bundles of depravity”, is that what you mean by “kids are not adults”? I have to say I’ve never met a kid who is a bundle of depravity, but have met plenty of adults who are.
And greenfly, unfortuantely I don’t actually think Mr Dennis is just joking or trying to provoke debate. He is a Family Party candidate, so I suspect is dead serious.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Oh is he! Thanks Toad, for the ‘heads-up’. Mr Dennis - for God’s sake man! The big, on-going shake up over rights (who needs to be given them and who needs to loosen theirs to make room for those who have missed out) is the adventure of our era. If you are ossified/petrified by the changes that are occuring, you are in for a lot of pain in the days ahead. Suffer the little children eh!
August 25th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Where my comment go you censorship freaks?
August 25th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
d4j said: Where my comment go you censorship freaks?
Probably where it belongs!
You do need to mind your language here. This is not Key wee-blog.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Oh sorry Toad, I forgot that the greens think they’re morally superior to everybody else.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
If I was a Mallard duck then I could smack my opponents in the face without any consequences and if I was a smarmy Maharey I can say the naughty f word in the so called highest court in the land. Yeah right, light up again Nandor.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Shunda barunda said: Smacking is a very important to the development of some children…
Yep, it can teach them that “might is right” and you ususally get you own way if you use or threaten physical force. Very important indeed!
August 25th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Shunda - smacker - big, smackee - small. What do you do when a small person smacks you? Smack them back? Where do little smackers learn to smack? The hardest smacker wins - is that what you believe?
August 25th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I’ve always wondered, why do smackers favour hitting children on the bottom? Really. Is it because it hurts more there? Because it is the child’s ‘personal area’, because they can’t see it coming? Hitting from behind? Pent up annoyance for all the nappy changing that went on earlier? Can any smack-favourer cast some light on this for me?
August 25th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
**comment deleted by moderator**
August 25th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
dfj -what!!!?? are you being nasty to someone?
August 25th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Nasty or truthful, remember people shouldn’t live in glasshouses if they enjoy throwing nanny state stones.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
yes he is..
..kick him to to the kerb..
..frog..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 25th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
**comment deleted by moderator for personal abuse**
August 25th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
d4j..
..why don’t you go away and learn some more lines..?
(can i recommend ‘the oxford history of insults’..?..)
..even your ‘best efforts’ are getting terribly over-used..
..eh..?
..and any shock value is long gone..
..aand they are just kinda ’sad’..eh..?
..are you still hanging out with those other social pariahs..?
..parking wardens and screws..?
..you need to get out more..
..eh..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 25th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Why aren’t you back on kiwiblog spraying the place with your insane rhetoric?
August 25th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Ari makes a good point in a post on this topic today over at g.blog.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
My guess as to the choice of the buttocks for application of smacking is that a smack to the torso has the potential to cause severe internal injuries, a smack to the leg or arm has the potential to break the bones and a smack to the head doesint help with learning math whereas the worse, physically, that can come from smacking, with ones hand, the buttocks is a haematoma, though if you use a spoon or cat-of-nine-tails then you can add infection and blood loss to that, lol.
I think that a smack when used as part of correction for the greater benifit of the child, and not motivated by parential anger, and administered by hand to the buttocks should be perfectly fine. The problem lies in drawing the line.
though, as for teaching that violence is the way to get what you want; i dont know. I was smacked most of my childhood and downright bashed afew times but ive never used violence to get what I want, I cant even bring myself to inflict injury apart from in some pretty extremme cases, so i find the whole violence thing dubious, I think smacking is a useful tool for young children, but then again maybe im just ‘desensitized’ to the ‘trauma’, lol. could explain my might-makes-right view of society though.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
greenfly said
Because the end result can’t be seen. Smack a child on the arm or leg and the red welt is there for all the world to see - and the bullies wouldn’t want that now - would they. They’d rather hide their cowardly practice.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
If by “the same as” you mean “deserve at least as much protection from violence under the law as”, then yes, we generally do.
There is no reasonable force defense for assault for adults. Technically, a rugby tackle, a playful tap on the arm, a boxing match… all of these are assault if you interpret the law literally. Why do parents deserve a special defense under the law when the existing methods work so well for everyone else in society?
Quite. If there were a good legal test we could do for those qualities, I’d be happy for assault to be decriminalised in those circumstances. But that’s an entirely different argument than reasonable force or transitory harm.
There’s actually studies that suggest that this is the case- ie. you’re more likely to view violence as acceptable if you’ve been systematically beaten by someone in a position of authority. Pretty freaky stuff.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Ari,
Indeed, that is why I stated it, lol.
A good legal test? I didint know there was such a thing, I mean to say they are all so utterly dubious!
August 25th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
It’s funny the debate was meant to be about removing a defence against the criminal assault of children. But opponents didn’t like that language so instead we spent a lot of time talking about “smacking�.
……………………………………..
“Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill”
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844
So Sue Bradford is your opponent Frog?
========================================
Whose gonna protect the rights of children not to have their upbringing meddled with by Sue Bradford?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin_Multidisciplinary_Health_and_Deve lopment_Study
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
August 25th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Quite. If there were a good legal test we could do for those qualities, I’d be happy for assault to be decriminalised in those circumstances. But that’s an entirely different argument than reasonable force or transitory harm.
………………………………
That’s where juries came in under the old system. Opponents of smacking used some cases as “proof” it didn’t work. Of course they weren’t there to form an opinion
================
There’s actually studies that suggest that this is the case- ie. you’re more likely to view violence as acceptable if you’ve been systematically beaten by someone in a position of authority. Pretty freaky stuff.
…………..
Not many people would be surprised by that but (of course) people opposed to social engineering by the Green Party aren’t thinking in terms of “systematic beating”. Systematic beating conjures up images of what an authoritarian puritan might have done; a close step before what might be considered actionable abuse. Let’s just make it illegal to smack in case there is “systematic beating”. The modus operandi doesn’t work unless you take care of that small detail : the smack. Unfortunately (and despite your efforts) there is no firm evidence that smacking (as understood by the NZ population) is harmful. If smacking isn’t harmful and the naughty mat isn’t always a better way and children aren’t all the same then you are just meddling and if you rooster this up who will trust you?
Then on the other hand your hand were tied due to the “non violence” principle of the Green Charter no?
August 25th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
14/08: Intervention checklist….
It seems many parties both in N.Z. and the world are at present in need of remembering the five things any politician must be able to do before intervening:
1. Show there is a problem
2. Show that it is material and compared with what is it material
3. Show that government can actually fix it or improve matters
4. Show that government can fix it better than other alternatives including hold fast
5. Show that the cost of government fixing the problem is materially less than the cost of the original problem
http://www.brentwheeler.com/
August 25th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
The greens opposition to smacking is simply the forcing upon the NZ population their particular THEORETICAL humanistic idealogy. It is wraped up in a nice “protect the children from abuse” wrapper but is nothing but social engineering by people who believe they know best.
It is also a convenient attack on the christian population, who the greens seem to have utter contempt for and is a display of political bigotry of the highest order.
Sue Bradford and her friends have become the very thing they fought so hard against. Listen to the will of the people indeed.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
The Greens determination to close the loophole that allowed some parents who assaulted their children to avoid justice … (try that as a sentence starter Shunda barundra.)
August 25th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
There was no loophole. It was claimed some juries “stuffed up”, although even if that was so those parents were hauled through the courts.
The whole issue was sold in the sure knowledge that smacking was wrong and that meant you didn’t have to worry about where to draw a line.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
jh - Loopholes are seized upon by lawyers whose brief it is to win the case for their clients. There was a sizeable ‘hole’ that allowed the aforementioned parents to avoid conviction for assault of their children. Sue’s bill closed that.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
jh: the juries didn’t “stuff up”.
They applied the law according to their subjective interpretation of it - eg beating a kid with a hosewhip is okay if they believed the kid’s bad behaviour justified it.
That was the problem with the former law. It related to parental subjective determination of what was reasonable - not to an objective determination.
The current law gives the Police disretion whether to prosecute or not, and Ithink that is a good idea. The Police make up their minds, given the facts, whether a prosecution is justified, whether the parent should be given a warning or whether their is no case to answer.
The current law looks like good law to me! Can anyone gove an example in the last 12 months that has gone through the courts to suggest otherwise.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
jh: the juries didn’t “stuff up”.
They applied the law according to their subjective interpretation of it - eg beating a kid with a horsewhip is okay if they believed the kid’s bad behaviour justified it.
That was the problem with the former law. It related to parental subjective determination of what was reasonable - not to an objective determination.
The current law gives the Police disretion whether to prosecute or not, and I think that is a good idea. The Police make up their minds, given the facts, whether a prosecution is justified, whether the parent should be given a warning or whether there is no case to answer.
The current law looks like good law to me! Can anyone give an example that has gone through the courts in the last 12 months to suggest otherwise.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Sorry for the first one. I inadvertently posted it when intending to spell/grammar check. A bit embarassed here, because I gave Sapient a lecture a couple of week ago about spelling.
And now have stuffed up myself, dn double posted to try to avoid anyone noticing.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
And toad, may I point out that you got your spelling wrong in the second and third posts also. lol. I welcome spelling/grammar corrections so long as it is not used as part of an ad hominem arguement.
I think in these particular cases the problem lies more with the judge not cautioning the juries and the politicians not making decisivly worded legislation than with the juries themselves; the week, flimsy and open wording of our legislation being a particular specialty of New Zealand politicians, unfortunatly.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:29 am
IMHO hitting children to teach them a lesson only reflects poorly on their parents’ ability to raise the child.
Being hit as a child made me resentful and angry with my father (only my father hit me, my mother does not believe in such practices) at the time. In retrospect what I gained from the experience was a serious vow never to use violence to discipline my children…or any children (or adult) for that matter. And a deep disrespect for my own fathers’ lack of self-discipline and anger management.
As a child it quickly occurred to me that being hit, smacked or beaten is not only severely degrading to your confidence, it is psychologically and physically abusive. Often you cry uncontrollably afterwards, you feel utterly violated by someone who is supposed to care for you and teach you with love and understanding.
There’s little telling how each individual child will deal with such abuse.
It was additionally confusing when my mother told me as a child that, my father hated himself for hitting us, he was sorry, didn’t mean it…etc etc…
Luckily for me I also realised that when I was smacked it was more to do with my father being angry about something (I made him angry), than something I had done having terrible consequences. He was angry with the kids for whatever reason and therefore took out his anger on us.
I’d be interested to know more about people’s childhood experiences of being hit by parents… after effects and adult/childhood views etc.
TO THOSE WHO ADVOCATE SMACKING - Would you happily stand by and watch someone else (friend, teacher, aunt ETC) smack your child? Or is this a holier than thou, only I may use violence against my child situation?
Do you think you physically ‘own’ your child? or do you believe they are little individuals and it’s your job to raise and care for them until they can care for themselves?
I have a great deal of dislike for such loaded questions as the one chosen for the petition and subsequent referendum on section 59.
“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?�
The use of the word ‘good’ parental correction is misleading IMHO. If smacking was to be tolerated in society is should be thought of as anything but ‘good’ parental practice.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I also dislike loaded questions ash, but I’ll try answering yours anyway.
“Would you happily stand by and watch someone else (friend, teacher, aunt ETC) smack your child? Or is this a holier than thou, only I may use violence against my child situation?”
For generations teachers did have the right to smack children, perhaps you would argue that this was a reflection of their poor teaching abilities, that now that smacking is banned in schools the teachers are now more competent?
How I reacted to someone else smacking my children would depend on who that person was, how much confidence I had in their judgement in caring for my children.
“Do you think you physically ‘own’ your child? or do you believe they are little individuals and it’s your job to raise and care for them until they can care for themselves?”
Obviously the latter, but raising children does sometimes involve disciplining them, they are not adults with adult responsibilities, so we as adults interact differently with them than we do with other adults.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I’ll quote my post re referenda generally, and this one in particular, over at gblog.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Toad and Sapient
It is very rude to comment on people’s spellling or grammar on the internet.
This is not literature.
peace
W
August 26th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Andrew, I see your point. Though I do believe that corporal punishment whether at school or at home is equally deplorable. Past practices such as physical punishment in schools have been phased out for good reason.
Basic human rights ethos applies to each of us, no matter our physical age. Giving others the right to beat, hit or smack us is not included. It is downright oppressive.
…”Obviously the latter, but raising children does sometimes involve disciplining them, they are not adults with adult responsibilities, so we as adults interact differently with them than we do with other adults.”
Disciplining does not inherently include violence. There are plenty of ways to teach a child discipline/or discipline a child that do not include physical abuse.
Of all the ways that we treat adults and children differently - why is it acceptable to purposely inflict pain on a child when he or she is doing something bad and not an adult?
Don’t you think hitting is bad practice and can be traumatising for a child let alone an adult?
August 26th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
ash
“Disciplining does not inherently include violence. There are plenty of ways to teach a child discipline/or discipline a child that do not include physical abuse. ”
NAME THEM.
I bet most of these parenting experts don’t even have kids.
Toad said a while back smacking is good for teaching“might is right� I assume in a negative context.
Well toad and other psuedo children rights activists, this is actually probably the single best reason to use smacking.
Children need to learn that if you take on a bigger person than yourself you will probably loose.
They need to learn that cars and big mack trucks don’t care about childrens rights.
They need to learn that their actions are directly linked to all those around them.
Obviously if a two year old decides he is going to fearlessly take on the whole world some one has to moderate his ambition.
A strong willed two year old in full flight is a sight you never forget, a strategic smack on the bum can literally save his life.
I care about the well being of my wonderful children enough to teach them boundary’s, I don’t want them to learn it at 16 running a red light cause some ignorant pc hand wringers think they have got parenting sussed and remove my right to efectively dicipline my kids.
STICK TO THE ENVIRONMENT
Leave the parenting to the experts.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
‘Leave the parenting to the experts’ Shunda - and when those parents are Green, like me???
I don’t whack-em.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
# toad Says:
The current law looks like good law to me! Can anyone give an example that has gone through the courts in the last 12 months to suggest otherwise.
……………….
And do people feel free to smack in a public place if that is their choice and if not have they been convinced that your side is right or do they feel that they will be singled out? Remember the evidence that smacking is harmful is “equivocal”.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Well greenfly I hope your kids aren’t the type that use their unrestrained tempers on other kids.
ALL of the family’s I have met, and I mean all, that don’t use smacking have kids that are abnormally violent towards other children.
My son was recently taken to hospital from one such child who almost took his eye out with a blunt force blow to the head and resultant deep laceration, within 2 days of being back at school he was attacked by another kid with a pair of scissors, my son is 6 years old.
If you think this sort of shite is acceptable then there is no hope for our children. I know at least one of these kids parents dosn’t believe in smacking, I suppose the kid was just expressing himself?
You forget the rights of children not to be assaulted by other children.
My kids are not violent like these neglected kids are, cause I have taught them not to be, WITH A SMACKED BOTTOM.
I think the real child abusers are those that use their children to promote bizzare political ideology, its disgusting actually.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Greenfly:
“I’ve always wondered, why do smackers favour hitting children on the bottom? Really. Is it because it hurts more there?”
Mainly because it hurts LEAST there. The point of smacking is not to hurt per se, but to reinforce boundaries. Smacking in the place of the body least liable to be injured or hurt much is therefore best.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Ash:
“TO THOSE WHO ADVOCATE SMACKING - Would you happily stand by and watch someone else (friend, teacher, aunt ETC) smack your child? Or is this a holier than thou, only I may use violence against my child situation?”
As Shunda has said, it depends who it is. But for example I would be quite happy for my son’s uncle, aunts, grandparents or greatgrandparents to smack him if they felt he had done something serious enough to require it.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:23 am
As I have pointed out elsewhere, it is now technically illegal to even physically restrain a child and force them to sit on a naughty mat. Please explain how you can discipline a violent child without breaking the law.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Shunda barunda and Mr Dennis,
As a teacher I have had more encounters than most adults with children of all ages and levels of discipline. I have never had to smack a child to teach them anything and I never will.
Here are the most effective ways that I have found to discipline children minus the obvious and very effective refusal of privileges.
Actually talking to them truthfully - explaining the situation clearly and what they may have done and why it is not acceptable. Talking to the child about why he/she did what they did in an open and understanding way.
Get them to make amends for their mistakes, though the amends needs to relate in a logical way to their offence. i.e. if a child hits another child..or steals.. he/she can be made to agree to make amends to the relevant person he/she offended.
If the child is old enough he/she can spend time writing out the event as it happened and why it was wrong. What he/she can do to make it right.
Despite what you may say, from my experience these methods foster responsibility for one’s actions, understanding, humility through amends and honesty as the child knows that he/she is under no threat of physical violence from the parent. These methods should/will take longer, require more patience and understanding than resorting to violence.
Smacking promotes none of these qualties and accepts that parental violence against children is acceptable practice. A smack does not help a child to understand anything but a warped sense of violent punishment for wrong-doings.
Shunda barunda said:
“Children need to learn that if you take on a bigger person than yourself you will probably loose.
They need to learn that cars and big mack trucks don’t care about childrens rights.
They need to learn that their actions are directly linked to all those around them.
Obviously if a two year old decides he is going to fearlessly take on the whole world some one has to moderate his ambition.
A strong willed two year old in full flight is a sight you never forget, a strategic smack on the bum can literally save his life.”
(if your kid is that much out of control then you seriously need to asses your parenting skills, their diet or who they are spending time with - as thats exactly what it reflects on)
Teaching children these things through smacking is archaic and violent. Reminds me of a korean student who lived with me once, he told me students in Korea are sometimes beaten by teachers- who repeat to the student “I beat you because I love you!” Sick twisted version of educating children - and it’s no different to the kind you’re advocating.
I can teach kids all the things you’ve listed and much much more without any desire to inflict physical pain, why can’t you?
Could it be that your parents smacked you and you thought ‘I turned out OK’, ‘If I am OK then, my kids will do good from the odd smack’. The fact that so many people can’t help but continue with their parents violent parenting habits shows how inept so many of us are at parenting. Needless the say the daily headlines tell all…
ps: if my two year-old was trying to ‘fearlessly’ take on the ‘whole’ world, I’d certainly want to help and offer some good advice, not smack him/her down into submission.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Mr Dennis said:
“As I have pointed out elsewhere, it is now technically illegal to even physically restrain a child and force them to sit on a naughty mat. Please explain how you can discipline a violent child without breaking the law.”
Where can I find out exact details about this claim Mr Dennis?
August 27th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Section 59 (following Sue Bradford’s amendment) states:
Now, Mr Dennis, it seems to me to be perfectly clear that restraining a child to force him or her to sit on the naughty mat and similar activities are activities that are “incidental to good care and parenting”, so fall within the justification provided by section 59.
There has been a lot of deliberate misinformation spread about section 59, Mr Dennis. Are you a victim of it, or a perpetrator?
August 27th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
shunda - my children have modeled their behaviour from their mum and dad, who don’t hit out when they are angry or frustrated or for any reason at all. We are all pretty good at managing angry/agressive people too, but not through striking them.
Mr Dennis - ‘the point of smacking is not to hurt’ - surely you jest? Have a wee think about that. Is a ‘painless’ smack going to be effective. Is a smack that doesn’t cause shock on some level going to do any good?
August 27th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
What Ash is saying is that there is always a better way than smacking but I think that he has cherry picked. What your up against is personal experience of parents who you lot seem to assume are backward.