Rugby legend strikes out on s59
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
>>>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?
August 27th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
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!
August 27th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Naa turnip
You would just get the standard green “FLIP FLOP”
August 27th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
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:
August 27th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Same old garbage. Not worth reading.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
>>>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?????
August 27th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
BP, is that your idea of logic ?
What about debating the actual law instead of using cheap diversion.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Are you going to apply the same logic to children? Are you going to pretend that children should be treated the same as adults?
August 27th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
>>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.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Kjuv
Is your mother an adult or a child?
How strange you would use an adult with a disability as an argument.
try again
August 27th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
>>Stop turning this into a child welfare issue, which it is not.
Educate me.
Tell me what is the purpose of this law.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Toad
And it clearly FAILS to protect kids from child abuse.
It was never about child abuse at all.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
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
August 27th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
>>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?
August 27th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
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?
August 27th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
“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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
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?
August 27th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
“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?
August 27th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
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???
August 27th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
>>why to you support a law that makes such an action a prosecutable offence?
That’s not the case.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
“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).
August 27th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
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).
August 27th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
“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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Sorry if i didn’t express myself very well.
It was a too convoluted.
Let me rephrase : what’s wrong with the actual law ?
August 27th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Toad
stop, don’t do it, please don’t expect me to believe that, I know you are more intelligent than that.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
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!
August 27th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
>> FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND INFORMED KIWI
We only know that they were FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND KIWI.
The INFORMED part is at your discresion
August 27th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
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?
August 27th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
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
August 27th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Toad, please answer the question rather than just insinuating that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
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!
August 27th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
“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?
August 27th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
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
August 27th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
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!!
August 27th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
…we can’t really agree on…
August 27th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
>>And meanwhile the planet is haemorrhaging
So why are the ***Greens*** messing around with anti-smacking bills?
August 27th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
“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)
August 27th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Sorry Frog, I meant Toad. Late at night!
August 27th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
The force is not use in the purpose of correction.
The correction his the naughty chair.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
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?
August 27th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
>>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.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Exactly, it is an anti smacking law.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
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?
August 27th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
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)
August 27th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Presse-puree
You don’t have kids do you, Have you ever tried explaining ANYTHING to a 2 year old?
August 27th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
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
August 27th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
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?
August 27th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Front kick ?
August 27th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
“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.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
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.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:04 am
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:12 am
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!.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:24 am
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:44 am
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:19 am
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:12 am
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:52 am
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:16 am
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?
August 28th, 2008 at 10:27 am
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
August 28th, 2008 at 10:31 am
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
August 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I have an example, but it will have to wait untill after work.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
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
August 28th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
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 ???
August 28th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
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?
August 28th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
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’
August 28th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Might I just say how great it is that Green Party MPs are posting and replying on this blog - keep it up!
August 28th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
…I think you forgot to put add ‘except for the children that aren’t like that’.
August 28th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
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
August 28th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Toad, that last comment is very revealing. Is that disrespect for authority typical of most Green members, or just a peculiarity of your own?
August 28th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
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)
August 28th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Mr D, Mr Strings, Mr Doug T - please don’t hit your children.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
“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.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
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!
August 28th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
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!
August 28th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
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?
August 28th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
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?
August 28th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
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)
August 28th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Mr Dennis - questioning authority does not equate to breaking the law.
Questioning implies the application of intellect. Breaking the law doesn’t.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
“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_Deve lopment_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.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
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.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
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.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:25 am
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.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:30 am
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.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:31 am
It is absolutely about children’s welfare Mr Dennis.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:37 am
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.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:42 am
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.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:46 am
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
>
Wh