by Sue Bradford
The debate around s59 looks like heating up again over the next four months under the dual pressures of the August referendum and the announcement of a proposed member’s bill from ACT MP John Boscawen.
Mr Boscawen is clearly keen on appealing to the sentiments stirred up by the referendum’s promoters, having lost his impetus on electoral reform now that the Government has picked up that issue.
The good news is that I doubt very much that John Key and the National Party want to be diverted into another huge wrangle over the question of whether it should be legal to beat our kids for the purpose of discipline. They may of course decide that such a debate would make a nice distraction from the twin impacts of global recession and climate change.
However, Mr Key has so far shown no appetite for turning back the clock on keeping our children safe from violence.
The PM has repeatedly said that National won’t reverse the s59 amendment unless there is evidence of the police prosecuting parents for trivial or inconsequential assaults.
The three police reviews so far show no sign of this happening, despite the cases used as part of Family First’s hugely expensive newspaper advertising campaign. Barnardos New Zealand, Save the Children, Plunket, Jigsaw, National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges Inc, Te Kahui Mana Ririki, EPOCH New Zealand all say the new law is fair, sensible, and working well.
Because of privacy issues it is impossible for anyone to make a clear judgement about the full story behind the cases used in the ads – and when Family First and friends have talked about identifiable cases before the courts, there has always been more to the story than first meets the eye.
The real agenda behind both the referendum and Mr Boscawen’s bill is clearly to create a new law which defines the level and nature of violence parents can legally use on their children.
I continue to be astounded by the thinking of so many New Zealanders who still think it is ‘Not OK” to use violence on another adult, but that it is OK to legally assault children, who after all are so much more vulnerable than we grownups.
Of course the argument then comes back, ‘smacking, whacking or hitting is OK if I do it – that’s not really violence at all.’
But I invite those who think this way to consider the fact that children are battered daily by parents who believe the level of violence they are inflicting is minor; and also to consider what it might feel like for a small person to be assaulted and humiliated by a much larger person.
In the months ahead, we in the Green Party will continue to do everything we can to defend the 2007 s59 law change alongside the many community organizations and church groups who share our belief that the ability of children to grow up free from violence transcends any perceived right of parents to beat their children as part of family discipline.
Published in Society & Culture | THE ISSUES by Sue Bradford on Mon, March 23rd, 2009
Tags: John Boscawen, Section 59, vilence against children
More posts by Sue Bradford | more about Sue Bradford
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I continue to be astounded by the thinking of so many New Zealanders who still think it is ‘Not OK” to use violence on another adult, but that it is OK to assault children
I wonder whether that’s the dominant group or just the most vocal one? Specifically, there’s obviously a large group who believe that using violence on other adults is just fine[1], and I suspect that almost all of that group would regard violence against children as acceptable.
I’d also like to see a lot more detail from the pro-beating group. I think it was Idiot/Savant who posted a list? I’d really like to see one of the child-beaters stand up and say explicitly: yes, bare hand on bare bottom is good, open hand on face is good, fist on face is acceptable in the following situations, and so on. Let’s see them quantify the situation, since it’s clear that their claim that “everyone knows what’s reasonable” is false.
Personally I’m inclined to reflect the ethics and say that it is fine by me to spank the child-beaters until they change their minds.
[1] the violent crime rate suggests so, at least.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sue –
it’s interesting to read what both the NZ Herald (15th March) and the Dompost (21st March) have had to say about bullying in schools.
Nowhere does anyone even skim the surface of why some kids come to school expecting that if they have a problem they can’t reason their way out of, it’s normal to resort to violence to solve it to their liking.
Violence in the home comes from an attitude in the community that says it’s ok to hit. If we’re serious about laws to protect adults from assault, as this government has so indicated, then we should be serious about laws that prohibit adults from assaulting children, as well.
Because violent offenders learn violence from those nearest to them.
Their parents. Their aunties and uncles. Their grandparents, cousins, brothers and sisters.
If the deaths of the small children and babies that have been reported recently in the papers are anything to go by, we’ve learnt nothing from the deaths of the Kahui babies; we’ve just blamed a group of people, without saying that any community can take responsibility for not stepping in to help any children being brought up in a household where violence is used to answer questions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sue, since you are so opposed to smacking, how do you propose to effectively discipline children so they don’t do wrong again? Pain is a very good indicator that you shouldn’t do something, why do you think people don’t put their hands on warm stoves?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@john-ston-
You propose an interesting solution. The use of stove tops to discipline our children. As you assert it is a highly effective means of changing a persons behaviour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
John-ston is RIGHT!
Having never put my hand on a warm stove, I thought I’d try it out… Now I can barely type! I will definately not do that again. Thank you for you loving guidance. I wonder what a hot stove would be like…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I continue to be astounded by the thinking of so many New Zealanders who still think it is ‘Not OK” to use violence on another adult, but that it is OK to assault children.
You make a great point, until you realise that brushing past someone on the street is also technically assault, and I think most New Zealanders would think that that was “OK.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Violence is never OK, peteremcc
“Brushing” is exactly the same as whacking someone in the face with a spade. If we allow that exemption, it will only be used by spade whackers to escape prosecution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Come on john-ston, surely you’re smarter than to make a comment like that. How does a boss discipline their employee so they don’t make the same mistakes twice? How does one reason with their spouse when they burn the toast or put too much sugar in their coffee? By whacking them of course?
A lot of research (which I am sure Sue is well aware of) shows that smacking/whacking/beating your child is actually quite ineffective in showing them what’s right and wrong. Furthermore, even if it does show them that it is doing so through a method which obviously says “no it’s bad for you to hit Tommy, but clearly OK for me to hit you”. Geez how hypocritical does it get?
I have a 4 year old daughter. I have never hit her, my parents never hit me. I do not have behavioural problems with my daughter and my parents didn’t have them with me. Clearly I’m only one example, but that is what I can go off.
A few ideas john-ston:
1) Time out
2) Taking away stuff they want until they do behave
3) Reasoning with them (possible after ages 2-3 in my experience)
4) Ignoring them until they behave
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
5) Smack them
Works well for some kids, not for others. The kids it tends to work well for take no notice of 1 through 4….
There is no evidence – see the Dunedin study – that smacking has any adverse effect.
And another thing….
Mind your own business.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh it’s great having a child-smacking debate again. I’ll mind my business, but who’s minding the business of the child that lives in fear of physical violence?
I would like someone to answer the following question:
“Why should our law provide our children with the least legal protection from violence of all members of society, when it is them who are least able to defend themselves?”
Should we be able to smack our grannies when they get old and helpless?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Prior to 1980, if the police charged a man with assault on his wife or girl friend he could use provocation as a defence. In 1980 this defence was disallowed.
Prior to 2007, if the police charged a parent/guardian with assault on a child in their care they could use Section 59 as a defence. After 2007 this defence was disallowed.
Would one of those commentators who opposed the removal of section 59 and/or want to see it reinstated please explain how, IN PRINCIPLE, these two situations differ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Prior to 1980, if the police charged a man with assault on his wife or girl friend he could use provocation as a defence. In 1980 this defence was disallowed.”
Why on earth did they change it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Excellent post Sue. What Boscawen is proposing sounds suspiciously like the Borrows amendment, which attempts to define how much violence it is acceptable to use agaisnt children..
I blogged about some of the problems with that approach on g.blog last week.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Beat our kids”
“No kids died in Sweden after they outlawed smacking”
“All men are paedophiles”
“This will keep our babies safe” (despite the ongoing child killing spree)
Ah yes, all the lies are coming out again Sue, pity that this is one battle you are going to lose.
Perhaps you will then learn that you DO NOT know better than the rest of us and that you ignore the wishes of 83% of the population at your peril.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry BB where are you quoting from?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We all do it regardless. Picking a child up is “manhandling”, shutting in a room/naughty chair is “incarceration against their will”, telling a child off is “mental abuse”.
Does anyone really believe children should be treated the same as adults?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, and most of NZ will go for that……
Because that’s what they believe…..
And they’re right…
And you 6% ers aren’t…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How do the anti smackers balance their concern for childrens rights…in this case not to be “assulted”because they have the same rights as adults while still allowing Parents to deny the childs assumed equally valid adult rights to drimk,stay out late,do what they want to whenever,leave school,have sex,smoke,own a gun,vote etc etc etc..?
If you are going to stand up for the right not to be assulted as an adult has then you can’t deny children these other adult rights for the same reason can you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>And you 6% ers aren’t…..
Ahhhh but its not 6% is it BP? in fact its not even the false 83% which the ‘I-want-to-whack-my-child brigade’ made up -because when they actually surveyed the nation it turned out that the majority dont want a repeal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James
…Parents to deny the childs assumed equally valid adult rights to drimk,stay out late,do what they want to whenever,leave school,have sex,smoke,own a gun,vote etc etc etc..?
You just listed choices they can’t opt IN to doing, but smacking is something the children couldnt opt OUT of; we would be equally concerned for children who couldnt opt out of smoking, drinking, sex etc -or had you already seen that distinction and were simply trying to muddy the waters to cover for child-abusers?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What I do is absolutely none of your business. I do not concern myself with your life, why on earth must you seek to control mine?
Perhaps you should give your child *all* the same protections as an adult. Why draw the line at smacking? Aren’t you just making arbitrary decisions based on your own values?
Don’t pick that child up now…you wouldn’t do that to an adult….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Then what are you and Sue so worried about? It will go to a referendum and you’ll find out for sure. If the government vote on the private members bill, people will support it or they won’t.
The people will decide. Not you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
none of your business … why on earth must you seek to control mine?
So, BP, I eagerly await your support of cannabis legalisation.
Or is that … different?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I fully support cannabis legislation. In fact, decriminalize all drugs where the only victim is, and the cost is fully bourne by, the user.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well said BP.
There was a piece on the news tonight about some druggie who has managed to kick HIS habit, as usual the left were moaning about there not being enough rehab centres.
So lets make drugs legal, but at the same time we must pass legislation that ensures that the tax payer is NOT left with the bill for the massive increase in rehab centres that will be required.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Now that we have seen a little more discussion, I’ll address the points one by one
“I’d also like to see a lot more detail from the pro-beating group. I think it was Idiot/Savant who posted a list? I’d really like to see one of the child-beaters stand up and say explicitly: yes, bare hand on bare bottom is good, open hand on face is good, fist on face is acceptable in the following situations, and so on. Let’s see them quantify the situation, since it’s clear that their claim that “everyone knows what’s reasonable” is false.”
We can draw upon fifty years of case law to determine what is acceptable and what isn’t acceptable. Unlike many people, I didn’t see any problems with section 59 as it stood, and instead, the root of the problems were in other areas.
“Nowhere does anyone even skim the surface of why some kids come to school expecting that if they have a problem they can’t reason their way out of, it’s normal to resort to violence to solve it to their liking.”
Katie, so you are now equating smacking with violence? If you are, I have one word in response to your comment
Bullshit!
If your scenario is what I think it is, then I would expect to see a massive amount of stories about bullying in the 1950s, but I don’t see that. Instead, in the 1950s, bullying was something that was rarely done – why? Because bullies knew that if they bullied, the principal would give them six of the best – it was an effective deterrent; now we no longer have that effective deterrent, can you seriously tell me that spending half your lunchtime (another stupid PC regulation) writting out, I MUST NOT BULLY TOMMY, is an effective deterrent? Of course not, it is worn as a badge of honour.
“Because violent offenders learn violence from those nearest to them.
Their parents. Their aunties and uncles. Their grandparents, cousins, brothers and sisters.”
Alright, if that is true, then why has violence in general skyrocketed in the last fifty years? Remember, during that time smacking has gone down as more and more instances of it have become illegal. Violent offenders don’t learn violence, they learn that society doesn’t give a damn if you do any wrong, and anyway, prison is a nice place where you get three meals a day and Sky TV.
“If the deaths of the small children and babies that have been reported recently in the papers are anything to go by, we’ve learnt nothing from the deaths of the Kahui babies; we’ve just blamed a group of people, without saying that any community can take responsibility for not stepping in to help any children being brought up in a household where violence is used to answer questions.”
Again, I must point out that if you are equating smacking to violence, then why don’t we see masses of small children and babies dying in the 1950s? We don’t see that because in the 1950s, having children outside of marriage was extremely rare – that is important, since you are less likely to beat your own flesh and blood to a pulp than a stepfather or boyfriend who doesn’t have that flesh and blood connection, which is what we find a lot of in these cases.
“Come on john-ston, surely you’re smarter than to make a comment like that. How does a boss discipline their employee so they don’t make the same mistakes twice? How does one reason with their spouse when they burn the toast or put too much sugar in their coffee? By whacking them of course?”
Jarbury, different sets of scenarios. You can reason with most mature people (and by that, I also include teenagers), and they learn their lesson largely through embarassment.
“A lot of research (which I am sure Sue is well aware of) shows that smacking/whacking/beating your child is actually quite ineffective in showing them what’s right and wrong.”
Please explain how that research accounts for the fact that fifty years ago, children were well behaved and today, children are tagging fences, stabbing teachers and becoming an unbehaved, unruly rabble? What made children change this way? The only thing I can think of is that smacking became rarer and rarer, and children realised that they had the upper hand over their parents. Where fifty years ago, a defiant child would get their butt whacked with a belt, now, the children threatens the mother/father with telling the cops, CYFS, et. al.
“I have a 4 year old daughter. I have never hit her, my parents never hit me. I do not have behavioural problems with my daughter and my parents didn’t have them with me. Clearly I’m only one example, but that is what I can go off.”
I was smacked, my parents were smacked, my nephews and niece were smacked, my uncles and aunts were smacked, and none of us have become violent offenders. Instead (aside from my nephews and niece who are still young), we have become upstanding members of society.
“5) Smack them
Works well for some kids, not for others. The kids it tends to work well for take no notice of 1 through 4….”
Exactly Blue Peter, sometimes those lesser punishments do not work and you need something with a little more bite to it. You cannot exactly send a screaming child in a supermarket to Time Out, but you can give them a quick sharp smack.
“Why should our law provide our children with the least legal protection from violence of all members of society, when it is them who are least able to defend themselves?”
Jarbury, smacking =/= violence. Smacking is giving your child a sharp slap in a sober, calm manner. Violence is merely gratuitous. A child who is getting a sober, calmly given smack does not need to be defended, since their health and safety is not being impacted on.
“Would one of those commentators who opposed the removal of section 59 and/or want to see it reinstated please explain how, IN PRINCIPLE, these two situations differ.”
What did the case law allow for in the first instance? Until I am aware of that, I cannot give a decent answer.
“You just listed choices they can’t opt IN to doing, but smacking is something the children couldnt opt OUT of; we would be equally concerned for children who couldnt opt out of smoking, drinking, sex etc -or had you already seen that distinction and were simply trying to muddy the waters to cover for child-abusers?”
Children couldn’t opt OUT of going to school; if they don’t go to school, they are deemed truant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Don’t worry about increased health costs, I’m sure that would be more than made up by half the police force not being necessary anymore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gosh you just don’t get it do you.
Why are all these soldiers coming home with mental illnesses & drug dependency?
They weren’t bashed enough & hardened up when they were young.
If you are going to be a winner Nation you have to be the tough guys on the block. Bash them young then give them a gun at 16 & you can rule the world.
That’s how the Britt’s did it for hundreds of years.
Then they got soft –now look at them.
Why are the Yanks going to be the next bunch of losers.
They get mamby-pambied before they get a gun.
Thump the kids & keep the Nation strong.;-)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was quite surprised at the behaviour of many at a green party conference when faced with a remit that food at GP events should be vegetarian. Most of those present had sufficient insight to distinguish between a moral argument and one of freedom of choice over something that has no ethical implications. So they could refute comments like “how dare you tell us how to discipline our kids” by pointing out that when another sentient being is involved, it is a moral question and not simply one of choice. However these same people got very heated, spluttering “how dare you tell us what to eat”. This is a similar category error since it makes the same assumption that a moral issue is simply one of choice. A far better and more honest refutation would be to simply state that they really don’t care what happens to animals providing they can still get their meat fix. In the same way those who are arguing that smacking is in some way better for the children or society or that the childrens’ feelings don’t matter are more honest than those seeing it simply as denying parents their choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry have I entered an alternate reality or did BB and BP both advocate legalisation of drugs. Who hoo there’s hope for you yet. When did you U turn flip flop BB?
Yes I absolutely support legal drugs with taxation to pay for the possibly extra health costs, although there’s an argument to be made that if we substitute less harmful drugs e.g. ecstasy for more harmful ones, e.g. alcohol then there will actually be less health costs rather than more.
So, shall we let people eat whatever they want but tax the unhealthy food to pay for the health costs of that too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting that such cruel and unusual punishments are suggested instead of smacking. There seems to be a feeling that psycological and emotional punishments are ok and not damaging for a small child, but a mild physical punishment is.
We are told we can lock a small child by themselves in a room, but it’s not ok to do that to a teenager. If you lock an adult in a room, chances are you’ll go to jail.
And what abvout taking away the most precious possesions of a small child? You can’t do that to a teenager, and not even violent adults get their things taken away.
Or as a punishment we’re told we can ignore the little ones, disregard them and give them no attention (which is virtually the dictionary meaning for “neglect”).
The mantra of “physical punishment bad – mental and emotional punishment good” is far too simple an idea to have any meaning.
The proof is in the puddding as they say. According to the world famous Otago study, children who have had occasional light physical punishment perform better in all measured aspects of life than any other group, including those who receive no physical punishment (i.e. better career, less criminal behaviour, lower drug taking, better mental state, more successful family life, higher accademic achievement etc).
Children who were beaten are way behind all other groups.
Our real problem is with people who see no difference between light physical punishment and a beating. And those people are on both sides of the arguement – there’s even some here, judging by the extreme words used to describe light physical punishment.
All laws have postiive and negative effects. The downside of Sue’s bill is that we teaching a generation that they can do what they want and they’re untoucable. And what’s worse, is that under current law they’re right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I back BB Bp et el …legalize all drugs NOW!
What…? You Green weidos can’t understand that position…? Diddums!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1, you make a lot of sense. However I doubted your remark about “children who have had occasional light physical punishment perform better ” so I tryed to google the study.
I found http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj27/the-state-of-research-on-effects-of-physical-punishment-27-pages114-127.html#Abstract2,
which said
“Only one desirable outcome for child behaviour has been associated with physical punishment – in some, but not all, studies – and this outcome is immediate compliance.”
90% of use probably broke the law (speeding) on our way to work this am. We could debate the speed laws in a similar way as we debate this law. 120k on straight dry rd is much safer than 75k around a wet corner. It’s not speed per se that’s the problem… Likewise I can see that an occasional flick on the bum probably does less harm than: an hours time out 5 days a week, or the selling of a kids pet or some other ‘tough love’ technique.
Nevertheless, NZ child abuse rate is shocking. We need to do something. (I believe) 112 of the 120 MPs voted for removing s59. Maybe we should trust them ON THIS ONE.
If your concern is about good people being criminalized then the real issue is the one already eluded to by BB, BP, Stuey and James. I support them too in regards to cannabis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fin “you make a lot of sense. However I doubted your remark about “children who have had occasional light physical punishment perform better ”
From one of the head researchers, Jane Millichamp, in the Otago Study –
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.
From
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
The problem is there is very little good research into this. Most studies take the view that smacking is bad then doctor research to back up their predetermined point of view. For example many studies have just two groups. Those who have had no physical punishment, and the “smacking” group who have had physical punishment. On closer inspection, the “smacking group” often includes much more than just light smacking, including extreme and harsh punishments right up to homicide.
The Otago study sorts groups into no physical punishmnet, those who had punishments up to light smacking, those who were hit, including with objects, and a fourth group which was children who were beaten.
The light snmack group came out tops in all aspects of life, the non-smacking group just behind, and the other two groups had lower success rates.
There are a number of issues with the S59 law, including making it illegal to use parenting methods that have the best outcomes for our children. My kids future is more important than someone who wants to force their political idealogy onto me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz, thanks for reference. I would have prefered the journel article but newspaper quotes are fine…
The article you quote flies in the face of thousands of international studies. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809).
You state “The light snmack (sic) group came out tops in all aspects of life, the non-smacking group just behind, and the other two groups had lower success rates.” I could not find this in your reference..? Do you have a link to the ‘world famous Otago study’.
One line from your newspaper article you seem to miss is “Children who are smacked lightly with an open hand on the bottom, hand or leg do much the same in later life as those who are not smacked”
If this is the case, then why smack?
I don’t really want to get into the debate over no smack versus occasional light smack. As most agree, it makes little difference. And this is not what the amendment is about. It’s about trying to change a (sub)culture in NZ that thinks violence to kids is ok. It’s about trying to turn our child abuse/death stats around.
You say “My kids future is more important than someone who wants to force their political idealogy onto me.” The newspaper article you you reference is clear in saying that if you don’t smack them they’ll be the same, so don’t worry. I’m sure you’ll still be able to get away with the ‘occasional light smack on clothed bum or leg’ if you really feel the need.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Has everyone noticed how the pro hitters/smackers are such an angry lot.
Take a look at the posts of big bro, blue peter, john-ston etc
It would be a valid reason NOT to hit your kids if it could make them turn out with the ugly personalitys of those posters.
Is it to late to heal them ?
“it’s not Ok” fella’s ……………..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fins says “The article you quote flies in the face of thousands of international studies.”
Yet the Otago Uni expert says “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.
Either you, or the expert, is wrong.
The study found that those in the smacking group had better outcomes in all areas than any other group. I don’t want the second best outocmes for my kids – I want the best outcomes.
Fin says “If this is the case, then why smack?”
Because other methods failed repeatedly to stop my boy running onto the road, or pulling out power plugs when he was a toddler. In each case a single light smack stopped both behaviours permanently.
Time out or loss of privaledges might work eventually. How long do you suggest trying these methods if they are not working? Five? ten? Until hes run over or electrocuted?
The whole S59 law is a side show. It does nothing to stop those already breaking assault and murder laws. And it diverts attantion away from the real (and known) factors strongly associated with child abuse (young parenthood, drug use, alcohol abuse, unemployment, single parent, poor housing, etc).
If Sue was serious about stopping child abuse, she would have been much better to concentrate on those difficult issures, rather than alienate over half the country by legalising ideals that don’t actually make any difference.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
daddy0 wrote “Has everyone noticed how the pro hitters/smackers are such an angry lot.
Take a look at the posts of big bro, blue peter, john-ston etc
It would be a valid reason NOT to hit your kids if it could make them turn out with the ugly personalitys of those posters.”
Ugly personalities???
Perhaps you should read your own post to see who is making personally abusive statements?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good points you make photonz1. However, my understanding of the Section 59 repeal was that it didn’t actually change whether smacking is legal of illegal – that’s determined by assault laws that probably already say that all smacking is actually illegal. However, nobody’s throwing a mental about those laws because we realise that some flexibility is required when interpreting them.
My understanding of the Section 59 repeal was that, in cases where the physical punishment was significant enough to warrant an arrest, the use of “reasonable force” could no longer be given as legal defence. The status of the legality/illegality of smacking wasn’t actually relevant to the Section 59 appeal at all. Furthermore, just to make absolutely sure that the legality of smacking wasn’t the issue, the Section 59 repeal actually included words stating that police weren’t to prosecute in mild, inconsequential cases.
If we get to the point where amendments start messing with the legality/illegality of smacking we’re actually going well beyond what the Section 59 repeal was actually about to start with. We’re starting to mess with assault laws.
john-ston, I reckon it’s a myth that 50 years ago everyone lived hunky-dorey without threat of violence and the like. Perhaps that violence was swept under the carpet a lot more, as would have certainly been the case when it comes to domestic violence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
daddy o
Well, I’m sure you’ll understand that if someone labels you, your parents, you brothers, your in laws as “child abusers” and “whackers”, that may get your back up. Would you stand for it?
It is especially annoying when it comes from zealots, some with their own history of violent behavior towards others, who seek to impose their cluelessness on everyone else.
Expect pushback.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP-
actually, I *do* label my parents, my grandfather and some of my cousins and uncles as abusers, because many a family gathering has ended with drunken bouts of physical and verbal abuse.
Just because I’m blood-related to them, doesn’t give them an excuse to behave like that around me; and they wonder why I don’t join family events any more, nor do I take my children to said events; since an aunt’s funeral 3 years ago, when all my female cousins arrived at the funeral heavily made-up, to disguise bruises from a very physical argument at their father’s house, the night before their mother’s funeral service.
This is unacceptable behaviour, it is assault, yet some people believe that it is their right to engage in this abusive behaviour, because the adults they are hitting are their own children.
This is what’s wrong with NZ society – that we have a core of people who shrug off abuse and excuse it by saying that a man has the right to do whatever he likes in his own home.
I’m proud to be a member of a party whose MP’s will stand up in public and say that this is not right – that children need protecting from adults, no matter what colour of skin, no matter which neighbourhood they live in, as of right.
These are internationally agreed standards, which can be seen in the UN Charter for the Rights of Children.
When NZ’ers defend their ‘right’ to hit children, it just makes our country look like some hill-billy backwater from the 19th century.
Not a place intelligent people would chose to come to, as a safe place to bring up the next generation, when this debate is happening at Governmental levels.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Katie,
Pretending that is the same thing as smacking a child as part of parental disipline is the problem. It’s the same as equating shutting a child in a room with incarceration. It’s pure nonsense to pretend those two things are the same, just at is pure nonsense to equate a smack with a bashing.
Most people understand it’s a question of degree and context.
>>by saying that a man has the right to do whatever he likes in his own home
I have never said that.
>>I’m proud to be a member of a party whose MP’s will stand up in public and say that this is not right
And I’m proud to be a member of a society where people like you cannot dictate to people like me. I don’t tell you how to live – so show me the same respect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m just making observations about the nasty personalitys displayed by a few of the posters here photonz1 ………………. or are you trying to tell me that big bro , blue pete, john-ston and others of their ilk are not angry people ???????????????
They come to blogs like this and they are just ………………. nasty.
If one were to imagine what they looked like they have sneer lines ………. not smile lines.
I’m just wondering if the hitting they received when little has warped their personalitys into the angry sneerers they are today ???????
As for blue pete being a child abuser ……………… are you ?.
I’d like to know your magic trick of smacking without ‘whacking’ or hitting.
Imagine being able to do that ……………. smacking without contact.
Incredible .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>As for blue pete being a child abuser ……………… are you ?.
Are you a retard?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>they are just ………………. nasty
When people call you and your family child abusers, how is one supposed to react? Roll over?
Forget it.
Studies do not support the anti-smacking position. Some of the people standing up and telling us what to do have a history of violence. And they tell us we’re violent abusers?!?
Where do they get off?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah but what about all your other angry posts on other subjects bluepete ???????, were you called a child abuser in those too?
Maybe you just dont realize how nasty/angry you come across as ???
Between yourself and a few other misery guts posters (BB and co ) you all paint a very disturbed angry picture of ‘right wing’ supporters.
Also are you consistant in your ‘nanny state ‘ spoutings when it comes to me recreationaly using cannabis ?????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So where’s the evidence that the s59 appeal is leading to parents getting prosecuted for “lightly” smacking their children? Even National seems to admit the law is working OK.
daddy0, there’s a ripping cannabis debate going on at kiwiblog
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Repeal not appeal* gah that’s the 3rd time I’ve made that mistake. My bad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
daddy0
The attitude of “I’m better than you, and I know what’s best for you, and if you don’t agree with me then you are all horrible nasty people, “angry sneerers’ with “warped” personalities, and “ugly personal;ities”,” is a major reasons why 80% of New Zealand did not get behind the S59 repeal.
If you want to stop abuse – really want to stop abuse – you could start by moderating your own comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jarbury – ask a few teachers how the new law is going. Those I’ve talked to tell of an increasing problem with disruptive kids. The sort of kids who say, I’m going to report you if you punish me.
Disruptive kids who can’t be controlled and threaten to report teachers has become quite a problem at my kids school. It”s reallty having a negative effect on learning.
However it’s not as bad as the school at the end of my street where my kids should be going. The teachers there no longer have the power to control disruptive kids, to the point where people have pulled their children out. For their 12 or 13 classroms, they now have a roll of just 49 pupils.
The new law is just teaching many in the next generation “you can’t touch me – I’ll do what I want”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Teachers haven’t been able to whack kids for decades though photonz1. I can’t see how the s59 repeal makes a difference there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz1 said “fins says “The article you quote flies in the face of thousands of international studies.”
Actually that was from the first line of your newspaper article that YOU referenced.
Then Photonz1 said “The study found that those in the smacking group had better outcomes in all areas than any other group. I don’t want the second best outocmes for my kids – I want the best outcomes.”
I have asked repeatedly for a reference for this. I am trying to understand you. The newspaper article you referenced is clear in saying an occasional light smack… makes no difference from not smacking.
Also please see Jarbury post above to see how our ‘smacking’ debate is somewhat irrelevant to s59 repeal.
And stop putting bulbs not designed for dimmers in dimmers. Or at least don’t admit to it
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fin – 1/ those words are the reporters, which are the OPPOSITE, of what they quote the expert as saying later in the same article.
2/ I’ll try and find the main research paper again. I’ve linked it here numerous times in the past. The smacked group came ahead of all other groups including the non-smacked group for a number of life outomes including criminal behaviour, academic achievement, career success, mental health, family life etc. It’s just common sense that someone with a little more self discipline will peform better in most aspects of life than someone with a little less self discipline.
3/ You and jarbury have missed the point about schools. Kids are learning there are fewer boundaries and fewer consequences for their behaviour. Many have found they can do anything, and teachers are easily threatened to do nothing. Just like males have found it far too risky to become teachers and preschool teachers, teachers are finding it riskier than ever before to tackle disruptive kids.
4/ Even if my bulbs only last a year with the dimmer, at $2 ea they still save me about $15/year/bulb in power. I’ve yet to find dimmable CF bulbs in my local shop.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz1, 1) You are saying that the expert said her findings were the same as thousands of other studies. This we all know is not true.
2) “I’ll try and find the main research paper again.” I would appreciate that. I’m certainly not going to start smacking my kids just ’cause you think they’ll be better for it. “It’s just common sense ” So you say but I’d rather see the research all the same.
3)”Just like males have found it far too risky to become teachers and preschool teachers” AFTER you’ve found the ‘world famous research’ link, maybe you could show me your evidence for this. I my experience male teachers have always been in short supply. If a teacher can’t control a class without resorting to smacking, then maybe he/she should seek help. You were the one who wrote how there are many other legal ways to discipline kids, some probably better and some worse than an occasional light smack on clothed…
but how do you make a clear distinction between occasional light smacks and other physical reprimands and other physical abuses. Apparently it’s very difficult, and kids have been horse whipped legally (just 1 eg) as a consequence.
As Jarbury tried to point out, s59 is not about smacking. I would guess of you that, s59 repeal is not about you, or trying to criminalise you. I would say that we both know what it’s trying to change.
4) I’m glad you’re happy with your lightbulbs
If you could get me a link for the paper you reference I would be grateful
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fin – you have twisted what I said to make it mean something different. The reasearcher 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.
In other words, when you look at light smacking by itself, there is no evidence of harm. When you lump it in with violent abuse, you can prove that as a group, physical punishment is harmful.
2/ Here is a link to more info on the research –
http://nzma.org.nz/journal/119-1228/1818/
And table 3 shows that the percentage of kids who became very emotionally upset, was slightly higher with non-physical punishments, than with smacking or even with being hit. see
http://nzma.org.nz/journal/119-1228/1818/Table%203.pdf
I still haven’t found the rest of the info as many of the old links no longer work, however you can see the researcher backs up what I’ve said in the Herald article –
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.
It doen’t say the same, or slightly worse – it says similar or slightly better.
The full reasearch had additional categories where the lightly smacked group performed top, which included family life, mental health, and career.
3/ New male preschool teachers in NZ has dropped to less than 1%. And of 25 teaching staff in my kids school, there is not a single male, not one. It’s pretty obvious, but if you want proof that males find it too risky, just ask the head of the group that represents male preschool teachers. He lists the prime reason of men staying away from preschool jobs is the fear of being accused os sexual misconduct –
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/preschool/news/article.cfm?c_id=287&objectid=10502255
You are missing the point (again) about teachers losing control, and I’ve never advocated teachers smacking. The point is that kids are coming to school with no boundaries, and with an attitude that they can do what they want and they’re untouchable.
A kid can falsely acuse them of little more than touching them, and their carreer can be over. I know of schools who have policies that male teachers NEVER ever touch a child, even to comfort them when they are hurt.
Fin says “…but how do you make a clear distinction between occasional light smacks and other physical reprimands and other physical abuses. ”
As they say, if you can’t tell the difference you shouldn’t have kids (and those who beat their kids obviously shouldn’t). If you want an example of child abuse, you could probably find a better one than the famous horsewhip case. As it was blown up to a severe beating with a horsewhip but turned out to be a small whack with a little riding crop, and according to the teenager, hurt for no more than ten seconds. He even said he deserved it as he was swinging a baseball bat at someones head. Perhaps it’s not surprising there was no criminal conviction on that particular occasion.
An easy way to tell the difference, would have been the Borrows ammendment. Effectively a light smack with an open hand on a leg or buttock is all that is allowed – anything else is assault.
If it’s not about smacking, then why did Sue say it will allow the police to arrest a mother in a supermarket for smacking her child.
There’s a great irony with the Greens. They seem to be pretty soft on drug taking, even though it’s one of the leading factors in child abuse.
And that’s the point here. S59 is a load of PC nonsense, while the real and difficult factors behind child abuse are avoided completely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I stand by my statements that the ‘right wingers’ in this blog come across as angry, bitter misery guts …………………… and I’ve wondered if this anger stems from being hit as children.
The law change which closed a loop hole for child beaters seems to have been a success with the police using discretion …………. out of the hundreds of thousands of parents in this country how many have been prosecuted ????????
The fear mongering by the dont close the loop hole crowd has proved to be just that ………… hyped up rubbish.
Nanny state be buggered ……………….. its about stopping abusive parents having a legal out .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
daddy0 says “I stand by my statements that the ‘right wingers’ in this blog come across as angry, bitter misery guts …………………… and I’ve wondered if this anger stems from being hit as children.”
What pathetic nonsense. Read you own posts and you’ll see who is abusive, false acusations of child abuse and all….
With the law stop the problem of children being beaten up?
“Not at all – it was not intended to”. (quote by Sue Bradford)
Surely it should be our top priority to reduce child abuse – apparently not.
The only reason the law is not causing more problems in the courts , is that it’s so rediculous that 99.9% of the time it’s being ignored by the public and police.
However it continues to have a negative on childrens behaviour, and is disruptive to education.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I always thought the idea of the s59 repeal was to get rid of “state sanctioned” child abuse, rather than to directly address child abuse. That’s a much more difficult issue to resolve, although perhaps it is a small step in the right direction.
Once again, I reiterate that the s59 repeal made absolutely no change to the law determining whether smacking is legal or illegal. Under assault laws it has probably always been illegal to smack your kid, but clearly some common sense is applied. Personally I am against smacking, but in many ways that personal view is kind of irrelevant when it comes to what the s59 repeal actually meant. It is annoying that the law change has been so widely misinterpreted.
All the s59 repeal did was no longer make it possible to make a defence based on the legal use of “reasonable force” in disciplining your child. That’s it – absolutely nowhere did it say “smacking your kid is now illegal”. Furthermore, the s59 repeal also included an advisory note to police to no prosecute in minor cases. This just further advanced the “common sense” approach that applies to assault charges – although it was a kind of “belt and braces” approach to ensuring minor cases didn’t get to the courts, as generally police had not prosectued for minor cases anyway.
There have been few cases where s59 was used as a defence, but certainly when it was used you ended up with some pretty horrific cases where the parent was acquitted.
I generally view the s59 repeal as taking the law from a position of “we specifically say it’s OK to use reasonable force” to a position of “we’re not really giving an opinion on the legality or illegality of smacking/reasonable force/abuse/whatever”. There is a fairly good argument that the state shouldn’t decide whether a light smack is legal or not, just as there’s a good argument that the state shouldn’t specifically say “yes it’s OK to use reasonable force for correction”. The s59 repeal does not change the former, it only changes the latter.
I oppose the Borrows/Boscawen amendments because they take us back to a position where the law is specifically identifying a level of violence that is “OK”. That’s already covered by the advice note to police to not prosecute in minor cases. I do not believe in state santioned violence, and there is no evidence the law change isn’t working.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jarbury says
“I generally view the s59 repeal as taking the law from a position of “we specifically say it’s OK to use reasonable force” to a position of “we’re not really giving an opinion on the legality or illegality of smacking/reasonable force/abuse/whatever”.”
You hit the nail on the head – that’s exactly where the problem is. Will you be arrested if you smack? Or not?
No one knows what is legal and what is not – not the courts, not the police, not parents. What a daft law.
Sue says her law will allow police to arrest a mother in a supermarket who smacks their toddler.
Others are adamant they won’t be.
This is already being used as an example of bad law. A law that says one thing, that comes with direct advice for police to ignore it. No one knows what it means.
The previous law allowed “reasonable” force.
It never ever allowed “unreasonable” force.
Some people got off convictions, but this applied to less than 1% of child assault cases. Only about six cases could be found in something like ten years. People get off murder, theft, assualt robbery etc – not every prosecution suceeds.
The previous law worked better than most laws. The new one is a mess. We’ve had dozens of families messed up and in some cases ripped apart by police and cyps, only for them to decide there is actually no case to answer.
This severely damages families. It is abuse.
And all the time it is taking resources away from takling those families who are severely beating their children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1 says: “You hit the nail on the head – that’s exactly where the problem is. Will you be arrested if you smack? Or not?”
Surely the advice note makes it quite clear that you won’t be, if the smack is minor etc. etc. There are grey areas in an enormous number of laws, which I don’t think necessarily makes them bad laws. Common sense applies in so many cases – do you end up with an assault charge for accidentally bumping into someone? I don’t think so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1,
1) I’m sorry if you think i’m twisting your words. You say that an occasional light smack causes no harm. I tentatively agree. You still haven’t referenced anything to support your other claim that it’s actually beneficial to the kid.
2) I am grateful for your link to a study “To investigate the prevalence, nature, and context of physical punishment ” ..Not entirely irrelivant.
“The full reasearch had additional categories where the lightly smacked group performed top, which included family life, mental health, and career.” This is what I would like to see the data (your infamous ref) for!
“it says similar or slightly better.” So your completely convinced by that then. As I’ve mentioned, I would like to see the research. I’m not convinced that smacking my kids will help them. In fact given our (my kids ) relationship, I think they’d feel pretty betrayed. However if I had given them an occasional smack every now and then from when they were young, then they would likely be used to it and it probably wouldn’t negatively affect them. In which case I can see how “Children who are smacked lightly with an open hand on the bottom, hand or leg do much the same in later life as those who are not smacked” (ref is your newspaper article).
3)Thank you for another newspaper article link. I agree there aren’t many male teachers. I fail to see the relevance of the newspaper article to our discussion which…
As Jarbury has tried again to point out (Jarbury if your dwelling has brick walls you may have better luck..) is not the point of s59.
All I want from you photonz1 is any evidence that shows smacking will benefit my kids.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sue, on radio, stated that she is quite happy for police to cart off someone who smacks their child at a supermarket.
And from the police’s own figures, they have done this many times, only to find out in virtually every case, there is no case to answer.
In the meantime families have been split up for the weeks or months it has taken until the police make the desision to do nothing. The law itself is abusive and damaging to families and children. I know of one previously happy family that has been realy screwed up by this happening. The whole event was just so completly pointless and abusive to the family, and achieve absolutely nothing positive – not a thing..
So as it stands, we have a law that says it’s a criminal offence to smack, but police are told not to take any action, except sometimes when they do, but most of the time they’ll later change their mind. What a mess of a law.
And this replaces a law that said you could use resonable force, but never force that is unreasonable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think we’re having a problem beleiving you because the Police and CYFS are both on record as saying the law change hasn’t caused any problems including more incidents of arrest. This is why John Key also said recently that the law appears to be working well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Commentator on TV (or Radio?) re a new co leader: “these are the red greens”
“I continue to be astounded by the thinking of so many New Zealanders who still think it is ‘Not OK” to use violence on another adult, but that it is OK to legally assault children, who after all are so much more vulnerable than we grownups.”
Your conflating the relationship between adults and that of parents and children.
“But I invite those who think this way to consider the fact that children are battered daily by parents who believe the level of violence they are inflicting is minor; and also to consider what it might feel like for a small person to be assaulted and humiliated by a much larger person.”
Your conflating battering with smacking.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In short BP, you are blowing smoke up our bum about a non-issue. You can try and re-frame the truth of this issue as much as you like, but the facts will just keep getting in the way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fin says “it says similar or slightly better.” So your completely convinced by that then”
Yes, beacuse I’ve also heard the rest on a radio interview, and I’ve read it in the past in reports. That was in 2006 and I haven’t found any links back to that that are still active (there used to be a link to the radio interview but that has long since become inactive as they don’t go back that far).
If you can get your kids to behave without resorting to a smack that’s fantastic. I can too, virtually all the time. It will have been over a year since by 6 year old had a smack, and over two years for my 8 year old. However if they do misbehave very bady, they know there is a boundary – that for certain appalling behaviour there will be a punishment that is beyond time out.
They are much better behaved and more disciplined than the majority of kids in their class, and as such are doing much better than most in academic acheivement and sports – more from determination and hard work (i.e. self discipline) than natural ability.
Smacking certainly benefited my boy when a single smack stopped him running onto the road for good, when every other punishment failed, repeatedly. Ditto with pulling electric plugs out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’d like to hear the actual quote. I expect there was a context not being stated here. And Sue has also said she’s quite happy for the police to use their discretion. As for the numbers, we shall see. It was we who had the numbers in the House, 113-7. And the referendum is so poorly worded that it is difficult to be sure what the outcome will be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
The facts are contained in the comprehensive Dunedin study.
Which you’ve ignored.
Funny how you use science only when it suits you, eh. Essentially, your stance is religious – what you believe to be right is objectively true, and that truth is good for us all. Amen.
But we’ve got the numbers. And you haven’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz1, Thanks for trying to find link.
You give insight into your parenting. I was right. The repeal is not about you.
“They are much better behaved and more disciplined than the majority of kids in their class” So you saying that your kids are smacked more than the others? Sorry for twisting words, my point is that I think you attribute your good parenting to the smacks, at least in part. Even the infamous study you quote said “similar OR slightly better” and remember that’s talking about YOUR kind of smacking. You can not infer from this that the occasional light smack is good or bad. There are so many other variables.
Back to s59.. If you’re worried about good people being criminalised then you really are worried about the wrong law… But that’s for another blog, although it seems all blogs lead to the same place sometimes
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fin, yes you are twisting things a little bit. I attribute my kids good behaviour to them having boundaries and self discipline.
This comes from them learning there are consequences for their actions. For them time out and loss of privileges are sometimes ineffective, but when reminded there’s a possibility of a smack if their behaviour doesn’t improve, they work a lot better.
With other kids time out alone may be enough to instil behavoural boundaries. But every day I see kids at my kids school who don’t have boundaries. They’ve learnt that there are no serious consequences for their actions. They’ve actually been taught though experience they can do what they want, through ineffective (and probably also inconsistant) discipline.
You’re wrong about your last point. I’m not particualrly worried about people being criminalised (as in convicted) with the new law. It’s the ambiguous nature of it that’s causing problems, like the family ripped apart but not actually convicted, or the last week the mother who had one of her toddlers run out into the warehouse carpark, then was going to give him a smack but decided not to saw people watching, only to have the little blighter escape again (while she was putting ther other one in the car) and run right in front of a car. It was one of those horrible moments when everyone gasps, but isn’t close enough to do anything. It amkes you feel sick. The car hit the brakes and stopped but it was pretty close. Half a second later and the kid would have been squashed.
It’s one tool for parents to set boundaries and behavious. It ‘s not needed for all kids, but it is for some when other methods fail – repeatedly.
And far from causeing irreparable damage like some people try to tell us, it actually has outcomes where it the words of the expert, children become high performing adults.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kids can have boundaries and self discipline without being smacked.
I’ve never liked and only used it once for about 30sec then decided to talk to the litttle man (5yrs).
You speak of other ill disciplined kids. How do you know they’re not smacked, whacked or whatever?
You carpacrk example is a classic. You speak of a smack as if it will be our saviour. How do you no that after a light smack on clothed bum… the kid wont run around? Sh*t, if I was concerned about my kid getting run over I’d be holding his hand or carrying him!
Your concern about couples being destroyed or whatever because of a section repeal is a bit ott. Perhaps these couples had other issues, but that’s just speculation..
Thank’s for your debate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fin writes ” You speak of other ill disciplined kids. How do you know they’re not smacked, whacked or whatever?”
Because some of the ill disciplined kids I know have parents who are openly and staunchly anti-smacking.
SOME kids can have boundaries without being smacked. That didn’t work when my boy had a problem going onto roads. In fact it failed repeatedly.
Surely you are not suggesting that I play russian roulette with my little boy and keep trying something that failed, just on the chance that it might work before he’s killed, just to save him one light smack (which stopped thye behaviour for good). That’s totally insane.
In NZ being run over is a top cause of death at this age.
You may be able to hold hands of all of you kids 100% of the time, but other people live in the real world. Some people have to hold onto three kids and their shopping, and get their keys out, or answer the phone, or answer the door, or go to the toilet.
And if you’ve known a family ripped up by the new law you would not be so dismissive and unfeeling. Saying that it could not possibly be the new law – it must be something else – is naive.
You rip a good family apart for Chirstmas and their holidays, the kids are not even allowed see their dad at all over this time, and the dad spent weeks alone, thought of as a child abuser by their friends, neighbours, work colleagues and bosses, then months later are told there is no case to answer – and do you really think that does no damage to a family?????????
I thought you were against abuse – yet you are defending it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz1 said “Because some of the ill disciplined kids I know have parents who are openly and staunchly anti-smacking.”
well that settles it then. No need to find the link to the research paper, or a radio interveiw if indeed that’s what you were looking for.
I can not comment on the family example you speak of as I don’t know any details except what you’ve written.
Yes I do hold my kids hands 100% of the time, except when I play ‘russian roulette’ with them on the roads. Sometimes I throw money onto the road just before cars come.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fin – it must be nice to live in your perfect world,
I can see it now – carrying armfuls of groceries, holding all the kids hands (100% of the time) and getting your keys out. You must have five arms.
Unfortunately, I can’t seem to escape the real world, where people have to do things that mean their children aren’t attached to them 100% of the time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The whole point of repeal of S59 was the idea that smacking was part of a culture that lead to child abuse. That’s why Sue bradford can’t allow any group other than “pro beaters”: there can be no quarter for smackers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh wrote “The whole point of repeal of S59 was the idea that smacking was part of a culture that lead to child abuse. ”
If that is the case, then of course the “whole point” of law is WRONG.
“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.”
This from the most copmprehensive study of its type – 1000 participants over 30 years, and one of the very few which actually distinguishes between a light smack, hitting and violent beatings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1
Like any religious organisation, the greenies aren’t the least bit interested in science, unless it supports their position.
They are morally and intellectually superior, and those who don’t believe (can I get a witness!) are mindless heathens.
Looking forward to s59 being overturned….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)