by Sue Bradford
Today’s Herald reports former All Black coach Sir Brian Lochore as saying, ‘Yes, I smacked my children, but I’ve never hit them. Yes, I smacked other peoples’ children, but I never hit them.’
In making these comments to a Parents Inc breakfast attended by more than 1000 fathers, Sir Brian is repeating the common fallacy that somehow ‘smacking’ or ‘spanking’ someone is not hitting them.
How can this be? I would love to know how he’d feel if a grown man ‘spanked’ or ‘smacked’ him on some dark Auckland street tonight. I rather suspect he would see it as an assault, on both his person and his dignity.
Well – that is exactly what any form of whack, tap, smack, clout or other assault is on any human being, whether baby, child or adult.
Sometimes when children are whacked or smacked they are badly injured. Sometimes they are killed.
James Whakaruru, for example, died in the name of toilet training.
That is why so many individuals and organisations who work with children and families put so much effort into supporting the passage last year of my bill which ended the right of parents to legally assault their children in the name of child discipline.
We believe that babies, children and young people deserve the same legal protection from violence as adults enjoy.  Â
IÂ am looking forward to the ongoing debate which is going to occur in the build up to next year’s referendum.
I just hope that at some point in the process I will get the chance to publicly debate with Sir Brian Lochore his odd but all too commonly held belief that smacking people is not hitting them.
Published in Health & Wellbeing | Society & Culture by Sue Bradford on Wed, August 27th, 2008
More posts by Sue Bradford | more about Sue Bradford
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
...
Ms Bradford
How interesting that you use the case of James Whakaruru, once again you are suggesting that your bill is going to stop child abuse and the untimely deaths of children.
Shall I list all the kids killed since the introduction of your bill?
You have NO credibility and you do yourself no favours when you use emotive language such as “people against this bill want the right to beat their kids”, that Ms Bradford is another outright one can add to the long list of lies you have told during the section 59 debate.
The facts are Ms Bradford that your bill is not about stopping child abuse at all, it is all about the state gaining control of our kids and the state gaining control of our families.
When you are looking for employment in December you would do well to remember the way you rode roughshod over the views and wishes of 82% of the public.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>>The facts are Ms Bradford that your bill is not about stopping child abuse at all, it is all about the state gaining control of our kids and the state gaining control of our families.
Would you have the same attitude, BB, to a bill that outlawed causing animals unnecessary pain? Surely, by your argument the state should not interfere with how a pet or animal owner chooses to ‘trains’ that animal?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sue Bradford,
>>Well – that is exactly what any form of whack, tap, smack, clout or other assault is on any human being, whether baby, child or adult.
And you’re demonstrating the fallacy that a child is treated the same as an adult.
I take it you’ve never picked up an adult (child), shut an adult (child) in their room, sent an adult (child) to the naughty chair, or physically manhandled an adult (child) to remove them from harm?
Perhaps you should outlaw these practices as well, on exactly the same basis?
We look forward to that, Sue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There are laws that outlaw cruelty to animals (they are pathetic but they do exist) so your point is not well made.
There were also laws that guarded against child “beatings” as you well know, Ms Bradford claims (spuriously) that her bill would stop child beating and child abuse when it was clear that this was never going to be the case.
Ms Bradford’s bill is all about state control and it is all part of the Greens and Labours “death by 1000 cuts” approach to social change and social engineering with the ultimate goal of the state controlling our kids.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I use different language around my kids than I do adults, is this violating their human rights?
Sometimes I pick up and carry my children, I don’t do that with adults is that a violation of childrens rights?
I don’t debate politics with my young children.
I don’t alow my 2 year old to drive.
My kids don’t have to work for their food.
My young children don’t even have to go to the toilet themselves .
These are all things that are absent from adult to adult relationships.
How absurd for Sue Bradford to think child dicipline or smacking is any different.
Nice to see Sue admitting the bill was really all about smacking tho!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I find it strange that through out this debate we have constantly had people making the claim that children=adults and that they some how have the same rights so on that note I guess Sue must support child labour since if children have the so called rights of adults then we should be putting 4 year olds in factories so they can earn money and take care of themselves as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Naa turnip
You would just get the standard green “FLIP FLOP”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Some people define hitting as a blow to the face, or as a kick, or a punch to the body, or the use of a weapon. Whereas they describe a smack with the open hand to the hand or buttocks as a smack. It is that simple.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good post Sue. Xavier Goldie has started a simliar thread over at g.blog.
Before this gets to frenetic, please read the wording of the curent section 59 of the Crimes Act, and tell us what specifically is wrong with it:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I find it strange that through out this debate we have constantly had people making the claim that other claim that children=adults.
We are talking about laws relating to violence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Same old garbage. Not worth reading.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Of course the idea of human rights for all including women and children is not universal. Some countries still marginalise women from full equality as this callenges a patriarchal culture and of course the idea of children having rights might limit the authority of parents over them.
The problem is that while most support the right of the child to be free from assault, they so not see some force (smacking) as inapproriate for children. Personally the idea of a parent or step parent or guardian smacking a child reaching the age of puberty sems questionable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>>Shunda: I used different language around my aged mother (suffering from dementia) than I do other adults, is this violating her human rights?
Sometimes I pick up and carry my mother, I don’t do that with other adults: is that a violation of my mother’s rights?
I don’t debate politics with my mother.
I don’t alow my mother to drive.
My mother doesn’t have to work for her food.
My mother doesn’t even have to go to the toilet herself .
These are all things that are absent from adult to adult relationships.
… Does this mean that it’s OK for me to discipline my mother by smacking her?????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You don’t send an adult to the naughty chair.
You don’t give an adult time out
You don’t pick up and adult and remove them from a situation.
I look forward to Sue remaining logically consistent and banning all of the above immediately.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BuePeter said: You don’t send an adult to the naughty chair. You don’t give an adult time out. You don’t pick up and adult and remove them from a situation.
Actually, we do, It is called “prison”l.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP, is that your idea of logic ?
What about debating the actual law instead of using cheap diversion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Are you going to apply the same logic to children? Are you going to pretend that children should be treated the same as adults?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>the actual law
Because, as Bradford continues to demonstrate, this law is about removing a parental method of disipline some people disagree with.
I’m saying if you’re going to remove one on the basis you wouldn’t do it to an adult, then at least be consistent, and remove them all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
spc said
“Personally the idea of a parent or step parent or guardian smacking a child reaching the age of puberty sems questionable.”
Absolutely, this is beyond the age that smacking should be used.
TOAD
Why did you list that?
All the physical force the law alows for is basically leading your child out of the room if they are threatening to kill someone!!!
GET A GRIP
It is clearly stated that any physical contact for the sake of correction is outlawed.
Police discretion could be influenced by just about anything.
Stop turning this into a child welfare issue, which it is not.
Be honest for once about the ideology behind it.
It would seem that inspite of the greens best efforts to smear good NZ parents as idiot child beaters no one is buying it.
It stems from the greens paranoia that NZ familys are like some back water mid west USA towns folk or equivalent thereof.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am talking about answering toad question
… tell us what specifically is wrong with it:
59 Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kjuv
Is your mother an adult or a child?
How strange you would use an adult with a disability as an argument.
try again
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Stop turning this into a child welfare issue, which it is not.
Educate me.
Tell me what is the purpose of this law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said:…this law is about removing a parental method of disipline some people disagree with.
It is actually about protecting children from abuse. Plese read the current s 59 of the Crimes Act I have posted above, and tell us how you would like it to be changed, and why.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
And it clearly FAILS to protect kids from child abuse.
It was never about child abuse at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda: No need… The onus is on you to break the analogy. To say in defence of your argument that my mother is an adult begs the question
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>about protecting children from abuse
The law was working fine as it was. *Some* people slipped through the net, as they always do.
However, by redefining the law, you catch good people in the dragnet. You could only be happy with this balance if you disagree with smacking as a disipline method.
What are you annoyed by? The fact we see through your facade, or that you failed to win the argument with the public? Both?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh and how convenient that in addressing “child abuse” Sue just so happens to quietly do away with a form of parenting that she has been very out spoken against.
This is a battle of ideologies.
You insult the intelligence of everyone on this blogg to suggest otherwise.
First points to the greens
Rematch sometime next year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Um, BluePeter (and Shunda), is the “cat o’ nine tails” an acceptable method of child discipline in your opinion?
If not, where and how do you draw the line?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m puzzled by Toad and Presse-puree posting section 59 in the apparent belief that we don’t understand the implications of the law; that somehow the intent of the law isn’t to ban the use of physical force on children for the purposes of correction, when clearly that’s exactly the intent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Um, BluePeter (and Shunda), is the “cat o’ nine tailsâ€? an acceptable method of child discipline in your opinion?”
Once again you assume I am stupid, is a bullet through the head acceptable brain surgery?
Stop the smear tactics and debate the facts
Tell me how many people used S. 59 as a successful defence in the 15 years before Bradfords bill?
Then tell me why the cost of passing Sue’s bill was the best use of govt money to reduce child abuse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Can we let Sue Bradford and the Greens out of that for a moment ?
(Just a reminder : only seven MPs voted against the amendment)
Let’s talk about the law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why do all these people who opposed the repeal of Section 59 want to hit children? Can’t they find someone their own size to hit? Or are they so gutless that they have to pick on children?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ok Shunda, then tell me now that this text is law,
why we should spend govt money to organize a referendum.
if your answer is “because i find this law bad”,
just explain why.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“where and how do you draw the line?”
Obviously not the same place as you.
Toad, do you consider carrying a child to the naughty chair and forcing him/her to stay there an acceptable form of discipline? If so, why to you support a law that makes such an action a prosecutable offence?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah! I think we are punishing the kids enough by leaving them a rotten environment! Hell on Earth! And some people don’t believe in Original Sin???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>why to you support a law that makes such an action a prosecutable offence?
That’s not the case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew W: I do not.
You are a victim of the propaganda that has been spread around by the likes of Mr Density on this issue.
I refer you to my post earlier today responding to this specific question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well well…all those who thought that S59 was not going to be an election issue sure made a big mistake.
Over a year has passed and this topic is still the one that raises the most passionate debate on Frogblog.
It is going to hurt the Green party come election day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“That’s not the case.”
Perhaps you didn’t read this bit:
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Oh come on!…I did not expect you of all people to play the “loony religious right” cheap shot card.
You are far better than that mate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps you didn’t read this bit:
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the USE OF FORCE for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Ok Shunda, then tell me now that this text is law,
why we should spend govt money to organize a referendum.
if your answer is “because i find this law bad�,
just explain why.”
BECAUSE FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND INFORMED KIWI’S ASKED FOR IT!
It is their money and they asked for it to be spent, its called democracy.
You really do not help your cause with such foolish talk.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No Toad you’re wrong, “the Police have the discretion not to prosecute” that doesn’t mean that force – any form of force isn’t a prosecutable offence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andre W: Read it more carfully. Reasonable force is acceptbale if it incidental to the purpose of correction.
It becomes unlawful if it is used in itself as the means of correction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
michaela said
“Why do all these people who opposed the repeal of Section 59 want to hit children? Can’t they find someone their own size to hit? Or are they so gutless that they have to pick on children?”
Please raise the bar a bit, this pathetic manipulative rhetoric is beneath you and everyone else here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry if i didn’t express myself very well.
It was a too convoluted.
Let me rephrase : what’s wrong with the actual law ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
stop, don’t do it, please don’t expect me to believe that, I know you are more intelligent than that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oops, sorry about the spelling mistakes. Had to do something else midway thru post, and forgot to spell check it before posting when I returned to it. Sapient will no doubt chastise me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB Says: Over a year has passed and this topic is still the one that raises the most passionate debate on Frogblog.
It is going to hurt the Green party come election day.
I’m sure you are right, BB. Wasn’t it Ibsen who said ‘The majority is always wrong”? (and indeed ‘The Minority is rarely right’). Not to mention that other well-known saying: “The country gets the government it deserves’. Ooops, I did mention it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>> FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND INFORMED KIWI
We only know that they were FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND KIWI.
The INFORMED part is at your discresion
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Presse-puree, nowhere in that quote does it mention smacking, hitting or any definition of what type of force is referred to.
As you have highlighted, all use of force is illegal.
Physically forcing a child to sit on a naughty chair IS FORCE.
Physically forcing a child to go to their room for time out IS FORCE.
Physically restraining a child in ANY WAY is FORCE – and therefore illegal according to the plain wording of this Act.
Now, Toad and Presse-puree, can you please answer AndrewW’s question – why do you support a law that makes time out style punishments illegal if the child is physically resisting it?
And how are we supposed to discipline our children, legally, if we cannot use time out and we cannot use physical punishment?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Presse-puree: I suspect many were delberately misinformed, as Andrew W, Mr Dennis and Shunda (even though the last of these seems to be clever enough to normally see thru the bulls**t and interpret the law itself, but apparently has not in this case) have demonstrated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Presse-puree said
“We only know that they were FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND KIWI.
The INFORMED part is at your discresion”
Unbelievable arogance, this is not the American midwest my friend, NZers are generally up with the play.
But by all means stick with your argument, you are certainly pissing a lot of people off and come election night we will see just how many.
You certainly motivate me to do all I can to make this an election issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew W :
My bad, i misread your first post about naughty chair.
i misinterpret the “forcing him/her to stay” (in french we
can be use the verb to force without implying the use of force)
To answer : for me, if you use force , it’s not called the naughty chair
anymore
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis – let’s go there again I suppose, on this thread, even though it is exactly the same as I said on an earlier one (see my post above quoting the legislation):
It is 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 defence provided by the current section 59.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad, please answer the question rather than just insinuating that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda barunda says: You certainly motivate me to do all I can to make this an election issue.
And meanwhile the planet is haemorrhaging. What a fine sense of priorities!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad I have read Sue Bradfords opinions on smacking, child rearing, and parenting in general. I have researched the ideologies behind such beliefs and I can clearly see a dual purpose to this bill.
You are asking an awful lot for me and other concerned parents to overlook the obvious double agenda being displayed here.
Lets debate the ideologies on their merits not try and sneak one past the goal keeper which Sue has (very cleverly) done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“And meanwhile the planet is haemorrhaging. What a fine sense of priorities!”
I bet I am doing more to reduce carbon than you KJUV.
How many trees are you growing?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for the explanation Toad. It is a matter of personal discretion whether a particular incident is incidental to good care and parenting or not. The wording of the Act is ambiguous and open to criticism in the same way that you criticise the referendum question.
I see your point, but the Act is still open for a parent to be prosecuted for physically restraining a child for the purpose of correction, and in fact this is the most logical interpretation in my mind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis: I did answer Andrew W’s question “why do you support a law that makes time out style punishments illegal if the child is physically resisting it?”
I answered it by stating that Andrew W’s interpretation of the legislation is incorrect, and that doing that is completely lawful.
But I guess this is not a battle of legal interpretation, but one of propaganda that has no regard for what the law actually says.
If not, please let us all know why you think the law should be interpreted differently from my interpretation above.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda : You are the one that accept INFORMED as truth.
The predicate 400 000 kiwi sign a petition is true
The predicate FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND INFORMED KIWI’S ASKED FOR IT has to be proven true
It seems that we are intelligent people here but we can really agree on
what the actual law mean. How can you say that those 400 000 kiwi
were informed when most of them just agree with one line of
text on a petition. most of them did probably not read the law
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fine sense of priorities indeed
We are debating a green party bill on social engineering on the greens web site, and I am the one with the wrong priorities?
bwaa ha ha ha h ahaaahaaaa!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
…we can’t really agree on…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Presse-puree
I am staggered that you think it is possible that the majority of those 400 000 didn’t know what they were signing.
This issue was very well covered by the media, it is completely reasonable to assume that the vast majority of those people understood exactly what this bill was about, you seem terrified of real democracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>And meanwhile the planet is haemorrhaging
So why are the ***Greens*** messing around with anti-smacking bills?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand”
the wording of this petition doesn’t seem biased to you
(hint : good)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog, this is why I feel my interpretation is correct:
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
Because subsection (3) states explicitly that my interpretation is correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Presse-puree said
““Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealandâ€?
the wording of this petition doesn’t seem biased to you
(hint : good)”
So what?
If you take the word good out it makes no difference, I refuse to believe that people are that stupid. People could see it was banning a form of parental dicipline by stealth, I am sorry but Kiwi’s are smarter than the greens counted on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry Frog, I meant Toad. Late at night!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The force is not use in the purpose of correction.
The correction his the naughty chair.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis said: It is a matter of personal discretion whether a particular incident is incidental to good care and parenting or not
No, Mr Dennis, it is not, You have misinterpreted the law yet again. If it is incidental to good care and parenting (and that is a decision that msut be made objectively) there is an absolute defence of justification.
The discretion comes in when the justification defences, including that one, are not available to the parent, as to whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.
And it is not a “personal” discretion – take a look here, but one that must be execised in accordance with accepted legal principles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
So you are saying a parent won’t get prosecuted for smacking their kid in a supermarket for chucking a can of baked beans at an old lady?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, I wouldn’t be betting money on a judge seeing it your way Toad. Or mine for that matter. In fact, I’d be rather worried going before a court because it is obvious we can’t even agree on whether something is legal or not.
This is a terribly worded act.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Exactly Mr Dennis
This will be a terribly inconsistant law.
A parent will be at the mercy of the individuals involved.
Here’s hoping a few messy cases will come up and National will ditch it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>So you are saying a parent won’t get prosecuted for smacking their kid in a supermarket for chucking a can of baked beans at an old lady?
from my understanding, they could be because the force is used for correction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Exactly, it is an anti smacking law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tell me, how to you deal with the supermarket issue?
Do you force every supermarket in the country to build a “time out” room?
Or do you call the police and do the 2 year old for assault?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the fuzzy part for me is “performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting”
but because it is fuzzy for me doesn’t mean that it would not be perfectly clear for a lawyer/judge. I don’t know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Your 2 years old didn’t do that to injured the old lady and probably don’t understand the consequence of doing so.
You should explain why the behavior was bad.
You can use the tone of voice/look. Percepting that one of your parent deeply disappointed with you can sometimes be more potent than a smack.
Say what punishment she/he will endure and enforce it (always)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – if your 2 year old is likely to throw a can of baked beans at an old woman, don’t take the wee fellow to a place where there are: baked beans, old women. Look to your parenting to see why the little tyke is so poorly socialised. There are so many constructive and effective things you can do with your children to give them socially acceptable habits and a sunny outlook. Whacking them is not one of those.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Presse-puree
You don’t have kids do you, Have you ever tried explaining ANYTHING to a 2 year old?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
That would mean some kids would basically be in home detention for 18 years let alone their parents, is this part of the greens new law and order policy?
Kids temperments at 2 years old often has nothing to do with their environment, it is something that needs to be adjusted with quick effective dicipline.
I have 3 kids and they were all very different at two years old.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t have kids of my own.
Have you ever tried explaining ANYTHING to a 2 year old?
yes, it’s a matter of patience.
And they perfectly understand when you are not happy.
If you can outsmart a 2 years old, you will probably be able to find
a non violent way to solve the problem.
smaking is quicker, easier
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – your ’18 years home detention’ claim is just silly. Keep it real if you want to have an adult discussion on the matter. You believe that the temperment of a 2 year old needs to be adjusted with a smack. That view falls so short of the vast range of possible, non-violent approaches to the issue that I worry for you and your children. Can you not suggest, for the sake of the argument and to humour me, one alternative, method (not a variation on hitting) that you might employ, if for example you had an injury to your smacking hand?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Front kick ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sue, that was a pretty stupid post. James Whakaruru did die, but his abusers would not have been able to use a S59 defence successfully. Why didn’t you say, as the Governor General has done, that he was ” disciplined to death”?
Name me one child who has been smacked and really badly injured, Sue. On this blog. Then name someone who has been smacked and killed, as you have said that ” Sometimes when children are ….smacked they are badly injured. Sometimes they are killed.”
Name one. Just one. Only one. Just one child killed from smacking. That’s all I ask.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“shunda – your ‘18 years home detention’ claim is just silly”
No its not greenfly, even very liberal parenting advocates would suggest that the first 5 years of a childs life tend to set the stage for teenage years.
You basically have 5 years to moderate a strong willed child before it becomes very very difficult.
And my kids are doing just fine, they are however being regularly assaulted by other children and this is the most significant limitation on their development. The worst of these kids are the ones that are not smacked by their parents cause they don’t want to stifile there “social ambition”. ALL of the non smacked kids I know are incredibly violent towards other children, probably has they don’t know what it feels like.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – ‘the first 5 years of a child’s life…’ ookkaaay, nothing too odd there (though there are those who strongly believe 7)..
‘moderate a strong willed child’.. a little odd now…some would teach a strong willed child to chanel that strength into constructive activity/thought, not ‘moderate’ them .. after all, strong willed adults become leaders, innovaters etc. your (and your children’s) experience with non-smacked children (!) I can’t comment on and neither should you as it is pretty ‘out there’ as an argument for anything really. You have a consuming interest in controlling behaviour (your children and the children of others) Curious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We believe that babies, children and young people deserve the same legal protection from violence as adults enjoy.
Somewhat admirable as a goal, but in practice, do we lay charges of assault when the adult victim is not a complainant? So if we were to follow through with that logic, if the child made no complaint, a charge could not be laid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Re: the original post – Lahore has had decades to straighten out his disfunctional behaviour and has been seriously remise in not doing so. To laud his old ways on the airwaves, as if they are a model for behaviour in 2008 is appalling. The very worst kind of celebrity endorsement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC – yours is a dizzy question. Would a prosecution be in order if a person was injured in such a way as to render them unable to make a complaint? Are you seriously suggesting that no action be taken because the assaulted party can’t speak up for themselves? You are standing in front of trees to avoid seeing the wood.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly if you want to smear me as a control freak thats fine, but don’t lie about this being a simple smear tactic to paint parents like me as ogre’s.
For a strong willed child to make it to adulthood a temporary moderation of the childs ambition is necessary.
I believe you are correct that a particularly stuborn 2 year old can often have leadership potential or high intelligence.
What I have noticed is these little people often place themselves in greater danger than other kids, this is where a sharp boundary is necessary.
One of my kids was absolutely fearless and regularly gave my wife and I terrible frights.
The only way we found to stop him running out on roads etc was with a smack on the bum. My other 2 kids only occasionally needed this if at all.
Smacking is a very important tool for strong willed kids, they just don’t respond to anythings else, and believe me we’ve tried!.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – I don’t smear and wouldn’t use the term ‘control freak’. Also, I don’t lie (just to clear up your concerns). I’m interseted in the way that language reflects action and intent. When you say things like, ‘sharp boundary’, or ‘quick, effective discipline’ I hear a reactive person, rather than someone that looks to a calm and thoughtful solution to a problem. I think you chose to smack because of this tendency of thought. I like your proactive approach and obvious love for your children, but am concerned at your choice of methods to bring them to their potential.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly I tend to use smacking as a last resort and I personally don’t do it very often at all, so please don’t fear for my kids!, my wife would probably use it more often than I do, and aparantly women usually do smack more often than men.
My experience has shown smacking is most useful for very strong willed children, one of my kids dosen’t respond to smacking very well and time out is more effective most of the time.
My concern is that some of the most vulnerable children will ultimateley slip even further through the cracks cause of this law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly
The issue is in Sue Bradfords portrayal of one of the same process applying for children and adults.
Many adults are not prosecuted because no complaint is made by the person assaulted.
“Would a prosecution be in order if a person was injured in such a way as to render them unable to make a complaint?”
Surely we are talking about “smacking/reasonable use of force” and whatever is the related level of use of force amongst adults, and thus all parties are able to complain afterwards.
“Are you seriously suggesting that no action be taken because the assaulted party can’t speak up for themselves? You are standing in front of trees to avoid seeing the wood.”
And you are using the inability of babies in nappies to complain to justify a situation applying to all children – are you thus claiming this is about parents use of smacking discipline on babies? And if so how many other people ever see a parent smack a baby for purposes of discipline and make a complaint on the child’s behalf. Has it ever happened, would it ever happen – few parents do it and when they do, no one else will be around.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda barunda said: <So you are saying a parent won’t get prosecuted for smacking their kid in a supermarket for chucking a can of baked beans at an old lady?
The law permits using force that is reasonable in the circumstances to prevent a child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or prevent a child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour.
So, if a smack is reasonable and is used as a preventative measure in this instance, there is a defence of justification, so no offense has occurred.
What the law doesn’t permit is the use of a smack or any other form of force as punsihment after the behaviour has occurred and when there is not reasonable cause to believe it is likely to continue. However, in those circumstances the Police have discretion to not prosecute if they consider the assault (ie smack) is so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC – no, not babies in nappies, but children who wouldn’t/couldn’t lay a complaint against their parent/s for all of the various reasons that children are loyal, for better or worse, to the adults that raised them and hold the key to their future security and happiness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad, after the can of beans has been thrown, if you smack them, that is illegal.
You are saying that it would be legal to smack first to prevent them throwing a can of beans:
- How can you know that is what they will do until afterwards?
- How can you use that as a defence in court?
Prosecution “The child was standing beside the trolley being well-behaved, and the defendant grabbed them and smacked them for no apparent reason”.
Defendant “But I was sure they were just about to pick up a can and throw it at an old woman. Or do something else bad. Whenever they are being good like that it means they are about to misbehave, so I smack them to make sure they don’t.”
Are you serious?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis – is this sort of thing happening right now? We’ve had the repeal for some time now and I haven’t noticed ‘all hell’ breaking loose. Surely you’re just playing with words, trying to make a case where there is none in reality? Despite the claims that ‘New Zealanders are outraged’, I’m finding all over, that it’s all over
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I love Lochore’s bit about leaving his 3 week old daughters to play in the mud while he went to the bar – what sort of world do we have where we can’t even do that anymore!?
The link isn’t in the post, so http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10529138
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Okay, put up an absurd example if you choose Mr Dennis.
If you have reasosnable cause to believe the child is going to continue to engage in offensive or disruptive, then it is lawful to use reasonable force to prevent this. In some circumstances, what you call a “smack” may be reasonable in this context.
But what you call a “smack” part of the problem. In the Clendon pub it has a somewhat different meaning from the one you are trying to impart.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The reason people were getting off for beating children had nothing to do with whether they were correcting a child or not, but what the judge of jury percieved to be reasonable force.
Because there is still no clarification as to what reasonable force is, all a person needs to do is satisfy the reasons listed in section 59, it seems to me that by using Sue Bradfords interpretation of what a smack is, that if a child is endangering themselves or others, you are justified in beating them to death.
Although the inclusion of subsections 2 & 3 make invoking subsection 1 almost impossible. Which I would assume was the intention of including them.
But then again, if we live by the Green motto of “don’t obey the law you think it is wrong” then there is no real issue.
Anyway this has little to do with why I write in this blog, but it is one of the reasons I will most likely not vote for the Greens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If the Greens were only about the environment I would not hesitate in voting for them. It’s the other issues, like this one, that put me off the Greens.
It’s all good and well pushing for a just society, but when the environment degrades to the point that society collapses, then both causes will be lost.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doug T: The isue of “reasonable force” must be read in conjunction with the purpose for which the force is being applied.
With the current law, there is an objective test of what is “reasonable” to, say, prevent a child from engaging in offensive of disruptive behaviour. It is the amount of force that is the minimum, in the circumstances as the parent perceives them to be, that is necessary to stop the behaviour from occuring or continuing.
With the old section 59, there was a subjective test as to what is “reasonable” for the purpose of correcting a child’s behaviour. How far do you go, if the child persists in behaving badly, despite lesser physical punishment? If a smack with the hand on the child’s bottom doesn’t do the trick, then maybe a thrashing around the legs with a jugcord will. Can you see how it can escalate?
Some juries considered that beating a child with a hosepipe or a plank of wood or a riding crop was “reasonable force” for the purpose of correction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad:
“It is the amount of force that is the minimum, in the circumstances as the parent perceives them to be, that is necessary to stop the behaviour from occuring or continuing.”
Thankyou for confirming what DougT said, although you didn’t mean to. Again it is back to perception. In fact, you say it is down to the parent’s perception. So if the parent thought “a thrashing around the legs with a jugcord” was reasonably necessary to stop the behaviour from occurring then they could get off, according to your interpretation.
A poor parent who cannot afford a good lawyer runs a risk of being convicted even for restraining a child in time out. Now we see that a rich parent who can afford a good lawyer might be able to get off beating their child, under the same law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis saidSo if the parent thought “a thrashing around the legs with a jugcord� was reasonably necessary to stop the behaviour from occurring then they could get off, according to your interpretation.
It is what is reasonably construed by the parent to be the minimum force necessary to prevent the behaviour from continuing. Whacking a child around the legs with jug cord could never be reasonably construed to be the minimum force necessary to stop any behaviour in any circumstances I would suggest.
If you disagree, give me an example of where it could be the minimum force necessary to prevent offensive or disruptive behaviour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have no idea. But I don’t doubt a good lawyer could argue that it was. Maybe the jug cord would trip them and stop them from rampaging and injuring someone while their mother would not have been strong enough to restrain them any other way, so it was the minimum necessary under the circumstances – a good layer could find a reason for everything.
I am making the point that the law is ambiguous. We don’t know what it means. The plain reading seems to say that even restraining for time out is illegal. On further reading it seems you could get away with anything with a good lawyer. This is ridiculous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have an example, but it will have to wait untill after work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The previous law was ambiguous. So was Chester Borrows’ “transitory and trifling” amendment (what does that actually mean?).
Most statute law is ambiguous to some extent or other Mr D. That is what we have Judges for – to interpret it. Otherwise we could just have referrees who examine only the facts running the courts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The part that was, and still is, ambiguous is what reasonable force is.
When it can be used is the only thing that the new law redefines.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is recent precedent for a parent to be successfully prosecuted for smacking their child. The child was misbehaving at school and the parent resorted to after the event discipline (smacking) to ensure this did no continue.
Which is why I continue with my original opinion – restricting parents to open palm smacking on the hand or buttocks – where this is done briefly and moderately to a child (out of nappies and say under 13). Otherwise a public campaign of good parenting looking for alternatives to this resort.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Danyl over at the Dim-Post is most noted for his cutting satire. But on this topic he is making some very serious points, and, if anything, is even more scathing in his criticism of Lochore’s comments than Sue Bradford was.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi frog blog s59 commenters,
Thanks to all of you who care so passionately about this issue and have been responding to my original post. I don’t have space in this format – or in my working day – to reply to all the matters you have raised, but I would like to pick up on a few key comments some of you have made.
* From ‘big bro’ ‘once again you are suggesting that your bill is going to stop child abuse and the untimely deaths of children.’
In reply:
- None of us who promoted the s59 law change has ever claimed that removing the ‘reasonable force’ defence would in and of itself stop anyone from beating or killing their children.
- No law can ever prevent people from committing crimes.
- All we have hoped to achieve with the law change is to give children the same legal protection from assault as adults have.
- For this to be effective in changing peoples’ behaviour time will be needed, as well as ongoing public education about alternatives to violence in bringing up children, and more support for parents and children, and the church and community groups who often provide that support.
* from various of you – that you think it would be better to define the nature of ‘reasonable force’ parents can use on their children, than to have the new law which gives children the same blanket protection as adults enjoy.
In reply:
- Throughout the two years my bill was in front of parliament I worked, along with others, very hard to ensure that we didn’t end up defining the nature and level of violence it would be legal to use, as per the amendment National’s Chester Borrows sought to put forward.
- Such amendments overseas seek to define things like the age of children on whom force can be used, where the force can be applied, how it can be applied and so on. From my point of view, this is nothing short of a batterer’s charter. I do not understand why some think it OK to apply this to children when (hopefully) they do not think it’s OK to apply this to – for example – the use of force on our adult partners. Beating wives used to be legal too.
- Fortunately, in the end 113 out of 121 MPs in the NZ Parliament agreed that it would be unacceptable to put forward such an amendment.
* from ‘Shunda barunda’ – ‘This is a battle of ideologies.’
- I agree with you totally. I have been on the front line of this debate for over three years now, and have discussed the issue with many people all over the country. There is no question in my mind that when distilled down to its essence, this controversy is between two quite different ideological positions.
- On the one hand are those who think parents should have a defence in law when they assault their children in the name of child discipline. This belief centres on the idea that parents’ rights to bring up their children in this way are and should be paramount.
- On the other, are those like myself and the Green Party who believe that all children should be able to grow up free from violence, not only in the community but also in their own homes.
- I accept the totally the democratic right of others to hold the contrary view – how we work these things out in the political sphere is through legislation in Parliament. Ideological debate is at the heart of politics, and I am grateful that I live in a country where we work to resolve these debates through voting rather than armed conflict.
* from ‘Blue Peter’ – ‘so why are the Greens messing around with anti-smacking bills?’
- The Green Party has four charter principles at the heart of our purpose and philosophy – environmental nurturing, social & economic equity, participatory democracy, and non violence. Our policy to remove the ‘reasonable force’ defence from s59 of the Crimes Act is part of our commitment to non violence, and to social and economic justice for all people. We see children as people deserving of the same respect as all other people, not as some subset of human who are somehow less worthy of respect and care.
- The Green Party in this country has always held to these four Charter principles – we have never been solely an environmental party. We understand the connections between all living things, and that the planet will not be saved by people who are starving and desperate.
- Those of you who don’t agree with our philosophy on this have every right to that disagreement and I acknowledge you for it – but your choice is naturally to support some other political party, or to set up your own which reflects your own ideology and take on things.
I suspect I have exceeded the usual limits on comment by now, so will finish here. I do realise there are many other arguments – I look forward to the ongoing discussion.
cheers, Sue Bradford
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I too smacked my children when they were naughty enough to warrant it. It didn’t happen often, but it did happen.
My children are now all grown up, and we are friends as well as relatives. Indeed, I sometimes get looked askance when my 26 year old son kisses me on the mouth if we meet in public.
The point is that children need boundaries; however, if there is no real retribution available to chastise them for exceeding those boundaries they are useless. My children don’t do drugs, they pay taxes, they give time and energy to their communities, they are respectful and respectable citizens and am proud of them. When I compare them to the louts that provoke adults at every turn, abuse the police and others for doing their job, act as if they are owed anything they want by everyone else, litter the streets with their vomit and urine and generally behave like no one can touch them for anything they do I realise how sad this country has become.
While the past is not always a great example of what is right, it can be a good example of what works and what doesn’t. The assaults on the environment of society by louts that is commonplace today didn’t happen in the past because children were raised to respect other people and their things, and there were consequences for not doing so. Today’s children have no respect for anything except their own desires, and we have no recourse when that lack of respect is expressed to the detriment of society as a whole.
I look forward to this cycle of social environmental abuse being put to an end by the return of a society that insists on developing respect in children, and condones appropriate punishment when such respect is not shown.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
strings – retribution and chastisement – let it all out! You talk of a ‘return a society that insists on…’ Can you tell me where and when on earth that was? !940′s – NZ, 1800′s – Pennsylvania ???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings said: …by the return of a society that insists on developing respect in children…
What about a society that insists on developing respect for children, Strings?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think what strings is implying is that if a child does not learn respect for rules and boundaries in childhood, then they will certainly not have a similar respect for the law when they are older.
They might even deliberately disobey some laws as the Green Party often encourage us to do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doug T – aren’t the promoters of ‘the referendum’ encouraging the overthrow of a law they don’t agree with, just ‘as the Green Party often encourages us to do’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well I agree that the Green party sees the environment in a social and economic sense as much as a purely habitat sense. And if it is to be a political party rather than an activist group this makes sense.
“Throughout the two years my bill was in front of parliament I worked, along with others, very hard to ensure that we didn’t end up defining the nature and level of violence it would be legal to use, as per the amendment National’s Chester Borrows sought to put forward. – Such amendments overseas seek to define things like the age of children on whom force can be used, where the force can be applied, how it can be applied and so on. From my point of view, this is nothing short of a batterer’s charter. I do not understand why some think it OK to apply this to children when (hopefully) they do not think it’s OK to apply this to – for example – the use of force on our adult partners. Beating wives used to be legal too.”
And I suppose the extension of the franchise of the landed gentry to the middle class man of the cities and denying it to 1/3rd of men who were working class was the maitenance of a corrupt dictatorship trampling over the people. But it lead to the completion of the franchise to all (why, when promising the vote to women they also gave it to the men they conscripted to fight a war for them).
You are a revolutionary who seeks to dictate to the people (or die on the sword) rather than a fabian socialist who takes the people along with her. You slander most of our living parents as habitual batterers of children and wonder why people come to the conclusion, Greens may not be a safe pair of hands in coalition.
Ask yourself what powers we give to police to discipline adults – much more than the right to smack a bottom briefly with moderate force for parents to manage their children. Are the many adults who do not report assault equivalent to children who would not lay a complaint about their parents over their behaviour and discipline – but you want others to do so on their behalf and the parents to be prosecuted. Beating wives is still legal, if the wife does not lay a complaint.
“We see children as people deserving of the same respect as all other people, not as some subset of human who are somehow less worthy of respect and care.”
But the legislation is not reliant on a complaint from the child about the smacking – thus there is a different criteria to the law applying to adults. If it were, or any complaint made by a neighbour and or teacher was supported by the child, then yur approach might find more support. For after all smacking is part of the relationship between the parent and child and if the child feel it is an assault, then they should have some right to complain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Might I just say how great it is that Green Party MPs are posting and replying on this blog – keep it up!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
…I think you forgot to put add ‘except for the children that aren’t like that’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
> Today’s children have no respect for anything except their own desires,
I seem to recall Socrates said something similar in 450 BC
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doug T said:…if a child does not learn respect for rules and boundaries in childhood, then they will certainly not have a similar respect for the law when they are older.
I’ve always thought challenging authority is a better approach than “respecting” it. Authority is often a bureaucratic ass, imposing rules for the sake of them, or to protect the position of those who made them, or their mates or those who have slipped them a few $K to do the “right” (often wrong) thing [opps, sorry Winston].
Nope, I want kids to grow up to challenge things, rather than meekly comply through some some false concept of “respect” imposed by authoritarian attitudes. Respect is earned, not imposed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad, that last comment is very revealing. Is that disrespect for authority typical of most Green members, or just a peculiarity of your own?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sue Bradford:
Thankyou for actually replying on the thread, it is good to hear from you.
“Fortunately, in the end 113 out of 121 MPs in the NZ Parliament agreed that it would be unacceptable to put forward such an amendment.”
That is a serious distortion of the truth. Both National and Labour were whipped to vote for it, it was not a conscience vote, so you cannot claim agreement from 113 MPs.
Strings has done a great job of replying to the general gist of your post so I don’t really need to add anything else. Thanks Strings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i have heard it said that strings is so old..
..he actually knew socrates..
and that he is that old..
..that he has forgotten how sickeningly awful it is to be hit by someone you love..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr D, Mr Strings, Mr Doug T – please don’t hit your children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Nope, I want kids to grow up to challenge things, rather than meekly comply through some some false concept of “respectâ€? imposed by authoritarian attitudes. Respect is earned, not imposed.”
Come on Toad, that is nothing but idealogical gibberish, you want parents, teachers and people in authority to have to “earn” the respect of kids when they have no idea about life or even what the term “respect” means?
Society just cannot function that way and that may well be the main reason we have such huge problems with out of control youth.
There are two types of respect we ALL must live by.
1. Respect for office or authority;
By and large we respect without question the word or authority of judges, the Police, doctors, medical professionals etc, if we follow your logic we would never listen to the words of a Judge or Doctor unless we knew them personally.
Like it or not Toad there are positions or occupations in our society where you MUST respect the position and that respect must be unquestioning (initially at least)
2. Earned respect.
Earned respect is self explanatory and while I agree it is important it is not and can not be the only form of respect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis, I am not suggesting people disrespect authority. But I am imploring they question it.
Without wishing to Godwin the thread, I would respectfully suggest that failure to question authority ultimately leads here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ms Bradford
“None of us who promoted the s59 law change has ever claimed that removing the ‘reasonable force’ defence would in and of itself stop anyone from beating or killing their children.”
Then why did you claim that smacking legislation introduced in Sweden resulted in there being no deaths over a seven year period when three had actually been NO reduction in the number of deaths?
As long as you continue to tell lies about this bill your credibility will remain as low as it can possibly go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: …there are positions or occupations in our society where you MUST respect the position and that respect must be unquestioning…
I don’t use the word lightly, and don’t think I have ever used it on a blog before, but the approach you advocate is fascism BB.
Every official in authority, from the Prime Minsiter down, must be accountable to you, me, and every other member of the public. They are our servants, not our masters. Otherwise we have totalitarianism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad – applying intellect to the question of the worth of any authority comes with maturity. Testing authority by misbehaving, challenging rules etc. comes naturally at all stages of development. Usually there are minor ‘consequences’ for that testing and lessons are learned. Hitting, as a general approach to teaching respect, is a blunt and often counterproductive method. Sadly, many adults don’t develop their methods beyond the smacking stage. This is where I think the ‘ideological change’ presented by the Greens through Sue, provides our country with an opportunity to ‘grow up’. Thanks for that Sue!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a matter of interest the following countries had a ban on ‘smacking’ as at 2004.
Austria
Croatia
Cyprus
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Iceland
Latvia
Norway
Romania
Sweden
Ukraine
In Israel, the only non-European country to have similar legislation, smacking was effectively banned in 2000
So.. we are not alone!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
I don’t think I have used this term with you before and given that I like you it is one that I do not use lightly but…dont be a dick head!
Do you question your doctor when he says you need to take a certain pill to make you better?
Do you question a judge when he tells you that you are fined x number of dollars for your speeding fine?
Do you questions your optometrist when he says you need glasses?
NOBODY is advocating fascism mate and I do wish you would stop using this silly emotive language, why not just debate the issue with me?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro – though you asked Toad (I’m sure he’ll answer) – I for one certainly do question my doctor over medications he/she recommends, don’t you???
-I haven’t needed to question a judge yet and would be circumspect in doing so, but only because I wouldn’t want to increase my fine because of the questioning
- I have certainly questioned an optometrist about his recommendations, again, wouldn’t you?? You sound as though you are a very compliant fellow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Advocating respect for authority is NOT advocating fascism Toad. Respect for authority is how society functions.
Questioning authority is also valuable, and it too has a time and place. There is a time and place for everything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
Well of course you will ask questions but that is somewhat different to what Toad is advocating.
When it comes to the Doctor I happily take his advice as I know he is an expert, I am not going to say “hang on mate, until you can earn my respect I think I will continue to have this splitting headache etc..”
Without respecting Judges then we have anarchy and I suspect the prospect of that is somewhat appealing to many of the Greens.
The only thing I want from mu optometrist is the ability to see, as long as she does a good job the results are going to be obvious, again I do not say that I am happy to be bloody blind until I she has earned my respect.
One thing that Toad has conveniently left out of my original comment is the word “initially”
Now if I was to visit the doctor and tell him I had a rather bad pain in my arm and he asks where that pain is while I have a five inch blade sticking out of my arm then yes I am going to question the man.
What I was driving at was that we must have respect for position INITIALLY for society to function, if after a while we find out that a judge or doctor is barking mad then of course that respect will vanish but until then we have to have faith in those appointed to high position.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is a time and place, Mr Dennis – and there is a place for challenging authority where it is being misused. There are so many instances of ‘authorities’ abusing those who are expected to give their respect (think Graeme Capill etc.etc.etc.) that children need to be able to discern valid authority from faux for their own safety. A ‘blind’ acceptance of authority ‘aint healthy (you’ll no doubt agree) Enabling your children will mean that you may get challenged yourself on different levels, but that’s what a mature relationship is all about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So Toad, if you advocate questioning authority and there is a law that you consider to be unjust do you advocate following that law out of respect for the authority of our lawmakers and police, or would you advocate flouting that law because you had a conscientious objection to it?
How come the very people who are advocating that we question authority are also advocating extra laws for us to obey (smacking)?
As several of us obviously object to the smacking law, should we obey it? If so, why?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro – you are right – ‘initially’ is the pivotal word. From that point on you use your judgement. So should children. (In fact, they do). In a very good environment, the adults will show/teach/model the behaviour of assessing/judging people around them to give the children a sound background to base their decisiuons on. It works the other way too. Children can often pick the good from the bad (and shades inbetween)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis – questioning authority does not equate to breaking the law.
Questioning implies the application of intellect. Breaking the law doesn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB, the only authority that cannot be questioned is the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
I strongly advocate that people (including children) who feel they have a grievance test it legally through judicial process.
Otherwise, we’re back to this thread. Which is now being tested legally, I might add.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What is being tested? the use of that swear word?
If so who the hell is paying for that?, it had better not be the tax payer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“In making these comments to a Parents Inc breakfast attended by more than 1000 fathers, Sir Brian is repeating the common fallacy that somehow ’smacking’ or ’spanking’ someone is not hitting them.”
……………………….
You are making the fallacy. There is a difference between one kid hitting another and a parent smacking a child. The thing is that there is a similarity between a smack and hitting or a punch and a karate chop, but there are also differences 1. The amount of force 2. the context.
“How can this be? I would love to know how he’d feel if a grown man ’spanked’ or ’smacked’ him on some dark Auckland street tonight. I rather suspect he would see it as an assault, on both his person and his dignity.”
Complete strangers don’t just tap other womens wives on the bottom. (Someone explain it to her please).
…………………
Apples and pears
“Well – that is exactly what any form of whack, tap, smack, clout or other assault is on any human being, whether baby, child or adult.
Sometimes when children are whacked or smacked they are badly injured. Sometimes they are killed.
…………………
Whack, tap, smack, clout : you’re pointing out that these are similar actions. What you haven’t pointed out are the differences 1. Context 2. amount of force. People aren’t usually killed by smack although people are sometimes killed by a hug (especially in a James Bond type movie).
“Sometimes when children are whacked or smacked they are badly injured. Sometimes they are killed.”
…………………
More likely a whack than a smack.
James Whakaruru, for example, died in the name of toilet training.
……………………………
I doubt it. Toilet raining isn’t usually fatal. Brute force was probably involved and the question is what let to the brute force? Temper?
“We believe that babies, children and young people deserve the same legal protection from violence as adults enjoy.”
……………………….
There you go again smacking = violence [abortion = murder].
“I just hope that at some point in the process I will get the chance to publicly debate with Sir Brian Lochore his odd but all too commonly held belief that smacking people is not hitting them.”
…………………
Yes because a debate is where you could indulge in rhetoric. Hard liners like you have no trouble spinning answers “cause you see’s it how it is”.
It must vex you that the most comprehensive study of child development in the world: The Otago Mulidisciplinary Health and Development Study has Hit at claims that the sort of smacking Sir Brian talks about is harmful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin_Multidisciplinary_Health_and_Development_Study
“- The Green Party has four charter principles at the heart of our purpose and philosophy – environmental nurturing, social & economic equity, participatory democracy, and non violence. Our policy to remove the ‘reasonable force’ defence from s59 of the Crimes Act is part of our commitment to non violence, and to social and economic justice for all people. We see children as people deserving of the same respect as all other people, not as some subset of human who are somehow less worthy of respect and care.”
…………………………………….
Note the use of the Charter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: What is being tested? the use of that swear word?
Indeed, BB. The use of the words “f***off” by a public servant addressing a member of the public with whom he was engaged in his official capacity and in his workplace. It’s proceeding in the High Court at Rotorua. No date for hearing set yet.
This is rather different from using the same phrase to a police officer in the pub while being unlawfully required by the police officer to leave the premises – that has been judicially found to not be offensive language.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This from the NZ Herald, from the study that jh linked to………
“Preliminary analysis showed that those who were merely smacked had “similar or even slightly better outcomes” than those who were not smacked in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement.
“Study members in the ‘smacking only’ category of punishment appeared to be particularly high-functioning and achieving members of society,” she said.
“I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids,” she said.
“I know that is not a popular thing to say, but it is certainly the case.”
There is the evidence from one of the most comprehensive studies on human behavior EVER undertaken.
I say it again, the S.59 amendment is about a clash of ideologies, nothing more nothing less.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks jh and Shunda, for blowing apart any possibility that this whole fuss about banning smacking might actually be for the child’s welfare. No-one can deny it is purely about ideology, and might even be destructive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree with toad and greenfly,
Isn’t it every good citizens right and obligation to question and ascertain the integrity of authority rather than simply accept it? I certainly question anyone in a position of authority if I see a rational need to, as laws or any rules for that matter are created by humans and are susceptible to fallacy. Just as older people aren’t inherently right, neither is authority or the law – as has been demonstrated by history and present day alike countless times.
Really it is up to the individual to study the issues and be informed – assess authority on that basis.
Why anyone would blanketly accept all authority for the sake of ‘respecting authority’ is beyond me.
Funnily enough I worked for an NGO who’s focus was on freeing prisoners of conscience… people imprisoned by authorities in complete violation of their human rights, and the countries domestic and international law. This happens the world over, New Zealand included. If we didn’t question the law and the actions of authority who is going to keep it in line? It certainly can’t be left to authorities alone to keep themselves in line, it is the responsibility of the people.
In so many instances I have found authority (government, police, councils) blatantly breaks the law and or ignores the will of the people. Those in authority must earn the respect of the people through their good work, not be inherently respected because of their position of authority.
I believe we should have the utmost respect for authority where it is deserved. But certainly there are enough cases of political corruption, abuse of power, police brutality etc in this country to demonstrate why we must be diligent when assessing authority.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is absolutely about children’s welfare Mr Dennis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s about their right not to be hit – by anyone.
It’s about what takes precedence – the child’s right to be free from violence or the parents’ right to use violence against the child.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ash:
“certainly question anyone in a position of authority if I see a rational need to, as laws or any rules for that matter are created by humans and are susceptible to fallacy.”
You actually have a pretty similar view to the rest of us, but we are arguing over it. I too question authority “if I see a rational need to”. But the default position, as you too seem to assume, should be to accept authority, unless and until there is a rational reason to question it. Children need to be taught this. We don’t question authority for the sake of it, but rather when it is necessary because something seems to be unjust.
Which is why several of us on this thread are questioning authority over the smacking issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
>
Can you tell me where and when on earth that was?
>
England 1960s, USA 1970s, Sri Lanka/India/China Today!
Perhaps you can see the correlation between prosperity and attitude?
Toad
>
What about a society that insists on developing respect for children, Strings?
>
Exactly! Respect for them as Children. With lessons to learn, mistakes to make and learn from and the right to be protected from both themselves and adults who would exploit them – for any purpose.
Greenfly
>
aren’t the promoters of ‘the referendum’ encouraging the overthrow of a law they don’t agree with
>
YES THEY ARE, but they are doing it in a LEGAL manner, following the rules out of respect, as opposed to flaunting them because they don’t agree with them. THAT is what democracy is about. ANYONE who breaks the law flouts democracy and should not be allowed to continue to glean its benefits – that’s why we have gaols.
Kahikatea
> “Today’s children have no respect for anything except their own desires” I seem to recall Socrates said something similar in 450 BC
Sorry I wasn’t around then (despite the fact I admit to being old, I am not that old). But if your memory is that good I’ll believe you. I wonder though, how close to the Socratic Age was the fall of Grecian civilisation? I know for sure hedonism, such as most of our young people of today practice, was rife in Rome just before the fall of that great nation, as it was in Britain ahead of the collapse of that Empire.
phil u
>
i have heard it said that strings is so old….that he has forgotten how sickeningly awful it is to be hit by someone you love..
I think I have to join with a “rugby legend” on this, as I understand what he means when he says ‘I have smacked my children but I have never hit them’; I too can say that. I believe the difference is the state of mind at the time the punishment is administered; I have never ‘hit’ a child because I have never st6ruck out in anger! Smacking is a considered action with a specific purpose. I remember my father telling me one day that I was to be punished the next day for something I had done that was against ‘the rules’; it wasn’t sickening, I deserved it, but the agony of anticipation was far worse than the pain of the punishment!
AS for my kids today, they range from very late 30s to mid 20s, they are well adjusted, have respect for others as well as themselves, and I’m proud to have them as friends as well as relatives.
TOAD
>
Without wishing to Godwin the thread, I would respectfully suggest that failure to question authority …..
>
I agree with your stand on QUESTIONING authority, as long as it does not translate to CHALLENGING or DISREPECTING it. There are ways to achieve change, violence and law breaking have yet to be proven to be effective. I point to the example of the LTTE, who have followed a path of violence and disobedience for nearly 30 years so far, and achieved none of their goals, just brought death and poverty to their followers.
I disagree with your views, but will fight to the death (in a non-violent manner) for your right to hold them. If though, I am defeated by a might force, subjugated and put to death for my views, I will wish that, like the Anzac’s and other Allied Forces before me, I had taken up arms to defend the laws of my society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS
I have raised seven people from infancy to maturity and, through 30+ years in the scouting movement, contributed to the raising of many hundreds of others. I believe EVERYONE who posts on this topic should state, for ease of understanding, their experience in this aspect of human endeavour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Another thought
One of my boys, in his teens, thought the law regarding not being allowed to drive after 10 pm on a restricted license was stupid, especially in the summer when it was still reasonable light and there was not the ‘light’ risk that pertained in the winter. (A very bright lad this, school dux, law student and subsequently medical student involved in research).
The day in question he was 17, based on his seeing ‘a rational need’ decided to go out and take his car, in breach of the law. Clearly, he was beyond the age where a smack was appropriate, so I gave him a ‘lecture’ on respect for the law; his response was that this law was stupid and shouldn’t apply to him. Off he went.
I called the local police station, told them what he was doing, told them how and where to find him, and asked that they follow the requirements of the law, but keep my information anonymous if possible – which they did. He was flagged down on the motorway, the officer read the riot act to him and he was fined through a ticket. He NEVER broke the law again that I am aware of!
I suppose that because he saw ‘a rational need’ I am to be castigated for my action in teaching him a lesson in a manner appropriate to his age?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a poster pointed out, this does all come down to ideology.
The problem is that one group is forcing their ideology down the throats of the other group, with little rational cause.
The law was working well, given few people ever managed to get off on a technicality, and the research has indicated that smacking does not cause long term harm.
s59 supporters are simply wrong to force their ideas on others. Do what you like in your own homes. They are also wrong to waste all this time and energy on a non-problme, when the very real problem of child abuse continues, unabated, because they can’t bring themselves to face, or deal with, the truth.
Child abuse in New Zealand is mainly a Maori/PI CULTURAL issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings, you must’ve had one suspicious Dux stalking around your place after that…good stuff though. A ‘rational need’ could well be to go pick up a friend from an out of hand party perhaps?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stephen
Good call but not the right one, and not one I would have accepted. He knew I would have done the driving in a situation like that
What it did was teach him that people breaking the law Do get caught! (I don’t think he ever put me in the frame for it, but if he did – c’est la vie!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Would’ve been the most responsible option short of shelling out megabucks for a cab if you *weren’t* there, I say! Maybe a close neighbour, but could be awkward. I think a Dux would eventually join the dots
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think I need to clarify things for you greenfly.
I don’t hit my kids, I actually think Brian Lochore’s comments were stupid and way outdated. But what Sue Bradford has done is labelled any form of smack as child abuse, and emphasises that the only kind of smack involves a plank of wood or force that will break bones. And yet she still says it’s ok to do that if subsection 1 is satisfied.
Frankly if one of my kids was about to harm themselves or someone else, I would probably grab them, and maybe hold them to prevent whatever they were doing. With what is currently accepted by some judges & jury’s I would be justified in beating my kid with a piece of wood, just as long as I was doing in accordance with subsection 1.
If you don’t believe me, read the law yourself.
The old law said that a parent or gardian “is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances.”
And the amendment says that a parent or gardian “is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—…..”
Do I need to break this down a little more? The Italics are the words taken out with the amentment, and the ones in caps are the new words.
“is justified in using force by way of correction if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances AND IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF—…..”
You might notice that the USE of “reasonable force” has not changed, only WHEN it can be used.
One of the cases that Sue Bradford points to is:
“This was interpreted by a jury in Napier in recent years to mean that it was reasonable for a father to hit his eight year old son eight times with a piece of wood 30cm by 2 cm – leaving linear bruising visible for days.”
So because the wording of reasonable force has not changed, it means that a person like this can still get off if subsection 1 is satisfied.
Sue Bradford has even said that this law will not prevent kids from being killed, which is exactly right, because, as far as I am aware, this amendment is ment to be all about making it easier to punish child abusers. But it has no effect on is the actual “cause” of the abuse.
Dispite the good intention of the amendment, it is also now a very damaging weapon for parents in custody battles, because it is so much easier now to prove that the other parent has broken this law. Something as trivial as smacking the kid on the back of the hand if they were caught in the act of shoplifting or something non life threatening like that would be enough to have your right to see your child taken away.
In the end the child is the one that looses, because they could even wind up being taken from both parents.
Strings, because you asked nicely, I have a daughter & 2 boys, all under 6 years, so we are still far from the worst of it yet I’d say. My wife and I have read the child rearing books, and my wife especially takes parenting very seriously. We use time out and the naughty spot to fairly good effect, but as I said we are in the early days yet, and the limits aren’t tested that much.
One of the most important things I have found so far though is that the more time I spend with the kids the better behaved they are. I guess there is no substitute to spending time with your kids.
jh,
“Sometimes when children are whacked or smacked they are badly injured. Sometimes they are killed.”
Thats true jh, and sometimes when a child is put in time out, a padlock is put on the door and the child is not fed and has to sleep in their own faeces. Does that make time out child abuse too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doug T: At the risk of repeating myself, the “reasonable force” and the purpose must be read conjuctively, not disjunctively.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Careful Toad, if you advocate that people, and children in particular, accually ask questions about the status quo and all that that entails (morals, rights, government, existance, etc) then you end up with all the people with enough inteligence to work out that there is 10 10′s to 100 being anomious amoralistic misanthropes like myself. Any being short of that oviously not asking enough questions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does anyone know the name of Sue Bradford’s fallacy:?
“In making these comments to a Parents Inc breakfast attended by more than 1000 fathers, Sir Brian is repeating the common fallacy that somehow ’smacking’ or ’spanking’ someone is not hitting them.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Smacking and Spanking are forms of physical contact
Hitting is a form of physical contact
Therefore
Smacking and Spanking are Hitting.
It is a form of Non Sequitur, more specificly it is called the “Fallacy of the undistributed middle”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well said Sapient. It’s obvious really!
jh said: In making these comments to a Parents Inc breakfast attended by more than 1000 fathers…
I think Danyl over at the Dim-Post hit the nail (not the child, I might add) on the head here:
Um, isn’t our great Christian political leader Capill still serving a nine year sentence for child abuse? Guess Parents Inc. will have to persuade the authorities to parole 1000 prisoners to get the space in a venue that can accommodate an audience with Capill.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad Says:
Well said Sapient. It’s obvious really!
Yes if you assume smacking and hitting are both bad. Sue Bradford is just being slippery. She would know (of course) that that wasn’t what Sir Brian meant.
The fallacy is:
[substituting assault for hitting for clarity]
“assault is a bad”
“assault is a form of physical contact”
“smacking is a form of physical contact”
therefore smacking is bad.
The inability to recognise shades and nuances in the smacking debate (smack = bash) is the favourite trick of the black and white one size fits all brain type. The Otago Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study supports the case (sound empirical evidence) that “smacking” as used by Sir Brian is is not “bad”.
As for painting smackers as fundamental Christians that is another fallacy. Another fallacy is that smackers smack. Some just observe others and deem it appropriate on occasions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What does that Charter say about slipperiness? That would come under “Appropriate Decision Making” as society can’t progress while politicians (essentially) lie?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>“smacking is a form of physical contact�
Are you sure that it is not ‘smacking is a form of assault’? In which case we have a valid argument?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry Strings – I’ve been at work in the field all day -
” I believe the difference is the state of mind at the time the punishment is administered; I have never ‘hit’ a child because I have never st6ruck out in anger!” – can’t accept this rubbish though mate!
Ever hit ‘enter’? Were you angry at the time? That’s drivel, Strings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doug T – “One of the most important things I have found so far though is that the more time I spend with the kids the better behaved they are. I guess there is no substitute to spending time with your kids”.
brilliant Doug! I feel that you are beginning to find that there is little to no need for you to hit your children at all! When there is’little’ need, resist the temptation and you will have conquered the ‘smacking beast’!.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis – sorry to you too, but for this – your comment,
“Thanks jh and Shunda, for blowing apart any possibility that this whole fuss about banning smacking might actually be for the child’s welfare. No-one can deny it is purely about ideology, and might even be destructive.
That’s the daftest comment on the thread, given that I think you believe it. I know it’s way back but I couldn’t let it pass.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly you are very naive if you can’t see the obvious ideological advantage this bill gives to the greens.
It is a dual purpose bill and Sue Bradford knows it.
You may have a sincere concern for children, but so do many who believe smacking does no harm.
I believe this amendment will ultimateley place many more kids at risk, all for the sake of political views that are boarderlining on religion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# kjuv Says:
>>“smacking is a form of physical contact�
Are you sure that it is not ’smacking is a form of assault’? In which case we have a valid argument?
…………
In this case assault is a form of physical contact that is bad. Smacking can be bad and good. The issue is that anti smackers believe that it is never appropriate in any circumstances. I believe the problem is that we model and simplify the world forgetting the possibility of wide individual differences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The law as it stands say’s (I think) it is not ok to smack but if it is triffling we won’t prosecute you. It is a little like “we won’t prosecute you for picking your nose”. The issue is then that the law has come down on one side of the argument. People can’t always put words to their motivations but I think many people feel that a smack ( if appropriate) is sending an ancient message that bad behaviour causes harm to self. Society today has gone too far the other way “no matter what I do there is a big thick mattress to fall on”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – you are bending it here, aren’t you! I certainly can see that the bill fits the Green’s ideology – they wouldn’t have supported it if it hadn’t and of course it serves more than one purpose – a good bill can have a range of positive outcomes. Mr Dennis says, “No-one can deny it is purely about ideology”. That’s a foolish statement and part of what I was referring to. He also(to add short-sightendess to foolishness) says that you blow apart any possibility that the bill “might actually be for the child’s welfare”. For goodness sake, that’s plucked from thin air, to put it politely!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly Says:
That’s the daftest comment on the thread, given that I think you believe it. I know it’s way back but I couldn’t let it pass.
……………..
The Otago Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study made Time Magazine when it started 30 years ago. You would be hard pushed to deny that the results weren’t meaningful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh said” Smacking can be bad and good.
So can sex be jh. It depends upon what you do, and with whom you do it.
But that doesn’t justify going down the path of our great Christian Leader, Graham Capill, for which he is currently serving 9 years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Funny how the Children’s Commisioner stated (TV3) that “X?” had done a “meta analysis” of X number of studies and concluded it is “never ok to smack”. Elsewhere experts say the evidence on light occasional smacking is “equivocal”. Journalists should have picked up on that as whether your pro or anti it just isn’t true (as far as I can tell).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
Based on the reasearch I have done I would say for the bills author, it was primarily about banning smacking. You may sincerely believe in child welfare, and be as horified as we all are at the shocking abuse that goes on in this country, but I don’t for a second believe child welfare was Sue bradfords primary motivation.
She has a very definate agenda against large sections of the christian community, and seems itching to get at them any way she can. Problem is despite the best efforts to turn this into a “christian right” issue people are not buying it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad leave grope”im”capill out of it.
Are you seriously trying to win this debate by simply mentioning his name?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – where did you do your research – Investigate magazine? If you could cite your sources, I’d be very interested to have an open minded look. You claim that Sue has a definate agenda against large sections of the Christian community. I’ll call you on that one. That’s paranoid. Show us the facts my tense friend!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If anything the Christian right see “smacking” children with rods as an instruction from God on how to discipline children, so quite how they see Ms Bradford is probably more to the point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh, do you and shunda discuss this stuff in your cell groups (I’m not implying prison, you surely know what I mean) Genuine question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This whole section59 thing is premised on one disputed point.
1 it is ok to smack sometimes.
2. It is never ok to smack.
If (2) is false the whole thing unravels.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – don’t smack people, even if they are small (and don’t post spurious arguments. Get the ‘whole section 59 thing’ clear in your mind before you engage.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
waiting Shunda – itching …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly Sue was the one paranoid about large christian organisations from the US behind oposition to the bill among other paranoid delusions.
Most of the info on Sue Bradford’s beliefs I found was on the greens own website and various interviews she has done. Its from the horses mouth my friend, no paranoia required!
P.S I am not tense, just chillin!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
give me some real facts Shunda, not vague opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
[I see the wheels are falling off your argument Greenfly].
I discuss section59 on Frogblog. I don’t belong to any goup>( actually I believe politics should be carried on in the open so we can each see each others thought processes. My father belonged to a lodge but I thought groups like that are unhealthy as people outside assume they are up to something).
I don’t advocate smacking dwarfs as that would be degrading. I don’t have (off the top of my head) a set of rules as to when to smack or when not to but I can faithfully recount that I’ve seen people “do it” [smack] in ways that seemed appropriate. I’ve also seen Nanny stuff about when an intelligent experienced woman would have had the situation sorted in a few seconds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“jh, do you and shunda discuss this stuff in your cell groups (I’m not implying prison, you surely know what I mean) Genuine question.”
Greenfly is that not a little paranoid?
Despite the smear tactics of some, christian people are not devoting the massive amount of time to the latest social justice issue’s that you might suppose, greenfly have no fear, the christians are not out to get you!
These issues are talked about for sure, but no more so than anyone else is!!
I would assume you were once part of a cell group greenfly?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I hope that’s not it jh and shunda. If you are using the good book as the manual for your views on children, I’m losing interest in your position. Hope I’m wrong. In any case, don’t hit people, especially those who love you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh I withdraw and apologise for the ‘cell’ question. I do laugh though at your reason for not hitting a dwarf (it would be degrading! No jh, it would be assault
Shunda – you’re busted.
tw jh, you now do have a ‘set of rules as to when to smack or not to’
You should thank Sue for that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly
So you are dismissing me because of my assumed religion?
wouldn’t that be a little bigoted?
I have not once used a religious argument on this thread and am happy to keep it that way, how about you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wouldn’t dismiss anyone who has an assumed religion Shunda, but wasn’t it you who brought up the discussion about ‘the christian community’? It hadn’t occured to me that this might be significant until you raised it. I’m happy to leave the possibility of the church’s influence on this issue right out of the argument, if it makes you anxious, but can you seperate yourself from that (assumed) influence?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is no anxietey on my part greenfly, if you have any questions on my religious belief fire away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cheers Shunda – my question:
Did Mary smack baby Jesus?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good question, I assume because he was without sin she didn’t have to but who knows?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But if he was about to run in front of a chariot? Would she have?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The question that raises – did she smack her other children and if so were they resentful that the always innocent one was never smacked …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t see any reason why not, I could be wrong tho.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think you guys miss the obvious way to attack some of the more extreme christians beliefs by studying the way Jesus spoke of children.
You could cut down some arguments in seconds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
She’d have been better to model safe road behaviour for Jesus, or assign an older child to look after him when he had to cross the road. Smacking him would have been unnecessary. There are many, many ways to keep children safe, without using smacking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – now you’re talking (and I’m listening) – will you tell me some of the things that Jesus said to children? (perhaps so things that pertain to the issue of smacking)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
some things
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly I have no problem with those suggestions for a compliant child, but it dosen’t work for a strong willed child, safetey most definately becomes an issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Had Jesus not a very strong will, Shunda?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly from my understanding Jesus modified the much harsher old testament approach to dicipline and put the onus back on the parents.
So it went from stoning wayward teenagers to telling fathers not to exasperate your children (which I think means frustrating your kids with a whole lot of unneccessary rules etc)
He also said that if anyone caused the children to stumble it would be better for them to have a mill stone hung around their neck and chucked in the ocean, (ie Graham Capill could be in trouble).
This would indicate a shift from simply judging bad behavior to addressing the reasons for it. This would rule out the authorortatian(can’t spell) approach to parenting that some christians employ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Had Jesus not a very strong will, Shunda?”
You got me there, he even ran away from home once.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – I think you are right! Your last paragraph reads in a very enlightened way. I don’t think Jesus smacked. I’m following his lead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“he even ran away from home once”.
Go Jesus! I’m liking him more and more
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am surprised that he did run away from home, considering He had such a strong Father figure
Thanks Shunda
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
one thing I have realised from this whole debate is that smacking should only be used as a last resort and not in anger. I have been pushed to the limit with my kids at times over the years and I can see how easy it could be to go to far especially when times are tough with other stress. This dosn’t necessarily make these parents bad people though, or deserving prosecution.
My personal belief is that when parents get lazy and use smacking for every misdermeaner it looses its effect and exasperates the child and most definately is harmful. My concern is now we have micro surgery with an axe and smacking is outlawed cause some people use it incorrectly. That otago study has shown mild smacking is not harmful so why do we need to outlaw it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I am surprised that he did run away from home, considering He had such a strong Father figure Thanks Shunda”
When they found him he said something similar.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Go Jesus! I’m liking him more and more”
Funny thing is greenfly, people that struggle with christians often don’t have a problem with Jesus, go figure!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, as you brought it up I will explain this quote of mine:
“Thanks jh and Shunda, for blowing apart any possibility that this whole fuss about banning smacking might actually be for the child’s welfare. No-one can deny it is purely about ideology, and might even be destructive.”
The ONLY piece of actual research that has been referenced to on this thread was by jh. It clearly shows that smacking is NOT harmful and may in fact help children.
The anti-smackers seem to wish to protect the welfare of a child during punishment. Those who feel smacking should be an option if necessary are concerned about the welfare of the child for their whole life, and feel that the overall effect of smacking, if necessary, can be positive to the child’s overall welfare. Only the second position is supported by this research.
If you can come up with some high-quality studies that clearly contradict that quoted to by jh I will retract my statement. However you will find it difficult to find a more comprehensive study than that one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Come on Mr Dennis – It’s this – “blowing apart any possibility” that is so ludicrous. Here is another “No-one can deny it is purely about ideology” (hint: Yes they can!)
and “may in fact help children” is pretty weak, don’t you think? “May”??
“The anti-smackers seem to wish to protect the welfare of a child during punishment.” You’ve got that right, at least.
I’m not wanting you to “retract your statement”, just tighten them up so that they are worth attending to. All in all, I notice that you have an unhealthy fixation with smacking.
My suggestion is; if you are this intense about it, don’t use the technique on any child. Use a method that that you are dispassionate about. Everyone will be better off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When this bill was before the house, the kids at my (primary) school were asked “who has been smacked?”… a sea of hands went up.
The question was rephrased “who hasn’t been smacked”… only two hands went up, my kids. My parents never smacked me either.
I’ve never needed to. They are great kids. Smacking just isn’t necessary.
I have wanted to throttle my teenager though! But that’s another story.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Has anyone even considered the fact that different people have diferent tolerance to pain, stress, etc etc?.
This is certainly my experience, which is why I believe smacking is appropriate for some kids and not for others.
Every one knows of a kid that seems almost bullet proof. This bill makes no discretion on an individuals ability to cope with mild smacking, its a one size fits all, ie an unmovable ideological position on child dicipline and in a wider sense a passavist aproach to correction of any human behavior.
samiam, its great your kids don’t need it, but some kids do and this bill will put them at risk.
The most comprehensive study on human behavior has made a strong link to better outcomes in later life for those that were mildly smacked. Where is the evidence to refute this study? all of my experience would back it up as would most NZ familys.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not sure your point proves anything Samiam. Some parents have a rapport with their kids so smacking isn’t necessary, but in some cases, this may be an unhealthy domination. Amongst the general population however, there are plenty of people who do use a smack and can put up a good argument why. Don’t forget about individual differences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh said
“Some parents have a rapport with their kids so smacking isn’t necessary, but in some cases, this may be an unhealthy domination.”
And in the worst case it can become emotional incest which is probably the worst form of child abuse other than sexual abuse. It can absolutely cripple children emotionally when this happens, yet it is perfectly legal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If you look at older societies there wasn’t the two parents one child rule and wiser members of the group had some moderating influence. We are going the other way where the state tries to forge a straight thick highway through the twists and turns of it all…..On the other hand Pitcairn Island…………hmmmm?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, rather than picking holes in my wording, can you actually counter the comprehensive study referred to by jh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis – fair enough, I was picking, but I’ve always thought that it’s important to express thoughts clearly, especially on important topics in a public venue. As to the comprehensive study. No. I’m listening to the debate and applying my thinking to the questions raised. What I see is something similar to the climate change argument – the party that has ‘lost’ the debate (the repeal is through, the ETA about to be passed) calls on all manner of reports, experts etc. to show that they were right, when the over all weight of evidence is heavily against them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
While we are on the subject (of words and what they reveal) I am very interest in your statement on tazers (from a concurrent thread),
“Tasers and anything like it are just firefighting. We need to stop the fire starting in the first place.”
Would you agree that it would be appropriate to replace the word ‘tazers’ with ‘smacking’ to present your views on that issue?
“smacking and anything like it are just firefighting. We need to stop the fire starting in the first place.”
Your thoughts?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, smacking and punishment of any form could be considered firefighting, as the child obviously misbehaved. In this case the firefighting is a quick response and minor.
I suppose you could put it like this:
Misbehaving child = small fire. Discipline (including smacking where appropriate) = fire extinguisher.
Failure to use the fire extinguisher early may result in a large fire = misbehaving adult. You may need to call in the fire brigade now = police (possibly including tools such as tasers) and the court system.
Hopefully you won’t need to use the fire extuinguisher, but you need access to it just in case. Making the fire extinguisher illegal or harder to access will result in more fire brigade callouts, which are much more expensive for society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam – good to read an example of a family showing, for two generations, that children can be successfully raised without smacking. I’m guessing that your children will raise theirs without hitting them also. If I might ask you a question? – How do you think your children will get their partners to agree to follow suit, if by chance, they were raised in a smacking-is-ok family?
(btw – do you like green eggs and ham?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis – I must have been unclear when I made my comparison – by ‘stopping the fire starting in the first place’, referring to bad behaviour, I meant using other techniques (diversion, modelling good behaviours, removing troublesome equipment, etc etc.) not using a fire exinguisher/child smacking.
If you call for negating the need for tazers by getting in early enough with practices that prevent ‘tazerable’ behaviour, (good call btw) then I assumed you would think the same about smacking – get in with good practices before the need for hitting arises. I felt you were on to something really inspired with that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree greenfly, if you can prevent the need to use the fire extinguisher (smack) in the first place that is even better. My point is that you may not succeed, so you need access to both the fire extinguisher and the fire brigade just in case. I would certainly agree that you should try other techniques first.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
green fly,
What exactly is wrong with the Police having tazer guns?
Do you think they don’t have the ability or training to know when they should be used?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually I’ll re word that,
Do you think the Police don’t have the the discretion to know when a tazer is necessary to use in a certain situation?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly,
I can’t be bothered waiting for your reply so I’ll just go ahead anyway.
If you don’t think the police can be trusted with using tazers, how do you think they can be trusted to know when a smacking charge can be dropped. Read subsection 4 of section 59.
Also you seem to be totally against any form of reasonable force on a child, but section 59 does not actually ban the use of reasonable force.
It only narrows the circumstances that it can be used. So it does say that under certain circumstances you can use reasonable force.
And in fact if you could even smack a kid for sweraing if you wanted to.
With your views on things you should be totally against the amendment because it gives the police more responsibility, and it still allows smacking.
In fact I would have left out (c) because in that situation I would put the child in time out.
I think you would love subsection 2 though greenfly because that pretty much voids subsection 1 anyway.
P.S. If the quotes are wrong blame toad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Author: greenfly
Comment:
“What I see is something similar to the climate change argument – the party that has ‘lost’ the debate (the repeal is through, the ETA about to be passed) calls on all manner of reports, experts etc. to show that they were right, when the over all weight of evidence is heavily against them.”
……………………
Spanking: When parents lift their hands –
It’s better not to use corporal punishment, researchers agree. But, in fact, people do. Now we’re learning the consequences.
By Ben Harder, Special to The Times, Los Angeles Times, February 19, 2007
/ /
Yet the mildest forms of spanking have not been proved harmful. “A family that hits once in a while? The research is equivocal about that,” Kazdin says.
http://www.nospank.net/n-q64r.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DougT Says:
“Do you think the Police don’t have the the discretion to know when a tazer is necessary to use in a certain situation?”
According to the only independent study, in the NZ Taser trial the police breached their own Standard Operating Procedure 40% of the time.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0808/S00399.htm
In the US and Canada the police have been blasted for abusing the weapon by using it excessively and in inappropriately, having very poor methods of accountability and inadequate medical assistance to victims. In North America alone 300+ have died after being struck with a Taser. Daming reports in Canada by the Independent Police Ombudsman suggested Tasers be restricted to seasoned officers of 5yrs+ experience and there were calls for them to be reclassified as firearms.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-11-24-canada-taser-death_N.htm
Tasers on Video on this page basically documents complete violation of human rights through use of the Taser on ordinary citizens who are doing NOTHING illegal or wrong.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/domestic-human-rights/taser-abuse/page.do?id=1021202&n1=3&n2=850&n3=220
“Usage creep” is basically found where ever there are Tasers and it is a serious concern because it means ordinary citizens who are doing nothing illegal or violent are very likely to be Tasered. As demonstrated in the many video clips found in the above link, the police increasingly use Tasers for “compliance” reasons, when their operating proceedures require there to be some high level of threat of violence or death (something to that effect).
It is so important that we ensure that the line between those who are violent, aggressive and posing a threat of harm or death that the police can’t handle in any other way – and – someone who for whatever reason, be it legitimate or not, is not complying with officers demands – but is totally non-violent. (watch the guy get Tasered for refusing to sign a speeding ticket because he genuinely disputed it. Once Tasered he is told to remain on the ground on the side of the highway till other officers arrive…His wife is crying in the car cause she probably thinks he’s dead – bit traumatic yeah?)
The use of Tasers in the US and Canada (comparable culture/living standards) couldn’t offer NZ a better look into the problems and issues that arise. We couldn’t pay some big shot consultancy to get a better ‘real life study’. They have been used in Nth America since June 2001 and over 300 people who were Tasered are now dead. Whether they deserved it or not.
The company that makes Tasers – Taser Inc actively sues coroners to remove the Taser as a cause of death.
It is known that if Tasered these people are at high risk of dying:
people with a cardio condition or similar health condition
people under the influence of drugs (alcohol included)
people who are in an extremely mentally or physically agitated state
And what is really scary is that according to Annette King and the NZ Police these are the kinds of people who qualify to be Tasered:
“a person under the influence of drugs, mentally disordered or in a “”frenzied”‘ psychological state.”
Just great! A cocktail for disaster.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah, I’ve got the answer!
“Reasonable force for the purpose of correction”. The answer’s easy when you look across the threads, rather than just down them.
Now, for those who advocate physical discipline, where do you draw the line re the escalation of force when the corrective intention is not achieved?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Excuse me frog, could you check if my, somewhat long, post is caught up somewhere? thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doug T – I was called away, sorry Doug. It sounds though, that you didn’t need me anyway and answered your own question
However, you misrepresent my position on the tazer issue. My position is not that the police can’t be trusted with tazers (where did you draw that from I wonder?) I have commented about escalation only. If you up the ante by adding technology (in this case sub-lethal) then other forms of management get neglected and can never advance when there is a quick fix (strapped to your belt). A blunt ‘solution’ trumps a subtle one every time and not because it is better.
Because you incorrectly assigned a whole line of opinion to me, your extrapolation to the issue of trusting the police discretion re smacking is a bit meaningless. I’ll try to answer your next comment more quickly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – I found your comment quite obscure and couldn’t drag much meaning out of it. Is this line’
“Yet the mildest forms of spanking have not been proved harmful.”
your key point? If so, can I ask, have those mild forms of spanking (is that the word you really want to use?) proved harmless? Also, has there been material published to show that using spanking has marginilised and disadvantaged the development of superior forms of management? It pays too, to remember that Sue Bradford’s bill simply sought to close a loophole that allowed assaults on children to go unpunished. These other points you raise are a bit off topic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BTW, I didn’t mean to imply that the “dad” in my last post was of the “4j” variety.
But if the cap fits…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Did someone call? Hi Sue remember my question at Select Committee?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dear Miss Sue Bradford – Mr Mason, a good decent father of two young toddlers is having a terrible time on police bail for flicking his young children around the ears so they wouldn’t get run over on the road.
Toad please retire as you are so silly you seem sick.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
new zealand – the country where thousands protest 4 the right to whack their kids .
never mind that most of the same people sit and watch ‘supernanny’ and other ‘toddler taming’ programs on tv and never ONCE is hitting/spanking/whacking kids used as a method of bringing even the most appallingly behaved kids into line.
never mind that the bill was promoted after a south canterbury woman walked away scot free after badly beating her son with a WHIP by claiming she did it to DISCIPLINE him – and so now you can’t beat yr kids and get away with it by claiming that you were disciplining yr kids . wow . what a travesty !
so lets see, what gets kiwis off their couches and onto the streets these days?
Children dying of hunger ?
The environment?
Wars?
genocide ?
well, i saw pics of about 100,000 kiwis on queen street a few weeks back – oh right – they were watching some sleazoid porn king and his advert for a sex expo pass by, oh ..and hundreds of thousands of kiwis are signing a petition …oh right , for the right to smack their kids
… never felt more like leaving this country than i have in the past month or so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# greenfly Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
jh – I found your comment quite obscure and couldn’t drag much meaning out of it. Is this line’
“Yet the mildest forms of spanking have not been proved harmful.�
your key point?
……………
Yes contrast that statement with yours:
Author: greenfly
Comment:
- the party that has ‘lost’ the debate (the repeal is through, the ETA about to be passed) calls on all manner of reports, experts etc. to show that they were right,
*when the over all weight of evidence is heavily against them*.�
I assumed you were claiming that the evidence that “the mildest forms of spanking” (which is what people are arguing for) has been proved “overwhelmingly” harmfull.
“If so, can I ask, have those mild forms of spanking (is that the word you really want to use?) proved harmless?”
Yes unequivocally according to the “groundbreaking” Otago Multi Disciplinary Health and Development Study.
“Also, has there been material published to show that using spanking has marginilised and disadvantaged the development of superior forms of management?”
Clutching straws???
” It pays too, to remember that Sue Bradford’s bill simply sought to close a loophole that allowed assaults on children to go unpunished.
I don’t think many people are fooled by that
The Greens described their own bill as an “Anti smacking Bill”.
The aim was to “change the culture of violence”.
These other points you raise are a bit off topic.”
Yeah right
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
d4j said: …Mr Mason … a good decent father of two young toddlers is having a terrible time on police bail for flicking his young children around the ears…
d4j, are you aware that hitting kids around the ears can cause permanent hearing impairment?
And what’s so terrible about being on police bail? He might have to report to a Police Station once a week or something until the hearing – hardly a huge impediment to him going about his lawful business.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad as a father who knows what it’s like trapped in the justice system I can assure you the unnecessary stress generated is very unhealthy for children . You wouldn’t know about that as you are on another planet to me.
Thank you Miss Bradford for making daddy a criminal said young Johnny.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – every time you write, ‘ I assume you mean…’ a little alarm should go off in your head, because invariably, your assumptions are wildy astray!
How you can equate
‘the mildest forms of spanking have not been proved harmful.” (greenfly)
with
“Yes, those mild forms of spanking have proved harmless.” (jh)
is a puzzle to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
haz has got it right. Don’t leave the country haz, we need people like you, with a clear view, to stay and counter the clamour of the disgruntled and the fearful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# greenfly Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
jh – every time you write, ‘ I assume you mean…’ a little alarm should go off in your head, because invariably, your assumptions are wildy astray!
How you can equate
‘the mildest forms of spanking have not been proved harmful.� (greenfly)
with
“Yes, those mild forms of spanking have proved harmless.� (jh)
is a puzzle to me.
…………………….
“‘the mildest forms of spanking have not been proved harmful.â€?
This quote comes from the NoSpank website atricle linked to
http://www.nospank.net/n-q64r.htm
“Yes, those mild forms of spanking have proved harmless.� jh
What I do say is:
Yes unequivocally according to the “groundbreaking� Otago Multi Disciplinary Health and Development Study.
["I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids," she said.
"I know that is not a popular thing to say, but it is certainly the case.
"The more honest researchers have said, let's be honest, we all wish we could say it's all very clear and that no parent should ever lift a finger on a child - although I think that is totally unrealistic as a single parent myself - but the big problem is that a lot of the studies have lumped a whole lot of forms of physical punishment together."
Dr Millichamp said the Dunedin study so far found no evidence of the "slippery slope" theory - that parents who started off smacking often progressed to abusive punishments.
"We couldn't find any," she said.
The findings undermine Green MP Sue Bradford's bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows parents to use "reasonable force" to discipline children.
Dr Millichamp said there was no doubt that abusive punishments had long-lasting negative consequences, but the research did not support banning mild smacks.
"It's unethical to make out that there is a lot of evidence that mild smacking is harmful," she said.]
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Rugby legend strikes out on s59
By Sue Bradford
When is Sue Bradford going to discuss the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin_Multidisciplinary_Health_and_Development_Study
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – you’ve done an impresive amount of research. From that you’ve concluded that mild smacks aren’t harmful. That may be so. Let’s remember though that the repeal of Section 59 sought to close a loophole in the law that allowed some assualts on children to go unpunished. Do you seek to over-turn that repeal? What then of those cases? In the situation we parents find ourselves now, we are in an environment where physical punishment of children is being strongly discouraged. As a trend, I believe this is a very good thing. Parents who ‘smack mildly’ and always with a clear head might find this slightly frustrating (though not intolerable, given that there are many alternative ways to deal with those situations that previously necessitated a smack) but they might also accept that over all a reduction in physical punishment will benefit the community, over time. That is my expectation (as with the changes to the law on smoking in public places – easy to argue that some people are unharmed “I’m 99 and have smoked every day of my adult life – never did me any harm – namby pamby interfering government dogooders!! Cough, cough, hack, hack!!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DougT, so what do you think about my reply re Tasers and police propensity to misuse them? Did you check out the links? The videos? I believe your question has been answered – apologies as the post was MIA for a short while and thus easily missed (though it’s terribly long!).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sue B,
>>from ‘Blue Peter’ – ’so why are the Greens messing around with anti-smacking bills?’
You’ve taken me out of context. I was replying to another poster. However, as an aside, the question stands, and your answer remains just as disingenuous.
The Green Charter can mean absolutely anything. Therefore, it means nothing at all. It allows for appropriate decision making at the appropriate level. I would argue the decision whether to smack a child is best made by the parent, not the state. The parent is backed by the Dunedin study, while your statist position is not.
It is a prime example of decision making at an inappropriate level.
It is the states job to limit child abuse. Why aren’t you doing that, hmmm? The Maori/PI problem just too difficult for you, hmmm?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter –
“I would argue the decision whether to smack a child is best made by the parent, not the state”.
Can I ask you – does your argument still hold if you replace “smack a child” with “ensure children wear a seatbelt”
ie. I would argue the decision whether to ensure children wear a seat belt is best made by the parent, not the state.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly says:
“Parents who ’smack mildly’ and always with a clear head might find this slightly frustrating (though not intolerable, given that there are many alternative ways to deal with those situations that previously necessitated a smack)’
and the assumption there is “a better way” in every case plus leads to a culture of violence (slippery slope)…. so now that we have minimised the need to smack to almost zero, we can just make it technically illegal and that gives us a broad hand for action… police “discretion”
“That is my expectation (as with the changes to the law on smoking in public places – easy to argue that some people are unharmed “I’m 99 and have smoked every day of my adult life – never did me any harm – namby pamby interfering government dogooders!! Cough, cough, hack, hack!!)”
That’s a missrepresentation:
“easy to argue that some people are unharmed”
V’s
“Yet the mildest forms of spanking have not been proved harmful. “A family that hits once in a while? The research is equivocal about that,” Kazdin says. ”
I remain firmly convinced that Sue Bradfords bill’s main point was not at the few people who allegedly “got off” but at society in general by casting the shadow of illegality over the act of smacking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The state has a role in whether we wear seat belts because the state pays for mendical care.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Can I ask you – does your argument still hold if you replace “smack a childâ€? with “ensure children wear a seatbeltâ€?
How about changing it to “if you replace “smack a childâ€? with “letting a child run in the park”
Are you going to legislate against that? After all, kids have been killed in parks, and killed whilst running, so if you let your kids run in parks you are clearly a child killer.
THe states job is to step in when harm occurs. As studies have shown, there is no more harm in a smack than in being sent to the naughty chair.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oh for gods sake haven’t you people got a life? Go outside; meet some family or friends; leave your computers alone you sad sad men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh- that you are ‘firmly convinced’ tells me my work here is done (and in vain) so I’ll disengage from the debate. Please don’t smack liitle humans – it may ‘ not have proved harmful’ in an Otago University study, but it don’t seem right to me. Stay your hand my friend.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
stuey – thanks for the ‘wake up’ and you are right (though I’ve been out and about in my community since early this morning, yakking and gardening and am now planning the planting of the tunnelhouse with my sons, while they are preparing for gigs later this afternoon which look to be sellouts)
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
One issue not addressed in all this is what to do with the smacking parent, or the ear-flicking parent that gets put before a judge.
One poster alluded to the ‘supernanny’ etc programs that deal with BEHAVIOR without ever smacking.
I think that instead of a conviction and fine, it should be a non-conviction and attend an ‘alternatives to smacking’ parenting skills course. I suspect a lot of opposition might evaporate if only the worst cases got the book thrown at them.
Greenfly, “If I might ask you a question? – How do you think your children will get their partners to agree to follow suit, if by chance, they were raised in a smacking-is-ok family?”
Why use the tazer of course! :^0
(btw – do you like green eggs and ham?)
Fox in Sox is better
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually I just came in from the garden to eat a grapefruit.
Let’s face it this issue has been badly handled and as someone stated on TV3 “Sue Bradford isn’t the person to sell it”.
greenfly says:
jh- “Please don’t smack liitle humans – it may ‘ not have proved harmful’ in an Otago University study, but it don’t seem right to me. Stay your hand my friend.”
my argument has been for common sense rather than dogma.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam Says:
August 31st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
One poster alluded to the ’supernanny’ etc programs that deal with BEHAVIOR without ever smacking.
………
There is an underlying assumption there that supernannys method was always best. Some parents will never need to smack and some will do it ocasionally but I don’t accept that supernanny always knows best. In one episode they coaxed a kid for about 10 minutes to follow to the car. Some parents would just ignore the kid and walk off and the kid would take off like a rocket.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This thread could well go down in history as a fine example of people “talking past each other”!
It is natural that parents are concerned for their children. It is also common that parents tend to parent the way they were parented themselves, (and this tends to be particularly so for fathers who generally spend less time discussing and learning about what others do).
Have the “pro smacking” males here paused long enough to notice that this is a very male dominated thread? Perhaps this fact should be reflected upon, in the light of the fact that most of the parenting in AotearoaNZ is still done by women, and Early Childhood Education is a very female dominated profession. (“Smacking” is NOT a part of the ECE repertoire.)
However, I will follow the “male dominated” discussion and comment upon on my relationship with my FATHER:
I was brought up in the 1940′s and 50′s when smacking was very much the norm … in people’s homes and in schools.
My father (born in 1909) came from a family of fourteen children who were NEVER hit.
I was one of two children, with an older brother. Our father was an absolute master of diluting any tension with a calm face a short discussion on the situation … and he had an irresistable way of making us see the funny side of everything. It is VERY difficult to remain “in a sulk” with a parent like that!
My mother shared the same views, and had similar skills. Some of my strongest memories of my childhood are of two parents working as a team. Two pairs of eyes looking at me …
They were both teachers … and at their respective memorial gatherings (= funerals) we were overwhelmed that MANY ex students had travelled from afar to attend … (Needless to say, they had not hit their students either!)
I feel sad that this thread could have been a place to share information … Instead it has been used to demonstrate that entrenched ideas and a determination to be always “right” is the core of the problem here.
It is natural that parents are concerned for their children. It is also common that parents tend to parent the way they were parented themselves. (This tends to be particularly so for fathers).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
For small children (eg in a supermarket) diversion is a much better tool than a smack.
Kids are curious, and they love new ideas … use those facts to make life interesting, peaceful and fun !
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
By the way…
When there is a fight on the rugby field why don’t the police march on and arrest them, like they do outside of the touchline? Now wouldn’t that cause a stir!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>determination to be always “right� is the core of the problem here.
The core of the problem is single-minded people using the threat of state violence to *impose* their parenting practices on others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see the Greens have produced a documentary “The Age Of Stupid” about Sue Bradford.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
no jh..
i’m pretty sure it’s about your lot..
..eh..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I thought of it first Phil. Actually though anything the Greens try to do will have to compete with Sues attempt to ban smacking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen said
“I feel sad that this thread could have been a place to share information … Instead it has been used to demonstrate that entrenched ideas and a determination to be always “rightâ€? is the core of the problem here.”
I have tried to do this eredwen, problem is the greens have determined my information on parenting is “wrong” and no corrospondence will be entered into.
I and others have expressed the posible advantages of smacking and provided evidence to back it up, yet no exchange of reasoning or information from anti smackers has been provided.
You mention you were never smacked and turned out fine,and that is great, however nobody here has suggested everyone benefits from smacking, only those children that respond to it.
Your experience is valid and I believe mine is, I resent being treated like some relic from a by gone era(I am only 31) or a product of my environment. I have done things very different to my parents and still believe smacking can be beneficial if used correctly.
Show me evidence that smacking is harmful and I will listen. If this was done properly by the greens in the first place, we could be working together by now on actually reducing child abuse instead of debating a law that won’t change a thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s where the “Suppernanny” meme comes in. Supernanny demonstrates how to deal with children without smacking.
Except that the status quo (your ordinary parents) are assumed to be the ignorant unwashed and there is no program on how they deal successfully with their families.
Having established (or at least spread a lot of doubt) that mild smacking isn’t harmful. The next thing would be to examine the role of (innate) individual differences between the family who smack and those who don’t. Those who don’t assume (by implication) that they could hop into the other parents shoes and sort the family out…. but could they;should they…..[individual differences]?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
[should be]
Those who assume (by implication) that they could hop into the other parents shoes and sort the family out:…. could they;should they…..[individual differences]?
Bottom line: the politicians (considered by the public to be down there with Real estate agents) pass a law that makes (mild) smacking illegal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
when i was a kid of about 9 or 10 i was crossing manchester street in chch with my parents. ahead of us was a family crossing at the same time- spread out over the crossing like a family of ducks and ducklings. at the rear was a little girl about 5 years old – i didn’t notice her father behind her until he quickly passed me and whacked the little girl across the top of her head and yelled ” get a move on !” at her. She got a hell of a fright as he’d come up behind her but my most enduring memory was that she didn’t cry but just carried on like a zombie – like she was really used to being hit.
My mother had a go at the guy when we got to the other side telling him it was wrong to hit little children especially about the head. I stood and watched as she got a mouthful of abuse from him and his wife ” don’t fuckin tell us what to do with our own kids”
I still remember that whack,the sound of it and the impact it made , it knocked her forward , and I often wonder about her . Imagine if she had a parent who held her hand across the road or who scooped her up in his arms and hugged her and carried her across that crossing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>
>>never mind that most of the same people sit and watch ’super-nanny’ and other ‘toddler taming’ programs on TV and never ONCE is hitting/spanking/whacking kids used as a method of bringing even the most appallingly behaved kids into line.
Lights, camera action – NO Cut, you can’t hold him like that, be a bit more gentle, otherwise the message won’t get through!
COME ON FOLKS
SuperNanny is a TV entertainment show. There are at least three people that you NEVER see in the footage that is shown, the director, cameraman and sound-man. The entire thing is a set up, EXPLOITING CHILDREN – and you want to use it as an example of GOOD parenting! Sheesh!
Posted by Strings. I’ve helped raise 7 kids, and spent this last weekend with another 97. WHat have youy done to gain the experience needed to hold an informed view on this topic?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes strings, the unedited version of super nanny would be very interesting indeed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ash,
Your reply about tazers has nothing to do with why I mentioned them in my last post.
If you can’t read what I wrote then how the hell do you even know what is writen in the amended section 59?
I’ll spell it out once again but that’s it.
If you think the police can’t be trusted with tazers then you must also think that they can’t be trusted to not drop a smacking charge as section 59 gives them the power to do. Which means that you must be against the amended section 59.
Stuey,
I’m taking your advice, I’ve wasted far too much time on this crap.
I should have realised that a political blog would be full of political debates rather than intellegent discussion. If I ever get the notion to get into this sort of thing again, I think I’ll just fork out the $45 and renew my Mensa membership.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly:
“Please don’t smack liitle humans – it may ‘ not have proved harmful’ in an Otago University study, but it don’t seem right to me.”
Should we be basing legislation on the results of detailed scientific studies, or on what “seems right” to some individuals such as Greenfly and Sue Bradford?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis – you are an adult, use your mature judgement when it comes to managing children’s behaviour. I’m asking, when you feel the need to hit a child, allow your maturity to guide your actions. These recent developments are a step toward New Zealand’s maturity as a society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, that is exactly what I do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You go further than that (as do Phil etc) you project your own situation and ideas into others situations and declare that they should do as you do. That is just your opinion but Sue Bradford has tried to make her opinion law (banning smacking). It is just opinion as it isn’t backed by empirical evidence (ie that mild smacking is harmful or that there is a handier method for a busy mother).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)