by frog
Family First have made much of various opinion polls, many (like their referendum question) leading in their questions and some dodgy in their methodology, in advocating that parents have a “right” to hit their children.
Little has been said about what children think about the issue, despite New Zealand having ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 12 of that Convention states:
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
So it’s great to see that the child helpline 0800WHATSUP has conducted a survey of children and young people to find out their thoughts on this issue.
Here are the results:
The full report on the survey is available here (PDF).
Maybe if children and young people had drafted the referendum question it would have been worded more sensibly too.
Published in Society & Culture by frog on Wed, June 24th, 2009
Tags: 0800WHATSUP, child discipline, Family First, referendum, Smacking
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Not the worst idea, but how is ‘hit’ defined?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
next question..
..of those who say ‘let off’..
..how many of them are hit/conditioned by their parents/caregiver..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/entertainment/blogs/daddy-cool/2526179/I-won-t-smack-my-son
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Also, ask how many of them think that if someone winds up in court they must have done something wrong.
So far as I can tell Frog, this is an amusing diversion which means very very little.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Also I am quite sure that MANY children can parse that question well enough to understand that “if they say they were” is different from “if they were”.
This is about as meaningful as the referendumb.
Which will only serve to give Key an indication of how many votes he can likely sway by changing the law much closer to the next election. Maybe it won’t be a lot. Keep your fingers crossed.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
StephenR said: …but how is ‘hit’ defined?
The explanation for the use of that word is in the pdf link frog provided:
Which actually provides an interesting perspective. There is no such thing as a “loving smack” when the term “smack” is used in relation to assaults on adults.
Nothing “loving” about any of those connotations of the term, is there? Yet they are what is implicit when the term is used in relation to adults, rather than children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Goodness, this is all rather machevillian.
The machevilian approach to surveys and information aquisition in general is discusting.
Ironically i say this while being not only ITNJ but a 100/100 Mach, lol. If one is to belevie such tests.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Me thinks their agenda is alittle transparent, lol.
My favorate song of late, i think it applies equally here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyxhNploDK0
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks toad, the other-stuff-to-do bug got me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Another useless deliberately biased survey that lumps everything from a light smack on the bottom to being hit around the head with a piece of 4×2 all into one category.
It sounded like the some of the kids had more common sense than the survey authors – that abuse should be prosecuted, but a light smack should not.
Any survey that has no differentiation between an ocasional light smack and a severe beating requiring hospitailisation, is not worth the paper it is written on – except perhaps as a piece of propaganda for those who. started out with their minds made up, and designed a survey to fit their desired outcome.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a child, I knew I didn’t want to be smacked, hit, caned, strapped, whatever.
Now I know that I won’t hit, smack, cane or strap children.
I wonder if those who do want to be able to smack, had a different view to my child-view, when they were children?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You can’t always get what you wa-ant….
Nope… I didn’t want to be spanked… but I didn’t get that real often. I learned fast.. and I never was inclined to hit other people or children as a result.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly says
“As a child, I knew I didn’t want to – be smacked….”
YOU CAN ADD
- go to my room
- have toys taken away
- be told off
- go to bed
- eat my greens
- go to school
- do my homework
As an adult I know I don’t want to -
- obey the speed limit
- go to work
- pay my tax
- get up early
- mow the lawn
- see the All Blacks lose
- get cold in winter
- have rainy days
But in the real world, all these things happen.
I’d like my children prepared for the real world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photo – I’ve always loved my greens
You say: I’d like my children prepared for the real world
Are you taxing their pocket money?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1 said: As an adult I know I don’t want to – … see the All Blacks lose
Yeah, and how many women get beaten up whenever that happens? An indictment on male culture in our country, wouldn’t you say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Let’s not prepare our children for today’s real world. Let’s make their future world a better one for them.
Waddayathink about that photonznz1?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bj – I’ve refined my question.
As a child, I knew I didn’t deserve to be smacked, hit, caned, strapped, whatever (although I was, many times)
Now I know that I won’t hit, smack, cane or strap children.
I wonder if those who do want to be able to smack, had a different view to my child-view, when they were children?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well… on most occasions when I was spanked I knew I deserved it.
I sometimes knew I deserved it and didn’t get it too.
If you got spanked without knowing what for I don’t imagine you learned anything from it.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
..as a child..i wasn’t hit..
..and as we all know..
..i turned out fine..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj – my point was that I felt deeply then as I do now, that hitting or being hit is the wrong response to/result of, bad behaviour. In humans.
phil – poster child!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK, we DO have a difference… I have never felt that particular feeling. When I deserved it I didn’t even resent the punishment. It was over quickly enough and there wasn’t a lot of fuss afterwards. It was done.
Took less time than a time-out, which I probably wouldn’t have even noticed. Put me on a chair and leave me alone with MY imagination?
Phil.. I reckon the lack of respect you have for authority may have been written by the absent hand of authority when you were very young. Maybe it was a good thing… maybe not. What might you have done if you were different? I have no idea, but I appreciate you being the way you are.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – any kid who gets ANY punishment that’s not deserved will remember it for a long time.
I’ve been smacked occasionally, hit with a ruler on the hand at primary school, caned once at secondary school – mainly deserved – but the punishment I remember most is once when a teacher kicked me out of swimming lessons for something that wasn’t my fault.
If someone has been hit repeatedly and undeservedly – that’s something completely different to an occasional light smack to correct very bad or dangerous behaviour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad – All Blacks. To tell the truth I don’t actually care nearly as much as I used to whether the All Blacks win or lose.
You can’t blame wife beating on “male culture”, when the vast majority of males would be discusted by it (and when recent studies have shown around 40% if spousal violence is the other way around – no one want to talk about that much though).
Perhaps a male/rugby/alcohol/drugs sub culture – but to bring in half the population is to tar a lot of inocent people with a nasty brush.
Preparing kids – I want to prepare my kids for whatever world they end up inhabiting. Make it the best we can – but don’t deluude ourselves.
And instill in them some good basic ethics of the type many kids don’t get taught these days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
no bj..
..i had the crap beaten out of me at school/by teachers..
..that helped fuel my contempt for false ‘authority’..
..and taught me to always question ‘authority’..
..’cos often..
..authority was/is full of bullsh*t..
(appreciate the sentiment in yr last line..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’re asking kids how they should be disciplined?
And you think we should listen to them?
They’re kids for chrissake. What do you think they’re going to say?
sheesh.
Why not ask them about the Arab/Israeli situation while you’re at it.
Homer: “What does Marge usually do to punish you?”
Bart: She makes me drink beer . . .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat, you may live in a world where kids are chattels who that are owned by their parents.
Some of us have moved on from that neanderthalic approach – kids have thoughts, ideas, and perceptions that often escape adults.
If I ever have an ICT issue that I can’t work out, my first thought is to ask someone under 20.
Age may deliver wisdom, but youth delivers inspiration – as long as we older folk don’t snuff it out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
First of all, here are some quick comments. My first point is duh! Turkeys wouldn’t support Christmas, and children wouldn’t support smacking/hitting/physical discipline – they don’t like it because it is punishment. Like photonz mentioned, children don’t like negative things happening to them, but that is life, and to be frank, life sucks in many respects.
Further to that, since proper discipline has diminished in our society, look at what has happened. In schools, children are now running the show essentially, and teachers cannot do a thing about it – back in my parents day, the teachers had control, and anyone out of line got a caning. We have children who are out of control because they are no longer properly disciplined – compare the children of today with the children of the 1950s, the 1960s or even the 1970s. I highly doubt that you found teenagers committing petty (even less so serious) crime, or wilfully damaging property, or even being openly defiant (when it is unjustified) to authority.
Of course, the left has done things to try and disguise the problem. A misbehaving child is labelled with a disease these days; a mere fifty years ago, the solution was a good smack on the bottom and the child realised that misbehaviour would not be tolerated
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
That business about youth is all SORT-OF true.
… and the human brain is not really fully developed until after age 20.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2006/02/06.html
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj and the human brain is not really fully developed until after age 20
In the interests of consistency, the use of smacking should continue til then bj? You’d better watch out for kick-back
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” – Emerson
I didn’t say what you said Greenfly.
I was merely pointing out that Toad’s respect for the opinions of the young has limits. Those limits are serious and show up in teen pregnancy rates, male teen risk-taking behavior, the certainty of personal immortality and infallibility and a host of other offenses against reason. Among other things they contribute to the popularity of Libertarianism in that age range.
Listen to them? Sure. But I don’t trust their judgment.
Should there be an upper range beyond which corporal punishment is regarded as inappropriate? Yes… that probably is something that SHOULD be built into any more explicit law, and is ALSO missing from the one we have.
The Dom-Post has an excellent summary of the situation today. People THINK they have an “anti-smacking” law in place, but that isn’t what the law says. Not even close.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
john-ston Says:
June 25th, 2009 at 12:51 am
> First of all, here are some quick comments. My first point is duh! Turkeys wouldn’t support Christmas, and children wouldn’t support smacking/hitting/physical discipline – they don’t like it because it is punishment. Like photonz mentioned, children don’t like negative things happening to them, but that is life, and to be frank, life sucks in many respects.
it’s nonsense to say that children are inherently opposed to the punishment of children. Sure they don’t want to be punished themselves, but they will also tend to be in favour of punishing other children who are causing problems for them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was merely pointing out that Toad’s respect for the opinions of the young has limits. Those limits are serious and show up in teen pregnancy rates, male teen risk-taking behavior, the certainty of personal immortality and infallibility and a host of other offenses against reason. Among other things they contribute to the popularity of Libertarianism in that age range.:
What a silly thing to say BJ….Libertarianism is staunchly about personal responsibility,respecting objective reality and consequences for actions taken….just how is that in line with the all “rights”,no responsibilities dogma Toad and his leftie mates belive in that leads to the disfunction you discribed?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If the anti smackers are to be consistent then all restrictions imposed on children that violate their “rights” must also be prohibited by law.
Parents would have no right to prevent children from drinking,drug use,sexual activity,driving,staying out,getting tattooed etc as all restrictions on these activities would be violating their “rights” just as allowing smacking is claimed to be….it would be total chaos and result in major family disfunction as the family dynamic would be destroyed.
Assults on parents by children are also rising I see….is there a connection to the disempowerment of parents to discipline wayward children?
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2009/06/unhappy-birthday.html
“In Christchurch, for the first time to my knowledge, we have reports of a rise in children abusing their parents.
“Herbert said the [Battered Women's] trust had also noticed more parents being abused by their children.
“The number is not large, but it’s definitely increasing. With teenagers, it’s both boys and girls, and there are also cases of children who are even younger.”
Welcome to the reaction to your poorly thought out assult on parental soverignity comrades..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No James, it is NOT silly. Libertarian philosophy is firmly behind the supremacy of individual’s rights over group requirements. The teen is chafing to be free of group requirements that have been imposed over his/her entire previous existence. The result is as natural as gravity. I’d be more attached to the notion though, if I thought it actually signified anything
Here’s another link to a synopsis of differences.
http://www.actforyouth.net/documents/may02factsheetadolbraindev.pdf
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James… check what the law actually says. There’s a lot of mis-understanding going on here. – BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Greens touted Sue’s bill as an anti smacking law –
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844
Sue has recently stated on radio that smacking is a criminal offence, then
“There never has been an offence of smacking, ever, and nor did I call for one,” Ms Bradford says
When the person who proposed the law can’t agree with HERSELF on what it means, what hope for the general public who are suposed to obey it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Context is important here. It is all true that the word “smack” has never appeared in any version of the law, that Sue never asked for it to be, and that since the current law allows for no force for the purposes of correction, that smacking is therefore not sanctioned (though it’s not to be prosecuted if inconsequential).
Sue has been pretty consistent in how she uses the terminology, with the exception of a few press releases which have “anti-smacking” or such in the title. In a few it is quoted, implying “so called”, but in others it was not. It was silly to let that happen, but it doesn’t mean Sue is confused.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis – that really clears things up.
So Sue never asked for smacking to be illegal, but it might be, but it might not be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photo – you are being disingenuous with your reference to the time(s) Sue refered to the bill in that way. I’d be confident in saying that she has described it as a ‘child protection’ bill or something along those lines, time and time again. Picking up on the instance you have above, shows you don’t want to see the wood, so you stand directly in front of one tree.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like I said, the context of those discussions that you’ve quoted is each important. There never was a right to smack and the law talked only about assault and force. Reasonable force was a defense. It was only invoked in court, meaning after a parent had been arrested and was put on trial for assault (also meaning of course that the police had used the powers of discretion they’ve always had in such matters and which were affirmed in the new law, and determined that an assault had occurred). So when the critics starting talking about Sue wanting to ban smacking, she rightly responded that she wasn’t on about that, as it was already technically banned (which she supported as well). That’s why I think it would have been better to have avoided entirely that word, but oh well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – Sue has stated very clearly on a NUMBER of occasions that smacking is a criminal offence.
She even said that if someone was seen to smack a child in a supermarket carpark they should be picked up by police.
Headline from the Green Party website
“GREENS DRAW UP THEIR OWN ANTI-SMACKING BILL”
Suddenly it’s disingenuous to quote Sue or the Green Party? (but only when they are caught contradicting themselves).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Considering it was announced by Sue as an anti-smacking bill…….
“GREENS DRAW UP THEIR OWN ANTI-SMACKING BILL”
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844
….then how honest is it to later claim that she has NEVER used that term to describe her bill.
quote “I have never called it an anti-smacking bill — my opponents did, and the media adopted the phrase.”
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/14954
Caught out telling porkies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As I said photo – if you stay posted in front of that tree, you’ll not be able to see the wood.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes Wat, we shouldn’t listen to kids. Sheesh, they’re just kids. We should give them a good smack on the bottom, eh John-ston? That will solve… societies problems; don’t you agree Photonz?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fin – of course, and the proof of that is that prior to the Repeal of Section 59, New Zealand society was perfect! Our “NO” team only want to return to those golden times.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – it’s clear as mud.
So are you saying Sue is right when she says it’s a criminal offence to smack
OR
is she right when she syas it’s not?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photo – I’m wondering why you hammer away at this, when you are aware that the referendum will not bring about the reversion you desire, no matter what defect/blemish you can point to. Fiddling, you are, while your Rome burns.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly “Fiddling, you are, while your Rome burns.”
A great description of the bill.
We have several thousand chuild abuse cases every year that reach the courts. And many many more that don’t
In less than two cases per year s59 was used as a defence. And even less often it worked.
So a great effort was put in so that perhaps ONE person per year might be prosecuted when they otherwise wouldn’t have been.
But THOUSANDS of beaten up children are completely ignored in the meantime.
It shows that the bill is not about protecting children and definitely not about stopping abuse (Sue admited that) – it’s about forcing an ideology on the country and punishing anyone who doesn’t agree with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually Greenfly, it is extremely likely that nobody on the “NO” side would object to a more explicit bill. They’d rather that than a reversion to the previous one. They’d happily accept that they can’t hit their kids with bats and tire-irons. They’d be delighted to be informed that striking above the neck is verboten and that using soldering irons is an official no-no. Most would just like to know what the hell the law actually means.
The problem is pretty much what Photonz1 has pointed out. What was pointed out in the Dom Post this morning.
The bill didn’t really do much at all. It may well be construed as making it MORE legal to smack kids. Which may be why its advocates are not keen to try to educate people about it.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bj said: (and I don’t doubt the accuracy of what you say) The bill didn’t really do much at all. It may well be construed as making it MORE legal to smack kids. Which may be why its advocates are not keen to try to educate people about it.
But I do wonder if that which you describe is happening in reality. More kids are getting smacked, because it’s possible to construe that it’s now more legal to do so? Doesn’t seem like it ‘on the ground’.
Not that I don’t agree that your idea is sound.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No, more aren’t being smacked right now. Right now the general pubic thinks we have an “anti-smacking” law…. and nobody behind the actual law wants to tell the general public that they are wrong. What I was trying to say is happening is that the public isn’t being told different.
So it IS having a more desirable effect in terms of raising public awareness, than it might otherwise have.
I don’t know where you are so you may not have seen it, but there was a large op-ed in today’s Dominion-Post. Basically went over the same ground.
Once the word gets out, the value of the bill is really nil.
Word will get out.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What happens when correction like a light smack is taken away from some parents, is that kids push the boundaries much further.
So parents are pushed much further than normal, and when they do snap many react much more harshly than they would have.
Hence in over half of child murder cases, there was no previous evidence of abuse.
That’s point is worth making again. OVER HALF of all child murder cases are NOT children who have been previously abused.
I’ve seen a few articles of violence both ON children, and BY children, going UP after the smacking ban in Sweden.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj – I’ve not read the Dom-Post article (but will presently) but have no reason to doubt your word. Given that the bill is due to be seen by one and all as valueless (I presume you mean in terms of smacking) then these debates are nought but sound and fury then! The changes to Section 59 -the closing of the loophole whereby children were beaten? Rendered useless as well bj?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photo – digest this nourishing meal from Idoit/savant
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2009/06/guest-column-anti-smacking-faqs.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – Who to believe? Your link, or Sue
Your link
“The law is very clear. Section 59(2) clearly states that it is illegal to smack your child for the purpose of correction.”
Sue Bradford in todays paper
“There never has been an offence of smacking, ever, and nor did I call for one,” Ms Bradford says
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photo – can you not see for yourself? (explaining would be tedious and I doubt you’d pick it up)
Clue: smacking .v. smack your child for the purpose of correction. Do you think they are the same thing?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – the link is extremist.
It says smacking is violent, assault, and child abuse.
Despite feeling this way, they are quite happy that police aren’t arresting more parents for this.
Surely if they TRUELY felt that smacking was assault, violent and child abuse, they would want it stopped by police – seems not.
Perhaps because it’s not really about children – it’s more of a tirade against anyone who doesn’t follow the same ideology – If you dissagree with idiot/savant then you are labelled “archaic”, “brutal”, and “violent people”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
No the bill is not completely valueless in two respects. The first is that it pushed the Green party down in the polls and may have been the straw that broke Labour’s back and put National into power… MAY have… it certainly had an effect though if it was equal to the Election Finance Bill is debatable.
Nobody said the value had to be positive.
The other is subtle. If you follow the rules with respect to operant-conditioning, the expectable result of punishing a child for purposes of correction ( which usually means giving the little dear a spanking well after the triggering offense ), is nothing useful. So it does I think, if it were understood perfectly and followed properly, offer some guidance.
Unfortunately it offers no guidance whatsoever with respect to the various methods which most sane people recognize immediately as unacceptable. In the main I believe that this phrase of yours…
“these debates are nought but sound and fury then! The changes to Section 59 -the closing of the loophole whereby children were beaten? Rendered useless as well bj?”
Can be answered in the affirmative.
Provided that a beating is administered “to prevent disruptive behaviour” the EXACT same standard of reasonable force applies.
Since the loophole was attempted so seldom in any case, the likely effect of the law once properly understood is not significantly different from zero.
Moreover, the opportunity to actually prevent most of the abusive behaviour by explicitly banning hits above the shoulders, use of implements, burning devices and the like. The opportunity to explicitly ban the use of force against children older than 8 or 10 or whatever. That opportunity was lost… along with a lot of Green party credibility.
Gains – Not significantly different from zero… unless you’re in the National party.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And now we have a law expert saying that Sues Bill actually allows many MORE situations where children can be smacked – where previously it would have been illegal.
You are allowed to smack Johnny to stop him from smashing windows, but NOT to correct him from smashing windows.
So will Johnny-the window-smasher clearly understand what window smashing will be punished with a smack and what window smashing will get a much lesser punishment?
The whole thing is an ambiguous mess.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1 said: The whole thing is an ambiguous mess.
Um, photonz1, it is all clear in my mind. I’m not sure how confused yours is.
The pepetration of a smack on adults is in the context of “getting smacked over”, or “smacked up”, or a “smack in the head”.
Bu somehow, under the rationale of the “smackers”, the term has a different meaning when applied to children.
Well, it doesn’t to me. A smack is a smack, and it is a violent offence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad – you either can’t tell the difference between a light occasional smack and something much much worse (clue – one tunrs out fine adults, the other turns out adults with problems)
OR
you are yet again trying to make a light smack sound ike sonething much more violent.
The former is stupid – the later is deceptive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Please help me here: What is the purpose of a ‘light smack’? To deter ‘bad’ behaviour, for example? And how will a light smack achieve this? It will not invoke fear into the offender, as presumably it is virtually painless. And there are plenty of other ways of showing disapproval.
If, on the other hand, we want to invoke fear, presumably by inflicting some pain…..(ellipses for bj) how far do we go?
Yes. Other species undoubtedly use pain as a deterrent/corrective measure. But we are, presumably, the planet’s most advanced communicators. Why shouldn’t we use our evolutionary jewel to our advantage?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What photonz1 said.
Toad still appears to live in a fantasy world where everyone from 1 second old (maybe even earlier) to 100 years old have exactly the same rights and responsibilities. Except, of course, that children, up to some age don’t quite have the same responsibilities as everyone else.
Those kids should get a job and earn their keep!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Touchy now, photonz1 – you have not responded at all to the point I made re semantics – why does the semantic a “smack” suddenly become something different when administered to children than it is when administered to adults?
When I was a kid, it used to mean the switches off the plum tree, or the wooden spoon, or the leather belt, and inevitably (sometimes bleeding) welts across my ass or legs. Always brusises.
sofistek – this has nothing to do with responsibilities. Children don’t have any legal responsibilities – but they should have legal rights to protection.
You are starting to sound like children are “the enemy” on that last post.
Scary!
“The old get old, but the young get stronger!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – change of tack – tell us your solution to this ‘dilemma’ – if you could call it, what would the ground rules be?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad – you haven’t answered earlier questions either – why do you always use the most viloent term you can to describe something that most people take to be a light slap to the bottom or hand with an open hand?
I’ll try to answer your qyuestion.
For virtually everyone I talk with, a smack in regards to disciplining children means the above. It can be made to mean other things — i.e. my wide gave me a big smoochy smack on the lips, he got smacked in the head with a baseball bat etc.
Or – horror of horrors – we could define smacking better by adopting the American term – spanking. yuk!
Maybe smacking in regards to child discipline does need to be defined better. But that was tried. Things like hits to the head, closed hand, objects, and virtually anything except an open handed slap to the bottom or hand was ruled out as unacceptable – but Sue had a tantrum about defining it.
Shame – it would have been far more effectve way to communicate what was unacceptable, than some mish mash that nobody knows the meaning off.
Do you actually want to define what a smack should be in regards to child discipline?
Or would you rather have the term be confusing as possible and to cover the much more violent acts than an open handed smack to the bottom or hand?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>>Please help me here: What is the purpose of a ‘light smack’?
Oh well, I did ask
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – “change of tack – tell us your solution to this ‘dilemma’ – if you could call it, what would the ground rules be?”
good question
1/ Make a law that nearly all NZ supports. Take the people with you i.e. – don’t criminalise good parents. Ok – you may not take all the regligious nutters and wife beaters, but it would be easy to get a law that has 80-90% support. It would be difficult for anyone to argue with that level of support.
2/ Make a law that NZ understands. i.e. The only physical discipline allowed is a light open handed slap to the bottom, leg or hand.
3/ Make a law that NZ understands i.e CRIMINAL OFFENCE to hit with an object, to the head, back etc, anything that leaves a bruise. There will be NO police discretion on these assaults.
4/ Make a law that NZ understands i.e. TV / paper education campaign stating the above. In other words, draw a great big line in the sand and show people where it is (rather than the current situation where the line is invisable)
5/ Follow up with education campaign on what works best for kids. i.e.
- info on positive reinforcement,
- setting standards and boundaries,
- how to cope when kids play up,
- age appropriate discipline (i’e’ understanding things like when kids can be reasoned with, that smacking doesnt’work for all kids, and for those it does is mainly for the toddler to 6 year old and losses effect after that, more effective if used very rarely, punishment fits the crime, consistency etc),
6/ More money for the likes of Plunket – why not make it like in the old days – they saw EVERY family where I grew up.
Better off keeping an eye on families with the idea of HELPING them, than keeping an eye on them, with the idea of HURTING them i.e. prosecuting them, taking their kids away and destroying their family (they’d get more trust).
There’s probably more tbut that’s a start.
Feel free to add more ideas……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1 said: why do you always use the most viloent term you can to describe something that most people take to be a light slap to the bottom…
Because I don’t accept that most people take it to be that.
Remember the “horsewhip” case. She was the poster girl of the “smacking” lobby – got off under the old section 59 after beating her kid with a riding crop.
Until she was subsequently convicted of an extremely violent offence (the child was bashed while hog-tied) against a child. Sorry, can’t give any detail of names, because there is a Court supression order (which I don’t believe there should be in an instance like this).
So you won’t see that case being promoted by McCoskrie and his ilk any more.
But get the point. “Smack” has different meanings for different people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – call me easy, but I’m with you on that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad,
Funny thing is that most peices of legislation have a definitions section, one would think that to be the appropriate place to define ‘smack’ if we really had to resort to such language rather than laying it all out as proposed by BJ. BJ’s solution would satisfy all parties concerned apart from those whom do actually want to beat their children and those such as bradford, and seemingly yourself, whom desire to outlaw all physical contact between parent and child which doesint take place in a “oh you little angel” mindset. To beat a child has disasterous consequences for the child and for society, but to totally spare the use of this corrective tool has consequences also. When taking into account prevalence those consequences would be more major.
The use of the physical pain and parential disapproval associated with the smack are important tools in parenting. Parenting can be done in their absence but it becomes much more challenging than most can handle and the result are inevitably inferior. This bill as it is, and the outlawing of a practice considered socially acceptable, will only mean that the rates of transgression increase in severity. Call it the ‘gateway’ effect; an effect that is very real and undoubtedly applies here, much more than it does for the MJ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad,
You are still avoiding the issue.
What we are talking about is the smack to the backside, the hand or the back of the leg; which has more of a shock effect than anything else.
If you want to turn parents into convicted criminals for this sort of behaviour then come out and say it. Stop talking about children being clubbed like baby seals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“photons – call me easy, but I’m with you on that.”
What? you agree that light smacking is ok
Hallelujah!!!!! Mc fly has seeeeeeeeen the light!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But not for the purpose of correction, I’m sure you’ll agree Shunda
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz, your last post is exactly what should have happened with this law change, it is a logical and simple solution that everyone could understand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“But not for the purpose of correction”
No deal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You want to punish after the event, with pain?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Did enjoy this from your list of suggestions though photons:
Better off keeping an eye on families with the idea of HELPING them, than keeping an eye on them, with the idea of HURTING them
and would love to know what you think about replacing the word ‘families’ with ‘children’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Me haere au ki taku moenga naianei
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“You want to punish after the event, with pain?”
Its called changing a childs mind, manually!!
There appears to be a direct link with a childs bottom and the switch that turns their ears on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
For those who are trying to figure out where I went off with Sapient and we wound up with a half-decent law… the string of posts commences here.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/06/10/good-on-john-angus-%E2%80%93-children%E2%80%99s-commission-has-lucky-escape/#comment-80400
Since then I have become aware that it makes sense to add an age restriction.
However, this is ALL moot. Nothing will change now in any case. If the referendum passes by a wide margin Key will change the law closer to the election so as to get the most political value from it.
I’ve been accused of pragmatism and cynicism. I proudly confess to both.
respectfully
B J
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Because I don’t accept that most people take it to be that.
Remember the “horsewhip” case. She was the poster girl of the “smacking” lobby – got off under the old section 59 after beating her kid with a riding crop.
Toad… most people were appalled by the idea of using a riding crop on a child. Most people know the difference quite well and the most egregious problem with the law as it stands is that it STILL allows the use of a riding crop on a child.
What we WANTED was a specific law that could be used to get everyone in New Zealand to understand what is and is not permissible. What we got…
… well it wasn’t what we wanted was it. Which is why we are having a referendumb. Which is worded as poorly as the existing AND the previous law.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
back again
greenfly – yay – we agree on something. Thanks for changing tack and turning us in the same direction.
Wat – I think you hit the nail on the head with “shock effect”. From my experience, the pain of a light smack is gone in seconds.
It’s the shock that makes a little mind go “ooohh – that wasn”t good. Did I do something I shouldn’t have? Perhaps I did. I’d better not do it again”.
I follow it up with a calm down period then a calm explaination with a cuddle. I can’t remember when it hasn’t worked like a magic switch, from appalling behaviour to really good behaviour.
But, if it was used regularly or harshly, I don’t think it would work as effectively.
In my experience it’s been a miracle tool for changing behaviour from despicable to excellent – every time. And it’s used less and less frequently – now probably only once each in the last 18 months for our kids (just turned 7 and 9) and up to a few times per year when they were 3 – 5yrs.
Surely it’s not that difficult to have a law that everyone understands, and everyone agrees with – that allows slightly different ways of bringing up kids that all have good outcomes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A miracle, huh?
On a global scale, with the same logic, one could make a case for atom bombs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – I do have a number of questions for you in light of what you propose. It seems to me that your ‘system’ that makes it legal for parents to smack, will infact criminalise good parents. You have set boundaries (Open hand, bottom and hand and legs only etc) but these will be crossed – you will get ‘edge creep’. Just as good drivers do creep over the 50 km limit, your good parents will , for example, hit slightly higher or lower than the law allows, slightly harder than you have stipulated, more often than you allow etc. As soon as you regulate how it is that smacking must be carried out, you will make criminals of parents. How do you answer to that photons?
As well, I am concerned that your ‘rules’ cannot be thorough enough to be workable.
For example: how long after a ‘punishable event’ will your law enable punishment to be carried out> A broken window, for example must be ‘smacked for’ how soon? Within 10 seconds? 10 minutes? 10 days? Can a father, for example, who is away fishing, smack his child when he returns 10 days later. Can you clarify this for me?
Also, Who is the parent (those legally able to smack) Is a de facto father able to smack? One that has just joined the family unit? One with a past history of violence toward children – is he/she able to smack?
I’m puzzled too, by the term ‘light’ smack. How will you convey to parents what this is? You were clear that ‘a line had to be drawn’ and the allowable actions made clear, but how will you moderate this? Your light smack will be very different from someone elses. Will you have a ‘loading rating’ Will you have demonstrations? What will a parent do when faced with a child wearing a nappy – hit much harder? If they do and damage is done, how easily they will argue the issue.
Will you have an age limit for being smacked? Can parents smack a 1 hour old baby? For crying? It’s corrective isn’t it? Some will. Can parents smack to toilet train their children?
If you say that parents can smack, all of these things will happen and you will be responsible (as the law maker) for the damage caused to children and for the criminalising of parents who will cross the lines you have drawn.
I have many other questions for you. I hope you can look at each and note your answer beside each. Thanks photons.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You are devious, greenfly
Perhaps we’ll have to let the police use their judgment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly said: I’m puzzled too, by the term ‘light’ smack.
The term the spankers bandy about that puzzles me even more is ‘loving’ smack.
I hurt you because I love you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, its called caring for your young.
Despite a strong attitude within the greens that the majority of parents want to harm their offspring, it is actually only a tiny minority that do. And they usually have brown skin.
Perhaps some help for the communities that need it, instead of the one size fits all socialist crap we have been used to for the last 10 years would be a better idea to protect children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I hurt you because I love you?”
Yes Toad actually it is, just like chopping branches off fruit trees makes them stronger and more productive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – you’ve flipped back again – from looking for solutions to hunting for problems.
i.e. you seem to have no problem with parents being criminilised now, but seem very concerned about criminalising parents for very slight variation of a light smack – it all seems a bit disingenuous.
Many of the problems can be further defined, either through law or through education – i.e. any punishment – a smack or time-out becomes much less effective when delayed.
How do you discipline a kid who misbehaves in a supermarket with time out? It has to be delayed – so it is largely ineffective.
If a smack leaves a mark or a bruise then it’s not light.
You say lawmakers will be responsible for damage to children. Why has the responsibility of damage to children passed from parents onto the lawmakers?
Have we taken ALL responsibility away from parents and passed it onto nanny state?
That sort of thinking INCREASES problems – we’ll get less and less people taking responsibility for their own actions.
Some parents disregard murder laws now. So ANY new law is irrelevant to them. Hence the education / help /plunket part of my plan might reach some of these people, where law changes would have no effect.
A law expert on the radio yesterday says Sue’s ammendment actually allows smacking and force n many situations that previously were not allowed. And not just a defence for smacking – it actually allows it by law.
Others think it means something else.
How can people obey a law when they don’t know what it means.
We have a law that nobody knows where the line is, 80% of the country disagree with it. It is seen as being put in place by an extreme fringe and hence if is ridiculed and will be totally ignored by many.
If you want a law to work, it will have to have some respect and “buy-in” by the majority. It need clear definitions of what is ok and what is not.
The current law has neither of these essential elements.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad – the term ‘light’ interests me because it seems specific and intuitive, but if you are writing it into law, you’d need to define it very well. Perhaps that can be done and if so, the problem of criminality if that line is crossed is created. Of course it will be crossed and parents will become criminals the moment they do cross that line. With regard a ‘light’ smack, how exactly will the law need to be written? Can you smack ‘lightly’ with rings on your fingers? Heavy rings? If the child has medical conditions of some sort – fragile bones, a skin condition, low pain threshhold etc?
photons talked about bruising being a measure of crossing the line into criminality. If a bruise appears, you are immediately a criminal, I suppose. Parents are going to be either very, very careful, or they will be criminals with a terrible secret.
There seems also to be a divergence of belief amongst those posting here in support of smacking. Some (the operant conditioners) say pain is needed for the process to be effective, while others say that the smack is valuable mainly for its ‘shock’ and is fleeting. I did enjoy photons’ words where he says,
Wat – I think you hit the nail on the head with “shock effect”.
‘Out of the mouths of babes’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – don’t get me wrong. I’m very interested in your proposals. Can you look at each of my questions/dilemma and show me how they will work in practice? I’m keen to talk through the details, because I think that’s where the Devil might lie.
Respectfully
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And how is this law change going to help Maori and Pacific islanders Greenfly?
There are communities that need more attention that are being convieniently swept under the carpet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Of course it will be crossed and parents will become criminals the moment they do cross that line.”
Well at least there would be a line, at the moment ANY smack is breaking the law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Some (the operant conditioners) say pain is needed for the process to be effective, while others say that the smack is valuable mainly for its ’shock’ and is fleeting.”
Perhaps you could give us an idea of what level of pain you think children can cope with.
A smack that causes pain is unlikely to hurt more than falling off a bike for instance, should we ban bikes too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – do you agree that establishing a ‘line’ automatically means parents will be criminalised? I mean in reality Shunda, in the way almost every driver is criminalised by having exceeded the speed limit
(Speeding may in fact not be a criminal offence, but you know what I mean)
I hesitate to compare the example to smoking cannabis, but you’d have to say that anyone who has tried that, is a criminal – how stupid is that !
Bear in mind Shunda that I’m now asking questions of your and photons’ proposals – how about addressing them, rather than reverting to criticism of how the present law works. You’ve done screeds of that already.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – my kids play a lot of sport, ride their bikes, climb trees, we’ve got a trampoline and monkey bars etc. On the very rare occasion they get a smack, it’s unlikely to be in the top ten things that hurt them on that day.
They learn consequences from getting hurt every day – ten or twenty times a day. And once in a blue moon they get a light smack. Over a year, a light smack probably doens’t get into the top thousand “hurts” of the year.
greenfly “Parents are going to be either very, very careful, or they will be criminals with a terrible secret.”
As is the case now, and will be the case whatever the law says and where ever the line is drawn.
Surely it is better that the law is clear though – so people actually know where that line is.
There’s a better chance of people obeying the law if they know what it means, where the line is, and with popular support.
You make a good point that there will always be some blurring of the line, However I believe it would be better to make unacceptable punnishment very clear – and get good public support for that, rather than have a law that is largely ridiculed and disregarded.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – “Parents are going to be either very, very careful, or they will be criminals with a terrible secret.”
As is the case now, and will be the case whatever the law says and where ever the line is drawn.
Agreed. Could you look at the questions I’ve put to you and perhaps tag an answer onto each one, remembering that we are looking now at your proposal. I’m not defending the status quo, I’m interested in how workable your proposals are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the problem at the moment is because smacking as been removed as an acceptable method of discipline , so there is no way a parenting group can teach people how to use smacking effectively, or even identify when it should be used. This will likely lead to more abuse of this method of discipline because we are not allowed to talk about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, Photonz
You really are getting into it.. but you’re missing two points. The first is that this is entirely and completely moot.
The second was that this has for the most part, already been done. I’ve cleaned it up somewhat:
(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 minimizing 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 offense; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behavior; or
(d) correction of the child; or
(e) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) To deliberately inflict physical harm upon a child is an offense except where that harm is in accordance with sub-section one
(3) “The actions listed in subsection 3a are never permissible under sub-section one and are always a criminal offense except where the actions are necessary under subsection 3b”
(3a)
1. Striking a child with any object other than the open hand.
2. Striking a child above the neck.
3. Shaking a child.
4. Choking a child.
5. Bending any limb of a child to the breaking point.
6. Using burning or freezing substances on the child.
7. Holding the child underwater.
8. Binding a child in/to any machine or device where the device is not designed for a human occupant.
(3b)
1. It is necessary to save the child’s life or save the child from grevious bodily harm.
2. When the action is immediatly necessary to prevent further harm (i.e. applying ice, trachiotomy, lung reinflation
(4) Age:
(4a)Children younger than 10 months of age must not be punished in ANY way for any purpose.
(4b)Children older than 12 years of age will be regarded as “adults” and this law does not apply.
(5) 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 offense involving the use of force against a child, where the offense is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution. Police additionally have discretion to refer cases to Child, Youth and Family if in their judgment this is appropriate in place of prosecution.
Child, Youth and Family has NO discretion relating to cases referred by the police and must investigate them.
(6) Further to this it is required that when there is ANY serious physical harm to a child, the first-respondent shall take note of all pertinent circumstances and unless in their judgment the cause is accidental, shall refer a case to the police for investigation. (Nurses and MDs have discretionary power).
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – I’ve addressed pretty much every one of your points previously. I’ll go over them again though.
Criminalisation – any law, including the current one, criminilises peple who break it. You will never get away from this not matter there you put the boundary. But it will hapen less if you actually tell people where the boundary is, rather than them having to guess..
Timing – educate parents that discipline well after the fact is not particularly effective – for any sort of discipline.
Who can smack – The lagal gaurdian, and any adult who is appointed carer by the legal guardian. I would expect in this case the legal guardian would make it very clear how they want any discipline handled.
Light smack – doesn’t bruise or leave a mark.
What bad behaviour is smackable? Sues new law already states four circumstances where smacking is allowed (arrording to yesterdays law expert). At least one of the clauses is pretty vague though.
And the same question applies to ALL punishment. This is probably a good area foe further discussion, education on what works etc.
Age – works best from toddlers to 6, then loses effectiveness. I would think this is probably better done though education rather than law, but open to discussion.
I think there are common sense solutions to pretty much everything.
Any more?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bj – moot indeed, as I too have pointed out several times.
The details interest me. Looking at your proposal, it seems that you sanction the smacking of a child on the neck. Is that true?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No… probably should read above-the-shoulders. The real point to this, which was done very quickly, is that there IS a specific section which could be promoted in very simple terms to tell people what they CANNOT do.
Simply.
Without asking a policeman, without asking a court.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – no you aren’t addressing my specific questions, (other than repeating your original proposal, which I found very interesting)
For example, I asked whether, under your law, it would be okay to smack a one hour old baby. Will you be specific, or is your law to be vague? I have posed a lot of specific questions for you.
Your ‘light smack’ that doesn’t leave a mark – really? What do you mean by ‘mark’, redness? You would have to specify, in your law. If your smack results in redness are you criminalised? I’m a simple soul when it comes to debate, so could you refer your answer to my actual question? Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Bj – moot indeed, as I too have pointed out several times.”
But why did you not raise these issues as part of the membership before the bill was passed?
This issue clearly has been divisive within the party, I can’t think of another issue on this blog where you chaps have disagreed to this degree.
I would love to support the green party but I just can’t compromise on Bradfords stance on issues like this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj- simple maybe, but already shown to have debatable points, which I’m sure you would be keen to avoid altogether. Think of a parent trying to make sense of what they can and can’t do, given that your proposal (and that of photons) tells parents, “You can smack”. That’s all some will hear.
Again, you talk of ‘open hand’ but I don’t see ‘back of hand’ covered.
Never-the-less, your proposal is very sound.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – that’s even ‘mooter’. You haven’t had a serious go at my questions to you yet. Come on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Your ‘light smack’ that doesn’t leave a mark – really? What do you mean by ‘mark’, redness?”
A back massage leaves redness. If kids have a bruise from a smack it is obviously too hard, why is this difficult?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What has the repeal achieved?
A huge amount of debate. A 9mil referundum.
There is so much debate over the level force allowable and the level of force that is beneficial, society will never be the same again. The days where you can shove your kid to the ground for, ‘packing a sad’ and not wanting to play rugby, are over… at least in public.
There will be some who will never change their views, but there will be many that do/have done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – photons calls for ‘mark’ to be part of his ‘commonsense’ law. You and he need to get your stories straight. So, you are saying that you can hit as hard as you want to, so long as it doesn’t leave a bruise? You need to be clear, because you are ‘writing a law’ here.
You haven’t addressed my question as to whether setting lines of conduct, such as the ‘bruise’ example, will automatically produce criminal parents as a result of the ‘creep’ that exists with any law of this kind. I wish you would have a go at it. Does it frighten you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Really honestly greenfly, I think BJ’s proposal is rock solid, clear, and easy for everyone to understand.
If this issue is not ideologicly driven its pretty hard to understand why a law such as his was not adopted.
Another NZ political defeat for common sense.
Why why why!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Really honestly shunda, it’s not rock solid. Even I, casual observer, was able to find fault. You are too eager to over turn the present law that you are not willing to critique new proposals properly.
Please address my questions to you. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“You haven’t addressed my question as to whether setting lines of conduct, such as the ‘bruise’ example, will automatically produce criminal parents as a result of the ‘creep’ that exists with any law of this kind. I wish you would have a go at it. Does it frighten you?”
Maybe I am just a little dull, but I don’t really get the angle you are taking here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
A parent will know (under your proposed law) that they can legally smack.
If they smack outside of the strick guidelines the law must have (you don’t want it left vague, do you?) they become criminals, true?
So, if a parent does bruise their child by smacking them (don’t forget, some people/children bruise very easily) then that parent will become a criminal. It seems to me that this will happen ‘all over the show’, not just from ‘bruising’ but also; wrong part of the body, wrong age, adult who is not legally the parent (a ‘new’ father, recently arrived in the family for example)
Parents aren’t trained professional smackers. You will create legions of criminals Shunda. I hope that’s clear. Let me know what you think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The problem with the “bruising test” is that the parent can’t anticipate whether the smack will leave a bruise. What is a parent meant to do – have a “trial run” on a consenting adult first to determine what amount of force they can use without causing bruising?
And some children naturally bruise more easily than others. Certain medications (eg warfarin, aspirin) will make a child more prone to bruising. A light smack can actually cause severe internal bleeding to a child who is haemophiliac etc.
What’s more, you can inflict very severe pain without causing brusiing by hitting with something like a rolled up newspaper.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
I did that in a grand total of 20 minutes thought and conversation with Sapient on a thread now a week old. I am quite certain that it can be tightened up if someone were actually going to push for a change to the law. A couple of people with experience in the field could probably make it better.
I am equally certain that if it misses something specific, the more general clauses will apply, and the fact that SOME parents may still be fools is why you want a law in the first place.
The point is that it is vastly more convenient to give people a list of what is absolutely not permitted and that this list or a close relative of it, is easily publicized and informed to the public and would stop 99 % of abuse once it was followed.
The real problem is that this is not going to happen.
Shunda – The amendment was a “PRIVATE MEMBERS” bill not a Green proposal and the Green party was not officially involved in creating/drafting the bill.
Thus despite the fact that it is Sue Bradford’s bill, and she is a Green and it has many more Green than ACT supporters, it is NOT a Green bill. It would be good to remember that as it bears on the “divisiveness” you observe. The Green party had NO control of what Sue decided to do with the bill provided she conformed to policy.
It was discussed in the internal forum briefly, but most Green members do not frequent that forum. I did correspond with Sue directly.
The divisiveness you observe is real. The things to remember are that
a. Smacking is STILL legal.
b. This was not a Green Party bill
The whole process has been handled in a way that makes me wonder at the fact that there is any market at all in this country for shoes with laces.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Except where a action is allowed everywhere or nowhere it is almost impossible for a law to be rock solid, thats why we allow appeal to case law. I think that the formulation BJ posted here is significantly more solid than that promoted by bradford and without any of the social costs imposed by her bill. While some of the wording is less than ideal one has to realise that it was formulated rather quickly by BJ just chucking his idea out there and then alittle tennis between us, it is more of an experiment than an actual proposal but it shows that a far supperior document could have been formulated with minimal effort, even by people such as BJ and myself with little to no experiance in creating such legislation.
I dont think that smacking above the buttocks should be included as acceptable for correctional purposes because of the sensitivity of the spinal column and the organs contained in the torso, not that they should actually be harmed but just as an extra safe guard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly “You and he need to get your stories straight”
Why would want to do that?
We are not a homogenised, sanitised one-size-fits all group. We are 80% of the population, and people will have differnt ideas.
What we need is a line that the vast majority of the country agrees with and supports, and therefore adheres to..
You are hammering away at the small grey areas – all things that can be worked out. You see a some massive problem that will confuse and crinimalise parents – whilst ignoring the fact that the current law is many times more ambiguous.
As for age – I’ll defer to bj’s proposal – it seems to have a great deal of common sense – something that’s been missing previously.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient… I’ll agree that correction can get more limits still and that sounds like a good one.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj –
I did that in a grand total of 20 minutes thought and conversation with Sapient on a thread now a week old.
Yes, I know. I’m not attacking your work.
Sapient – yes, I see that. Your ‘smacking above the buttocks’ suggestion is another good example of the perils faced by legalising the striking of a child, imho, and that is the point I’m making. If you are looking for a rock-solid law around smacking, how does, “Never” rate? Pretty clear
Photons – you are not 80% of the population, you are one person.
Hammering away at grey areas? I don’t think so. There are serious faults in your original proposal and it’s important to get it right. Do you want me to say that it’s all ‘commonsense’, go ahead? Hardly. You were/are a constant critic of the law as it stands. Can you not take criticism at all?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Yes, never would be rock solid as never is a case of an action being forbiden in all cases. In this case, however, rock solid is undesirable as to acheive that solidity necesitates that we forgo the greatist social good and even make society worse of than prior to the legislation.
The change as proposed by BJ is significantly more solid than many of our laws and will ultimatly be further defined through case law. As is the practice in NZ law the severity of the offence will modify the severity of the punishment such that a light breaking of the law on a single occasion may result in alittle community service and subjection to check-ups by the services once in a while while a repeated and severe breaking of the law will incur the maximum penalty. This form should still be subjected to further critque and thus be allowed to evolve further but even at this point it is supperior to the present law and the former law both in form and in the awareness granted to the citizenry. One could think of its actual implimentation as a X^3 approach, though given that there wont really be rewards a more simple X^2 interpritation would work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly –
The problem with “Never” is that it causes exactly the damage to the party and to the children and to the society that Sapient pointed out earlier.
The same damage as appeared in Sweden.
When 80% of parents support use of SOME corporal correction it is (among other things) political suicide or simply impossible to pass a total ban.
The CURRENT law which is touted as anti-smacking permits smacking. It was the best Sue could get.
Finally, the general clause 6 of my proposal catches anything serious that is not covered specifically. We have been through this at length now and it appears to me that you are agreeing right up to the point where you realize that you ARE agreeing and then backing away again.
The law Sapient and I just did extemporaneously would have been passed without hesitation, fixed a problem that DID really need to be addressed, provoked no referendum, no punishment at the polls, no BS about the nanny-state and it would have worked better to inform and get compliance with the law.
This would have had a more powerful effect on parent-on-child violence than what has been done and improved rather than diminished Green Party credibility. Winning on both sides of the equation.
I should have known something was up when I realized that everyone here was in either gumboots or jandals.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly “I’m making. If you are looking for a rock-solid law around smacking, how does, “Never” rate? Pretty clear ”
And you could cut traffic accidents to zero by making the speed limit 5km/h and make someone walk in front of every vehicle with a red flag.
But laws are ineffective if the majority of the population ridicule and ignore them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj – not everyone. I’m in slippers (at home nursing some benignish bug or other)
I’m arguing that your/sapient’s proposal is wrong. My concern is that conveying the complex details to NZ parents (you know, the wearers of slip-ons, etc) at the same time telling them that ‘smacking’s back’ would be fraught with trouble. I’m also calling the photons of this debate on the ‘criminalisation’ charge they trumpet at the supporters of the present law and ask whether they can see that their proposals will create a similar situation (so far none have addressed that question at all).
photons – it’s a bit feeble picking out my tounge-in-cheek comment to respond to, when you’ve not bothered to answer my specific questions. You presented a range of ideas, then wouldn’t talk to them, preferring instead to keep up your drive against the present law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Parents aren’t trained professional smackers. You will create legions of criminals Shunda. I hope that’s clear. Let me know what you think.”
I think you need to give parents more credibility greenfly. Human beings do have the same instinct to protect their offspring as all other life on this planet, perhaps we need a realisation that the people that abuse their kids are not the majority. Most parents should be left to raise their kids without mother state breathing down their necks, that means parents determining the correct amount of force for the individual child.
It is not hard to determine what child abuse is, there is more than one symtom that a parent that is having trouble.
I have called this law for what it is, an assault on parental authority and the rights of a parent to raise their kids as they see fit.
If we need the state to be involved to this degree in something as simple as raising the young of our species, then it is already to late, we don’t have a chance of maintaining our society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oops! I meant I’m NOT arguing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
parents determining the correct amount of force for the individual child.
If Shunda, you believe we should give parents more credibility, why then do we need any of the guidelines being proposed here?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“If Shunda, you believe we should give parents more credibility, why then do we need any of the guidelines being proposed here?”
Good point.
maybe all we should have done is redefine the law on assault and got rid of the Bradford bill alltogether.
The real issue here is the attempt to outlaw the use of force for correction of a child, if people can’t tell the difference between a whack on the bum and assault with a piece of timber its already too late, our species has negated our intelligence and become unreasoning and very dangerous animals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly “….time telling them that ’smacking’s back’ would be fraught with trouble.”
NEWSFLASH – it never went – the law is ridiculed and people just ignore it.
greenfly “(so far none have addressed that question at all).” and
“..you’ve not bothered to answer my specific questions…”
Do you not read replies? – all of your questions have been answered at least twice.
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda barunda said: …parents determining the correct amount of force for the individual child.
You could have smack training nightclasses for prospective parents.
Oops, they’ve cut the funding for nightclasses, haven’t they.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“You could have smack training nightclasses for prospective parents.”
Explaining the correct use of smacking at parenting coarses would not be a silly idea.
Better than the politically correct crap that is being taught at parenting coarses that I have been to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Oops, they’ve cut the funding for nightclasses, haven’t they.”
Yes, they have cut stained glass classes and digital photography tuition, it is hard to imagine how our culture will survive without them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – are you a Deborah Coddington fan? You’d enjoy this
http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/06/coddington-makes-sense-on-smacking/
photons – apologies if I missed them. Perhaps you would do me the kindness of answering just this one:
Will setting lines of conduct, such as the ‘bruise’ example, automatically produce criminal parents as a result of the ‘creep’ that exists with any law of this kind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh come on Shunda!!!
Explaining the correct use of smacking at parenting coarses would not be a silly idea.
Better than the politically correct crap..
Surely you jest?????? NOT politically correct???
You slay me!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whaa? I don’t get it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – you said:
If we need the state to be involved to this degree in something as simple as raising the young of our species, then it is already to late, we don’t have a chance of maintaining our society.
then went on to suggest that the state teach us how to smack our children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“then went on to suggest that the state teach us how to smack our children.”
I don’t have a problem with parenting coarses so long as they are not preaching some ideology driven drivel like the ones I have been to have.
Its just a lot of experimental bollocks that gives parents the feeling that they need someone to hold their hand because its so hard.
Then the same organisations hand out condoms to children and tell them to go nuts.
I don’t see alot of hope for the emerging generations to be really honest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – where ever you set the line you will have this sort of problem.
What do you do with a parent who pulls a child back from running onto the road, but does it far more roughly than they needed to and damages the childs elbow.
Here’s an idea – perhaps we need a “pre-court” judge, who looks at cases to decide whether they are not followed any further, sent on to a full criminal court case, or diverted to middle road i.e. will stay out of court if a parenting course is undertaken.
One of the problems we have currently, that needs to be fixed, is that the action of the state against parents for a mild infringement can be MANY MANY TIMES more damaging to the family including the children, than the parents action was in the first place.
That’s insane.
The cuurent process can and has destroyed families, even when it turns out there was no case to answer. That’s state abuse.
Perhaps a pre-court judge could better match the seriousness of the parents action, with an the best solution that is likely to give a matching level of resonse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So that’s a “Yes” to criminalised parents as a result of the law you propose, photons? Bear in mind, I’m not arguing for the present situation, I’m testing the validity of your proposition. If there is a liklihood that you will criminalise large numbers of parents (and I believe that you will and it’s easy to show how that will happen – I’ve already given several instances) then you need to be able to address that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – courses to teach how to smack! Sounds extremely pc to me! Is it not instinctive as you said earlier? Is it not common sense likewise? Now you want the state to dictate how you interact on that very intimate level with your own children? Would you go to such a course? Really?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
The “complex details” are far simpler than waiting for a court to tell them what “reasonable force” actually is. They are going to be told “smacking is back” anyway. It won’t take that much longer before the law we got becomes more publicly advertised.
I am looking at two possible laws. Completely outlawing smacking as you appear to wish is not really a possible law in NZ. Sue Bradford learned that. However, let us swallow the camel and examine the effects.
First is that kids do not get CONDITIONED to respect parents, other kids or authority in general. They know no higher law than their own whims at a very basic level. It is true that this CAN be trained in through more complex behavior modification techniques, but for parents in families where both parents MUST work. and neither have been trained in these techniques the time is not there even if they had the skills, and most haven’t either.
The result is that a child who hurts another child, or indulges in other destructive or disruptive behavior, a child who hits his/her parents, does not learn better at all. Until he/she runs into another child who is bigger and stronger.
This bears on the longer term result. Child on child violence increases and civil society begins to unravel as an entire generation of children is raised without EFFECTIVE limits. The exceptions will be few in a society that demands, as this one does, two incomes to even think about bringing up the family.
The other effect is that the parents will often learn to resent the state apparatus that forces them to either be helpless in the face of their child’s misbehavior or to break the law. I submit that many WILL break the law in an effort to maintain some order in their house and because they will be breaking it after having tried hard to refrain, the blows will be as violent as ever and perhaps more.
The society will then swing against the progressives, the nanny-state will be rejected and all manner of other initiatives and wishes of the Green party and progressives in general will be washed away as the reaction reaches its peak. Surely you can see how this is what has been happening here in New Zealand over the past 3 years.
Which means that environmental action that is ACTUALLY required to save EVERYONE’S lives is tossed into the rubbish along with every other useful and desirable law. The question has occurred to me several times as I contemplated this situation. “Do these people really understand the difference between a social cause and the global climate change problem?”
So we have a “lost generation” with little idea of how to respect others. A tectonic rightwards shift. People breaking the law wholesale…. this is not a set of good outcomes.
The social cost is huge and the benefit is miniscule when compared with a different law that makes things specific.
More to the point however, is that this society would not swallow the camel.
It was in FACT impossible to get the outcome of a complete ban and instead we got a very watered down law that actually changes only the “for purposes of correction” clause and permits EVERY form of abuse I itemized to be defended in court as reasonable force. This has been advertised broadly as the “anti-smacking amendment” and many Kiwis are still confused, but I am quite certain that this situation will not be continued very much longer.
Which is better then? Explicit? or the current law? We can leave out the old law as it is merely a less adequate version of the new one.
Try to stay warm and healthy.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No greenfly.
At the moment would ANY organisation, community or state, be allowed to talk about and promote smacking as an acceptable form of discipline?
I prefer parenting groups of the community type, not the state funded brain washing classes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly “So that’s a “Yes” to criminalised parents as a result of the law you propose, photons?”
Yes – to those that clearly break it. I’ve never had a problem taking action acgainst parents who beat their kids.
And maybe also have the middle road I suggested earlier for minor breaches.
Just like child discipline – a punishment that fits the crime.
I would think there probably would be more parents face consequences – criminal or otherwise. I believe that would change behaviour more than the current vague line in the sand that’s largely ignored.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz,
It is my understanding that the “pre-court judge” under the present law is the police as they have the discretion to decide if a case goes to court.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The cuurent process can and has destroyed families, even when it turns out there was no case to answer. That’s state abuse.”
Absolutely. Taking a young child off its mother for even one night can do huge emotional damage at certain ages.
And I was told by a cyps worker that if a spouse backs up the acused partner the state will take all the kids away.
Disgusting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah yes… I missed out the ultimate result of failing to address climate change…. the end of human civilization.
I reckon that this is a rather large penalty to hand our kids in place of a spanking.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bj – thank you. I’ve enjoyed this debate, especially because you exhibit a high degree of consistency. I concur with your argument because it is so well described and thorough. It is a quite different argument, to my mind, to that presented by the more vocal opponents to Sue Bradford’s bill, against which I also enjoyed arguing. The outlook you describe is not encouraging. Which ever way we go or are taken, I hope that there is an improvement in children’s behaviour, in the cohesion of New Zealand families and a reduction in the amount of hitting that occurs in those families.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Which means that environmental action that is ACTUALLY required to save EVERYONE’S lives is tossed into the rubbish along with every other useful and desirable law.”
This is exactly what is happening.
I have witnessed (due to my line of work) a huge backlash against ALL things green. I have to constantly explain to people that there is a difference between someone who wants to protect/enhance the environment and the NZ green party. But it is a losing battle. I have confronted my council, spoken to community groups, but because of you guys NO ONE IS LISTENING any more.
It is immensly frustrating, hence my presence on this blog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – good hearted, every day people, giving up on saving the environment because Sue Bradford had her Private Member’s Bill passed?They weren’t going to do it any way, were they. Angry that they can’t smack their children, so, “To Hell with the Planet”? Must have been pretty committed to the cause, eh!
Pffffttt…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“It is a quite different argument, to my mind, to that presented by the more vocal opponents to Sue Bradford’s bill, against which I also enjoyed arguing.”
Ummm, I have enormous respect for BJ’s position on this greenfly.
I conceed that my argumant has been much more messy, but I am a fair bit younger than you chaps and I don’t for a second think I could out wit you fellas on very much at all. But I am open to learning about the position you hold and some of the concerns you have seem to be valid.
I am also aware of how close much of the “green” position on this is to certain human rights ideologies, and I think it is unfair for you to expect me to ignore that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
. That said, i dont think ive been inconsistant in this arguement, ive changed where i have put my influence but it has always been the same point. Or am i just getting overly defensive?
Yes, BJ does display a certain elegance to his wording that I lack somewhat. I can only assume that it is the product of experiance and effort, both of which I lack or fail to put in (mostly because i enjoy the debate that ensues from such imperfection)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly – I cordially invite you to debate with me anytime. You keep your head, and that is a very good thing.
I absolutely agree with you in the last.
The more vocal opponents of Sue Bradford’s bill are and were overrepresented in the shoelace-challenged set in parliament.
I too hope that there are improvements for children, family cohesion and a reduction in the amount of hitting.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
” Angry that they can’t smack their children, so, “To Hell with the Planet”? Must have been pretty committed to the cause, eh”
Dopy people look for justification of there ignorance, why give it to them on a platter?
How many tree’s have been cut down because of this issue? I know of a very large amount of what I call “profesional vandalism” has been going on in my area out of anti green sentiment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – I wasn’t refering to you e hoa. My arguments are at least as messy as yours, so we have a commonality! Plus, you’ve out-witted me on at least as many occasions as I’ve out-witted myself! Kia ngawari e potiki.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sapient – the problem currently is the police can take months to come to a decision. In the meantime the family can be split up with huge emotional and financial stress to all – only to find after many months that the infringement is nothing more than ta flivk on the ear and there is no case to answer.
So there has been abuse to the children and family, it is hugely damaging, and it’s by the STATE (but these cases will never be in the stats as they don’t go to court).
Better to have a judge that listens to both sides, rather than have police, who are one of the sides, also being judge.
Also – where is the middle road currently? That’s a big part of our problem – those cases where a criminal conviction is overkill and causes more damage than the “offence”, but also shouldn’t get off scott free.
Hence the idea of parenting courses – a minor “punishment” if you could call it that, that is actually beneficial to everyone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ – your prohpesy might be coming true already. In the past week we’ve heard two news items –
One of how there has been a very large rise in violence BY yourg girls.
Secondly, there are been a large rise in violence AGAINST parents BY children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – you lack for nothing! Yours is a debating style I really enjoy and feel as though I’m walking through a mine-field when I respond to your ‘provocations’! As to your claim that you’ve stuck to your point, there’s no question of that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Guys, I voted for McGovern for President. You might not be able to find another person in New Zealand who could say that.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Looks like one of my pet peeves is finally getting some air time:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/06/26/bernard-hickey-talks-to-alison-mau-on-tvnzs-breakfast-the-looming-clash-of-the-generations/
Any ideas on how we could get around this problem*?
*being a problem more for me than most on this blog, but ultimatly for the older aswel when it comes to actually funding the retirement.
Greenfly,
Thanks, I do enjoy debating with you; particuarlly as you often show up holes in my arguements i often fail to see in my haste/ignorance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ while this is completely irrelevant, I remember you once saying you worked for NASA?
Have you ever watched a space shuttle launch live?
I soooo want to, but I fear I am running out of time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
No
respectfully
BJ
(in much the same position as gen X and gen Y, due to migrating HERE in 2003)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nope… not a shuttle launch. I watched a landing though.
Also saw a Trident launch and a night launch from Canaveral. That last is where the real show is.
Suggest you learn some Chinese. My personal opinion is that they’re going into space big-time and the USA is going to have a lot of trouble hanging on to anything like parity.
Moreover, it is more likely that they, rather than a US company who’s bread and butter is the expendable launch vehicle, will come up with CATS.
… at which point we’d ALL better be able to speak Chinese.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wonder what it says about me that I would rather see a rocket launch and explode shortly after than watch a succesful launch? lol.
The only things I can really think about are CGT, LVT, and means testing. None of which are actually able to be implimented unless the baby boomers allow it and once they can be implimented otherwise it would be too late.
*frustration*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The closest we came was when Cullen talked about “ringfencing” the LAQC.
I’ve written to him. I’ve written to English.
Cullen answered. I am still waiting to see if National is actually going to bother talking to people who don’t have a record of financial contributions.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
It shows that you are young… and it shows that you have no first-hand understanding of how much effort and money goes into EVERY launch.
Some of the things lost are simply irreplaceable.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I wonder what it says about me that I would rather see a rocket launch and explode shortly after than watch a succesful launch? lol.”
It means you would probably like the latest transformers movie “revenge of the fallen” I took the boys to see it last night, lots of explosions and robots beating the crap out of each other.
Oh and an aircraft carrier blew up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And a pyramid!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Its the loss of that effort and money that gives me the satisfaction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
So it was good then I take it? Superior or inferior to the first?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“BJ,
Its the loss of that effort and money that gives me the satisfaction.”
I hope you grow out of it!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Shunda,
So it was good then I take it? Superior or inferior to the first?”
Much more special effects, but suffered some of the comic relief crap that holywood can’t seem to avoid.
I was hoping they would make a stronger connection to the third part of the trilogy, but it kinda follows the same theme as the first episode.
But its still good for the wow factor, the kids love it (so do I, what does that say about me?) they had some quite cool themes that I think could have been developed further, but hey its just a sci fi shoot em up after all
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Just for Sapient:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL1xUWgBlFw
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – fyi
Hon Maryan Street: Which of the following courses offered and supported by Tangaroa College in South Auckland does the Minister think should be self-funded by the participants: mathematics for Tongan parents, volunteer training and financial management advice to the Otara Budgeting Service, or making stepfamilies work, a parenting course run by Family Works?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not exactly green but – vegetarian grenades?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8119591.stm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
chilling!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Do parents who agree that a smack to correct bad behaviour is ok also think that this logic should also be extended to schools? Should we return to corporal punishment?
If I was to lightly smack my neighbours child because he/she was bullying my child would that be ok? Assuming I knew that his/her parents were pro smacking for correction. Or are we only allowed to discipline our own children in this way? Just wondering.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Im not a parent but i have previously expressed an opinion that it could well have a place in schools. Administered via cane though; got to eliminate that sexual touching and all
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Being a parent could change the way you feel about this issue Sapient. Parents tend to become very protective when it’s others that are physically disciplining their children. But should they?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jimmy – my understanding is that National, at the behest of the Act Party, are proposing a National Register of Behaviour for children and will have Agents of Correction empowered to go into homes and apply Corrective Discipline (Focused Spanking) to errant children who have failed to reach the level required (Anne Tolley will be the sole judge of the Pass/Fail level and there will be quota to be maintained) These ‘agents’ will operate in schools as well and will be lisenced to use Correctional Equipment in the form of canes and leather straps (National MPs chose those ‘tools’ to honour the way they were managed when they were at school). It’s a brighter future for us all!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
C’mon greenfly…..lets be serious. They aren’t that stupid! Next you will tell me that those newly signed up for the unemployment benefit will be made “agents”. Job creation …might convince some.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jimmy – only joshin’.
Seriously, the horse has already bolted on the caning issue. It’d be a brave teacher that tried it nowadays. You might get away with it in a Fundy Christian school or a blazered private school, but what does that tell you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah and state high schools are on the verge of total anarchy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Or are we only allowed to discipline our own children in this way? Just wondering.”
I don’t think its right for other people to smack your kids.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whew don’t do that to me greenfly. I had the home schooling scenario in mind.
There is no doubt that the issue of discipline in the home and in schools is huge and won’t be solved in this forum but when seatbelts became compulsory some said “no-one is going to tell me I have to wear a seatbelt” and over time they have stopped saying that. Smoking in public is not seen as all that cool either by a lot of people so one would hope that over time we will accept that using physical means to discipline kids may not be the best method.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda, I know it’s late in this thread but I find this question interesting. If we are saying that smacking is ok, that it works and corrects bad behaviours surely we should be encouraging others to use this method on our own children. I’m not being silly here but am talking about teachers, friends and responsible adults who could all do their bit to help discipline our kids.
I agree with you – I don’t think it’s right for others to smack my kids. If a parent asked me to discipline their child by smacking them I’d be horrified.
So what it is it, we can smack our own because it works and is a good thing but only we can do it – we own our kids.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jimmy – there’s a poster that is often seen blue-tacked to the walls of kindergartens, primary school staff rooms, high school offices that reads:
“It takes a village to raise a child”
Your suggestion that other adults should be able to employ the most effective behaviour management tool, smacking, on all children in need of it, is a sound one. Photons, Shunda et al will surely support your proposal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – there’s a problem at both ends. We we’ve only been talking about kids with behavouural problems because they’ve been abused.
But of course there is also a ballooning problem with kids who have no discipline. Just ask any policeman.
Look at the recent news – massive increase in parents being assaulted by their children. Massive increase in assaults by girls.
It’s time to put what actually works for our kids as our top priority, ahead of ideology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – your claim seems to me to be nonsense. The violent kids you describe were brought up pre-Sue Bradford’s bill, so their behaviour has to be attributed to the kind of management you have been advocating here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“So what it is it, we can smack our own because it works and is a good thing but only we can do it – we own our kids.”
You don’t smack other peoples kids because you don’t have parental authority over them, simple.
You must remember, smacking is only one tool for discipline and it has its limitations, it must only be used by a childs parents and ocasionally by some one else the child knows and trusts like a grand parent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“It takes a village to raise a child”
Bullsh!t!!!
It takes the parents to raise a child.
The village aproach only leads to uncle Hector fiddling with little Sammy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly “photons – your claim seems to me to be nonsense. The violent kids you describe were brought up pre-Sue Bradford’s bill, so their behaviour has to be attributed to the kind of management you have been advocating here.”
greenfly – what utter rubbish. Because a kid has appalling behaviour, it “has to be attributed” to harsh punishment?? Absurd.
Regardless of the old or new law, there ALWAYS was (and there always will be) children who have appalling behaviour because their discipline has either been abusive OR non-existant.
Go and talk to the police about kids who get no discipline and have no boundaries – a generation are learning they can do whatever they want to whoever they want, and there’s virtually no consequences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – could your views be any narrower? One of the great ills of our times -the phenomenon of the ‘lost boys’ that populate our gangs are attributed to the isolating effects of the nuclear family, coupled with work patterns that have the father unable to spend enough time with his boys to ensure that they are well grounded, especially through their teens – the solution being, spread the load, involve uncles/male parental stand-ins, trustworthy ones, who can serve as role models for boys who will otherwise choose their own. Are you not aware of this philosophy? This is part of the, ‘It takes a village (whole village, I think it is in fact).
I’m amazed at your response! Are you joking?
Further to that, I believe that if you are going to ‘arm’ parents with the most effective behaviour-management tool available (smacking) you must give all adults the same tool – scout leaders, teachers, the police, shop keepers, park rangers, the lot! If not, why not? Eh Shunda?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – I have talked and do talk to the police about children and young people who fall foul of the law and it is by and large those who are on the receiving end of excessively harsh physical punishment from their parents who become the significant problems for the police. Your ‘those who weren’t punished’ claim is not believable.
Shunda – I see you are calling for GRANDPARENTS to be empowered to smack. You’ve already gone beyond the ‘parents only’ limit. Looks like it’s going to be a free for all smack-fest!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda >>I don’t think its right for other people to smack your kids.
Yeah whats the point of raising kids if anyone can have a ‘smashing good time’ with them?
photonz1 >>Look at the recent news – massive increase in parents being assaulted by their children. Massive increase in assaults by girls.
Geez that IS bad news, -wed better start assaulting them more often so they arent as likely to assault… us…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the bioneer says “Geez that IS bad news, -wed better start assaulting them more often so they arent as likely to assault… us…”
Which is just plain stupid, because no one else has said anything like that.
Another case of makeing up something extreme – then FALSELY insinuating that it’s someone elses position.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – are you sure you are not again just rejecting anything out of hand that doesn’t fit your ideology?
A bit like the Otago study that found children who were mildly smacked had equal or better outcomes as adults than those who were not.
The reaction from so many people on this site was that it could not possibly be true.
It was totally rejected out of hand as rubbish, without even the slightest knowledge about the study.
Rejected not because it was wrong – simply because it didn’t fit the ideology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Bioneer is correct when he says that you are suggesting that you want to use assault as the method to manage assaults by young people.
He may be thinking of Bowie’s line,
‘Like putting out a fire with gasoline’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – please specify what it is exactly that you believe I am rejecting? Then I can see if you are understanding my position at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – now you too have made up an extreme position, and FALSELY said it is my position, when I have NEVER stated anything of the kind, and NEVER ever thought anything of the kind.
When you start making up FALSE accusatrions on people, it’s time to look at yourself and the extreme lengths you will go to, including falsely defaming others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh sorry -so you DONT think smacking our kids will reduce their behavior?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
” If not, why not? Eh Shunda?”
like I said:
“You don’t smack other peoples kids because you don’t have parental authority over them, simple.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I’m amazed at your response! Are you joking?”
I’m real big on the importance of community greenfly, just not on the speading of responsibility that MUST remain with a childs parents.
The left have done far more to damage community in the last 10 years than any body else, through idealistic rubbish and a one size fits all approach to community problems.
NZ is fast inventing a youth culture that does not exist in many (any?) other countries, we will reap what we sow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – to clarify: Do you advocate the use of smacking and do you believe the use of smacking with children will address the problem of assaults on adults by those children later on?
Shunda – you also said that grandparents should be granted the right to smack their grandchildren. You are not consistant. No caning at school then? Don’t teachers have in loco parentis ‘parental control’ over children?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
biorneer – what I said was there was a problem with lack of discipline.
And that was all I said.
All of a sudden you are falsely insinuating that I think assaulting children will fix this.
The kids I was talking to police about are usually 11 and 12 and older, so they need non-physical discipline – smacking or any physical discipline is not appropriate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Shunda >>I don’t think its right for other people to smack your kids.
Yeah whats the point of raising kids if anyone can have a ’smashing good time’ with them?”
Go smoke another one for me you left wing ideologue, people like you who heap me in with the mudering ba$tards lack the mental capacity to even comprehend another angle on anything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“You are not consistant. No caning at school then? Don’t teachers have in loco parentis ‘parental control’ over children?”
I am being consistant with the limitations of smacking as a method of discipline. If a child does not have a close relationship with the person, in my opinion smacking could be harmfull.
The only reason teachers would be in that position is if the kid was having behavioral problems out side of school anyway, there are other options for these kids. It is not the teachers job to raise children, they are there to educate them, is this really that hard?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey greenfly, I offered the idea of people other than parents smacking children as a legit argument to use if we agree that smacking is safe, effective and acceptable. You could be seen to be negligent if you weren’t to do it.
I don’t think that smacking is at all effective and have not employed it in the raising of our five children….but I am not an expert and am merely trying to see the other side of the issue. You have acknowleged that the idea is a sound one (you weren’t josh’in were you) but where does it end.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Jimmy, are you happy with people you don’t know bathing your kids?
Your not so hidden agenda is pathetic, and your logic is flawed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda, as a parent with a close relationship with my children I feel a smack from me would be more harmful than one from someone else.
We have just returned from my sons rugby game where he received a smack and has probably got a broken nose. He’s not too worried about it. If I had done that too him I can’t imagine how our relationship would be. Perhaps not a great analogy but all the same receiving a smack, especially a reactive one, from a loved one can be devestating for a child. Look at the expression on their faces and you’ll know what I mean.
No-one really wants to hurt kids, we just don,t know enough about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly “photons – to clarify: Do you advocate the use of smacking and do you believe the use of smacking with children will address the problem of assaults on adults by those children later on?”
I advocate bringing up children with good behaviour, respect for others and some clear boundaries.
If you can do this with no physical discipline, that’s great. If you can bring them up with 99% non-physical discipline and the occasional light smack for serious bad behaviour (which I do), that’s fine too.
The vast majority of kids brought up in this way are going to turn out great.
There are problems with kids who are abused, or have other problems like parents splitting up etc.
And there’s a growing problem with kids and teenagers who very rarely get any discipline at all, and have never had proper boundaries instilled.
You see it all the time after school or at the shops. Kids playing up, doing stuff they shouldn’t, breaking things etc, I’ve seen appalling behaviour and the parents don’t say or do a thing.
And you can guarantee that if you say something, the parent will have a go at you – not the child.
So these kids need discipline to learn boundaries, And that discipline can be is non-physical, or if they are an appropriate age, non-physical and the occasional light smack.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – I believe you have mis-read the Bioneers comment. I’ve added notes which may help.
wed better start assaulting them (smacking them as young children) more often so they arent as likely to assault (when they are young adults) … us…”
Does that help?
Shunda – I think you need to be clear about who can smack a child and who can’t. You indicated that grandparents should perhaps be included – what about uncles, step-fathers, dad’s best mates, aunties, great grandparents etc. Come on, get your story straight.
jimmy – yes you did and that’s a very interesting point. I too am trying to see the other side of the issue, by putting their claims/suggestions/demands to the test. You haven’t used smacking on your kids? Are they the out of control monsters that photons and shunda describe?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have the best kids in the world…but I would say that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – my 3:03 questions (there are two) can be answered by a yes or no (x2) Would you do that so that I am clear of your intent?
The explanation you provided is very good and I agree with your sentiments.
Thanks Peter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s crazy talk jimmy! I have the best kids in the world!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“You see it all the time after school or at the shops. Kids playing up, doing stuff they shouldn’t, breaking things etc, I’ve seen appalling behaviour and the parents don’t say or do a thing.”
I don’t know about where you are photonz, but where I am these kids are usually from the more well off families, in the better parts of town as are many of the teens in the court pages.
Much of the assault and vandalism done over the weekend is done by groups of kids under 20.
A local supermarket has just last week banned all students except 7th formers, with the support of the school, from entering the property.
Perhaps greenfly/jimmy could explain what is happening to our youth?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Come on, get your story straight.”
Anyone who you would trust to bath the child can smack the child.
It is a cultural given that you don’t go around looking for other peoples kids to smack.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly an honest question.
Why has this issue held such an interest for you?
Are you involved in parenting corses, troubled youth, whats the deal?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda
Anyone who you would trust to bath the child can smack the child.
Doctor, nurse, baby sitter, aunty, cousin, trusted friend.. come on Shunda, that’s not a tight analogy! You’ve gotta expect a challenge when you say things like that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – honest answer – yes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Many of our children are quite lost Shunda. Its very sad as these are the communities of tomorrow. Violence is to be found everywhere but there are some really good things happening too – they don’t often make the papers though. Kids experience eveything that adults do, while they are at school-alcohol,drugs,violence,sex,childbirth and all the good stuff as well so what is there to look forward to? I saw someone deliberately kick another on the head today.
We all know what is wrong with troubled youth….What are we doing about it?
Sorry Shunda, I don’t have the answers but I make it a point to be involved with youth and try to be as good a role model as I can, just as you do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yes what.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes… Shunda?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jimmy, things are getting worse, and quite rapidly. All the grumpy old buggers I know just blame it on the kids, which is not fair in the least.
These kids are just growing up in the social environment they were born into, they are a result of the failings of previous generations, some of these kids are really up against it.
Personally I see the reduction of parental responsibility as a major cause, people just couldn’t give a stuff about their kids, let alone teach them how to grow into succesful adults.
In my opinion this whole smacking banning thing is only going to further reduce the parental authority of the few remaining parents that care enough to discipline their kids.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Yes… Shunda?’ what, yes?, yes?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – I manage teams of ‘miscreants’ – young criminals either working off time they owe the community, in prison (out for the day, working with me) even gangs (Mangu Kaha has done some useful work for me) and I work daily (Mon – Fri) with yoof in a learning environment. Plus other things.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – do the yuf you deal with have good self discipline and clear boundaries?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You made a good point there Shunda and I have to agree that parents seem to have backed off their responsibility and with that comes poor behaviour from their children – attention -seeking maybe. But if those parents who maybe don’t see their kids that much then step in to try and physically modify the childs behaviour it won’t work. The few remaining parents who do care about disciplining their kids probably find they don’t need to anyway.
Todays world has financial pressures that make contact with the family extremely hard, both parents might need to work just to pay the bills. Contact time with your children is essential if you want to be an influence on their lives but you may have to give up your golf game on Sunday to get it.
As corny as it is, the old fable about the wind and the sun competing to get the coat off a traveller could well be applied to kids who have switched off.
The harder you blow the tighter they hold onto their coats.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sounds good greenfly. I would assume many of these people would have had some problems with violence? that being the case I can understand your angle a bit better.
I have often thought of doing something to help troubled youth, but I wouldn’t know where to start to be honest, I don’t have any strong church connections any more plus many church groups get to preachy any way.
We have had large numbers of kids in our neighbourhood congregating around our house, and some of them just don’t stand a chance, parents at work and locking them outside all holidays etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Go out and talk to those kids Shunda
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons asks: do the yuf you deal with have good self discipline and clear boundaries?
Happy to answer you photons. Just respond to my 3:14 questions and we’re back on track!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“But if those parents who maybe don’t see their kids that much then step in to try and physically modify the childs behaviour it won’t work.
Agreed. That would not be fair to a kid in those circumstances.
And I think this raises a valid point there are some parents that through their negligence have limited their options to modify their childrens behavoir.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – I already answered them comprehensively, and I thought you would have been well aware of my position by now.
Are children good – yes or no? It’s not a yes or no answer.
Do I advocate smacking to make kids behave better when they are older. yes or no? Again – it’s not a yes or no answer.
If you can give kids clear boundaries and good self discipline without smacking, then NO – I wouldn’t advocate it.
If your kids can’t always be moulded with non-physical discipline, and as a parent you think that with an occasional light smack they could be – then YES -I’d support it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“And I think this raises a valid point there are some parents that through their negligence have limited their options to modify their childrens behavoir.”
Yes and you have to feel sorry for them because for some there is no place to go and for others they just go to far.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Yes and you have to feel sorry for them because for some there is no place to go and for others they just go to far.”
Yes, but Jimmy I am sure you will agree that changing laws like S59 won’t make a pinch of difference for these children.
Thats why I signed the petition about addressing the wider causes of child abuse.
Do you see why this issue gets me fired up?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – I asked:
Do you advocate the use of smacking? Yes or no?
You responded:
Are children good – yes or no? It’s not a yes or no answer.
Hilarious! I’ve gotta assume you are doing it on purpose. Good man! I’ll retire gracelessly.
Cheers Pete.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly –
Do you advocate letting kids go off the rails and getting into trouble, if an occasional light smack could have stopped that – YES or NO
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What to do, what to do … answer it straight or give a ‘photonz answer’ ???
Do I advocate letting kids go off the rails and getting into trouble?
It’s not something I advocate. There will be some that do, regardless of their up bringing, I’d guess, especially in our society, with all of its other influences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda
>>people like you who heap me in with the mudering ba$tards lack the mental capacity to even comprehend another angle on anything.
Ahh -by trying to repeal s59 you are lumping the murdering bastards with parents who just give a smack,-helping them to be able to get off in court.
See how we are both locked in the same problem? in future ill try to be more clear about the problem so I dont implicate all of your thinking sorry
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Im my opinion, if you are able to be held criminally responsible for the actions of the child or for failing to act when the child is in peril then you have every right to curtail those actions using physical dicipline within the aforementioned boundries. This means that anyone in the posistion of a parent should be able to smack. A parent would be the prime example but if the grandparents are taking care fo the child then they could, likewise a uncle or aunt. Since the guardianship of a child is given over to the school (or atleast it was considered to be at mine) the teachers should be able to act to curtail the disruptive behaviour of the students. This may not mean that every teacher can spank the children but rather prehaps one teacher with the responsibility to which the children were sent to be caned, though it may be more effective to do so infront of the class.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
but no greenfly – that’s not acceptable you HAVE to give a YES or NO answer – (to take your rediculous position)..
After you admitted
“The explanation you provided is very good and I agree with your sentiments.”
you then insisted over and over that I change my answer to a simple yes or no, when either answer would give a false impression of my position.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz1
>>Are children good – yes or no? It’s not a yes or no answer.
Yes.
>>Do you advocate letting kids go off the rails and getting into trouble, if an occasional light smack could have stopped that – YES or NO
greenfly Says:
June 27th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Do I advocate letting kids go off the rails and getting into trouble?
It’s not something I advocate.
Ok my turn: Do you advocate using violence to reprimand kids when they in turn go out and bash people who cross them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – of course my answer is unacceptable – I modelled my answer on yours.
We are wasting airspace. I’ll (again) retire (with even less grace).
Sapient – Shunda will appreciate your sentiments, though he might ask,
” Would you let a teacher bath your child… in front of the class?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient Says:
June 27th, 1959 at 4:52 pm <<< WOW thats weird…
Im my opinion [...]This may not mean that every teacher can spank the children but rather prehaps one teacher with the responsibility to which the children were sent to be caned, though it may be more effective to do so infront of the class.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bioneer – you could blame your,
“lack the mental capacity to even comprehend another angle on anything”
on your father! Did he not smack you enough?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bioneer –
Sometimes children’s behaviour is good, sometimes they behave badly.
Perhaps you live in a world where every child is perfectly behaved.
I think you’ve completely missed the point. The question was merely to show that some answers are no a straight yes or no, just like my question that you and greenfly both failed to answer with a yes or no –
Do you advocate letting kids go off the rails and getting into trouble, if an occasional light smack could have stopped that – YES or NO
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bioneer – there’s a dim bulb in this room.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – so why did you keep going on and on for a yes/no answer when the FIRST answer I gave was, in your words –
“The explanation you provided is very good and I agree with your sentiments.”
And I’d genuinely like an answer to my earlier question
– do the yuf you deal with have good self discipline and clear boundaries?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think someone needs to introduce bioneer to that thing called arguement. Logic may do some good too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – the people I have working for/with me are a mixed bag. They come from a range of backgrounds and have transgressed in a variety of ways. The gang members had excellent discipline, as they worked under the direction of their leader and worked hard. Many of the ‘single’ guys (some are female btw) have very poor self discipline, at least in that situation (outdoor work). I suspect they have excellent discipline whenever they are playing Nintendo etc. or are making deals of one sort or another. Those who are in the deepest trouble/serving the longest terms are almost invariably from families where a parent (usually the male) meted out excessive physical punishment. I have seen this from beginning to end. I work with 5 year olds who are in the situation I describe and 20 year olds who are now in a position to repeat the behaviours they experienced. Is this the answer you wished for?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – you are missing his point because of his original style.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Bioneer says;
Point:
These attitudes belong in 1959 / are similar to those prevalent in 1959.
Absent points:
Why these attitudes belong in 1959.
Why these attitudes are inappropriate for today.
Why these attitudes are undesirable.
Thus no valid chain of arguement supporting the promoted conclusion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
thanks greenfly. I think perhaps we’re partly arguing past each other.
You see someone off the rails and see someone who’s been abused.
I see someone off the rails and I see no boundaries and no self disciplne.
No only are we both right, but we could be talking about the same person.
While someone in EITHER of these situations is likely to have problems, many poeple are in BOTH of these situations.
They have useless parents, are not disciplined and do not have boundarioes set, and are occasionally bashed.
The Uni of Otago study found many of the worst beatings were for virtually nothing, or actaually nothing. So that’s not even extreme discipline – it’s just violence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Do you advocate letting kids go off the rails and getting into trouble, if an occasional light smack could have stopped that – YES or NO
Yes.
Obviously the smacking is a short term fix which will stop the immediate behavior but lead to far worse behavior which will now include violence -particularly to the child’s future family.
Teaching this brain-dead parent at least ONE non-violent strategy is the problem -not a lack of smacking.
Now my question:
Do you advocate letting your (hypothetical) 4 year-old daughter go off the rails and get into trouble, if a smack to the face with an steel bar could of stopped that – YES or NO
do explain why
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bioneer,
Obviously, huh? Funny that not only does the evidence not support that conclusion but that it indicates the opposite, how odd.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Evidence? are you talking about the Otago study which photonz interprets in his own way to suit himself or some other mysterious study?
Or are you referring to the boy I work with; who’s Dad smacks him around when he hears hes been in trouble at school, who goes out at play and smacks other kids and gets into trouble and his gets Dad called who..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bioneer, you are talking about abuse not smacking.
Your comment:
“but lead to far worse behavior which will now include violence -particularly to the child’s future family”
is not based on anything but your own opinion, and unfortunately the most comprehensive study of human behaviour ever undertaken is in disagreement with that opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – are you the author of the referendum question?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – perhaps the bioneer is saying that smacking is abuse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“shunda – perhaps the bioneer is saying that smacking is abuse.”
Well it isn’t so he/she can relax.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bioneer,
That second peice of evidence is what some may call “circumstancial”. I could just as easily cite my best friend and my best friends brother, sons of a middle-class white suburban family. Brought up in the same circumstance in the same family, one was smacked the other was not. The smacked one (my best friend) is well behaved, moral, gentle, and smart. The unsmacked one punches holes in the walls when his PS3 disconnects, kicks the doors down when he isint given a large amount of money, beats up his mother whenever he doesint get the lollies he wants, and throws knives at his father and brother for pretty much anything, he is 17 and has been this way for the decade ive known him. No amount of police intervention stops him, hes been arrested several times for the behaviour. There are no exacibating psychological variables.
The example you cite is not an example of appropriate smacking but of abuse, something illegal under the framework proposed by BJ. Infact given the nature of the offence and the time difference the most effective punishment would actually be negative punishment such as removing toys or other bordom inducing activities rather than the positive punishment that is a smack.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – are you sticking with your ‘if you can trust them to bathe your child, you can trust them to smack them’ idea?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – yes a circumstantial example -lets continue this crusade for rigor and end ALL anecdotal evidence shall we?
Shall we extend this to assertions about wether or not smacking is effective?
Or does this only apply to posts you disagree with?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bioneer, The study we have refered to has made no link to smacking and violent behaviour, infact it shows slightly better outcomes for those who were smacked as children.
There is nothing circumstantial about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Shunda – are you sticking with your ‘if you can trust them to bathe your child, you can trust them to smack them’ idea?”
Why? what trap are you trying to lay for me now?
You should change your name to ‘praying mantis’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
relax grasshopper
What is your answer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Grow up Frog: you remind me of a letter to the editor of New Scientist re string theory which was something like “understanding string theory to a human is like if a Frog saw a man in an wearing a business suit sitting in an offfice…. what would the Frog think of it”….. yeah, we’ll I know you Greens find it hard to distinguish a “hit” (as in “hit man”) and a smack, but that’s because you don’t get out enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
gee shunda..
i see you were amused..in your other life on kiwiblog..
..at the ‘jokes’ about michael jacksons; death..
..not farrars’ finest hour..
..but you liked it..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What the hell are you talking about phil?
I wrote:
“tee he he he”
Were you a wako fan?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Green mantis, the point I was making is that smacking should not be used by all and sundry because it involves physical contact with children, its moot anyway its one of those things that parents just “get”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bioneer,
Sure. But beware, you will loose if you discard such evidence as all the empirical evidence supports my arguements as it is the empirical evidence that informs my arguements. Almost 80 years of psychological research support the effectiveness of operant conditioning and by extension of smacking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That does not imply it is fine to smack by any means!
Smacking is only one of an infinite number of factors in behaviour
-like saying if I have two boys; I punch one of the boys then leave pairs of blue and pink socks out in the morning and they both choose blue means the punching had no effect on the boys.
The study didnt test if the children who were beaten were more or less likely to believe it was Ok to beat their children when they were adults
Its like being very proud of a horse who always makes good choices stays on the right side of a paddock when every time he goes on the other you throw bottles at him -very well behaved horse, how proud we are
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bioneer, are you 10?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If I was would you smack me?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes or No?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’d send you to boot camp
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
gee shunda..
you are kind of ew..!
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda said: I’d send you to boot camp
Ever been punked Shunda?
(obscure granted, but I’ll not say another word about this)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whaa?
Did I say something that can mean something else or something?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Question
>>Do you advocate letting kids go off the rails and getting into trouble, if an occasional light smack could have stopped that – YES or NO
Answer from Bioneer
Yes.
It says it all really. Your ideology is far more important to you than your childs outcome.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Biorneer – “Evidence? are you talking about the Otago study which photonz interprets in his own way”
I’ve never interpreted it – I just quote the findings.
Anything that doesn’t fit with your closed minded ideals – then it must be wrong – even if it’s factual.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip (though you’ve vacated the debating chamber) I’ve a question. Apologies if I’m off-mark.
You described the need for children to be raised under a system where a smack delivers the message needed for the child to develop boundaries that allow the child to be a functioning part of a functioning community.
You describe a catastrophic end resulting from the failure of parents in a community to employ that method.
You said that this is the future we now face, as a result of Sue’s Bill.
You also say that Sue’s Bill is not what it seems and soon we will all realise that nothing has changed and that smacking can be used, as it was (bar the Section 59 details – bits of wood etc.)
Aren’t your ideas contradictory?
Society will fall apart because we won’t be smacking .v. we will be smacking, nothing much has changed.
???
Respectfully
Greenfly
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Im surprised it took so long for you to pick up on that, lol.
The ammendment makes for interesting reading, Section 59 subsection 1 reads
This section effectivly says that the use of physical force is justified for the purpose of correction as all of the mentioned cases are examples of correction and are ALWAYS correction.
Section 59 subsection 2 reads
This negates the entire first section as every incidence granted by the first section is itself correctionary in nature, so while a smack is legal under section 1 it is illegal under section 2 and since section 3 states the 2 prevails over 1 the same laws of assult apply between parent and child as between two adults (so you can claim assult for any physical contact).
It then gets evenmore messy with subsection 4 claiming
The implication of this is that while it is illegal to smack it is effectivly legal where the consequences are illegal.
The whole law is a total mess.
The future described by BJ is valid, this bill has dangerous implications but case law or legislative change will decide what path is followed. In my opinion there will be a net increase in the factors BJ discusses due to the uncertainty with the legislation but then smacking will seep back in as the case law shows that minor incidents are thrown out of court and they no longer even get acted apon. So in all I expect to see a large increace in crminality followed by a decrease though the level of criminalit would still be signifiantly higher than before.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Im not sure if i made much sense there, i shoud probally get some shut-eye
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
Actually no, because in that post I was describing what would have happened if the smacking had actually been banned. That is, if the NZ parliament could have actually passed a REAL anti-smacking amendment. In that post I was pointing out the consequences of that AND that Sue wasn’t able to get that level of agreement. Not even close.
Also, I don’t agree with Sapient’s analysis of the law here, as the “purposes of correction” will be interpreted as “after-the-fact” training or training like the “improve the kids handwriting” example earlier in the thread. It won’t ever be applied (successfully) to a slap on the hand to prevent the child from pulling down the chocolates on the store shelf.
_______________
Bioneer
Do you advocate letting kids go off the rails and getting into trouble, if an occasional light smack could have stopped that – YES or NO
Yes.
Obviously the smacking is a short term fix which will stop the immediate behavior but lead to far worse behavior which will now include violence -particularly to the child’s future family.
How is this “obvious” when this method has been in use for millions of years on billions of people, which has extraordinarily deep roots in the psychological research into operant-conditioning and which is shown not to be true in any study which encompasses different levels of corporal punishment?
Are you are not going to pay any attention to the real-world results and relevant research?
“The study didnt test if the children who were beaten were more or less likely to believe it was Ok to beat their children when they were adults”
The study is continuing… perhaps if you suggest the question they will ask it of the participants. However, they WOULD need to examine that question with respect to the children who were lightly punished, not the children who were “beaten” for the question to have any relevance.
Now my question:
Do you advocate letting your (hypothetical) 4 year-old daughter go off the rails and get into trouble, if a smack to the face with an steel bar could of stopped that – YES or NO
Gee… that would be illegal under our proposed law on two counts, hitting above the shoulders AND using an implement. Not to mention the extreme likelihood that the medical staff examining the child would refer the case to the police based on section 6.
I note too, that it is NOT EXPLICITLY ILLEGAL UNDER CURRENT LAW. The defense of “reasonable force” is still accessible… though I doubt it would be successful.
Not only that but this is an absurd example, because it would NOT be any sort of educational experience for her. I suggest that you go to the trouble of reading upwards in this thread to where Sapient and I and a few others have scraped together a law that WOULD work.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the point being missed here is that people who are “pro-smacking” are not “pro-abuse” and/or “pro-beating”. We want to see abusive behavior stopped too. We just want a little common-sense.
We expect the law provide guidance as to what behavior IS abusive.
We don’t define abuse as simply “any use of force on the child”.
We don’t regard our children as “little adults”. They are children and they need to be taught all manner of things and their brains must develop quite a bit, before they can be treated as adults. Becoming an adult is not a step-function, it is a ramp function, and children have to be kept on the ramp.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Subsection one can quite obviously apply to more than just correction. I shall resume posting once ive had some shut-eye 
Hmm, prehaps “correction” is another area needing definition. To me correction is the intentional use of an action to create behavioural change more closley aligned with the desires of the user, usually in averting undesirable behaviour. Straping of the hand to improove writing would only just fit into this and since it is not to prevent undesirable behaviour it is hardly an example of correction.
Reading back through my post my brain was obviously not functioning at its fullest and i mucked up that post quite badly, that tends to happen when your on your 47th hour of insomnia
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – Im surprised it took so long for you to pick up on that, lol.
I’ve been ill.
Correction is the stickler for me. I took it to mean ‘after the act’ and have strong objections to the use of hitting for historical events,
Wait til your father gets home!
Can’t say that I agree that we’ll see a ‘large increase in criminality’ as a result of the recent changes etc. I expect to see a move toward more holistic and effective management of children’s behaviour as a result of the focus all of this has brought.
Bj – I’ve not read back to check, but my recollection was that the scenario you painted was ‘certain’ rather than ‘provisional’. I’ll accept your word.
Have to say that despite the futility of voting in the referendum (is it true that the author can still pull the referendum – up until the 9th of July or thereabouts?) I will vote “YES” if only because of the personalities the argument has attracted and my feelings about them (present company excepted) I want to oppose Peter Dunne, Christine Rankin, Bob McCroskie, Simon Barnett etc. because they are … not like me!
It gives me pleasure to know that my vote will cancel that of David Farrar (if only because I said so!)
I’m pretty much done with the issue, unless there are other new, provocative issues as yet unpresented. Much of the ‘debate’ has been rehash. But fun.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
Perhaps it is the way I put it. I referred to the scenario as one in which the legislature “swallowed the camel”. Which should make it easy to find if nothing else.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 7:12 am
> To me correction is the intentional use of an action to create behavioural change more closley aligned with the desires of the user, usually in averting undesirable behaviour. Straping of the hand to improove writing would only just fit into this and since it is not to prevent undesirable behaviour it is hardly an example of correction.
greenfly Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 7:18 am
> Correction is the stickler for me. I took it to mean ‘after the act’ and have strong objections to the use of hitting for historical events,
Greenfly’s definition of ‘correction’ is the one that is used in law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What is it about a smack that makes it so effective in correcting behaviours?
Is it the pain, the fear , both or something else?
At what age is it ok to start smacking and when do you need to stop ie. start at 6 months and stop at 16? This is a biggy.
I have to agree with greenfly, the referendum question makes voting yes and feeling great about it hard but in my heart of hearts I can’t vote no.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The current law is rediculously ambiguous.
As one lawyer pointed out, the current law say you can smack a child to STOP certain behaviours. (and from that they will learn not to do it next time)
But if you smack so they won’t do it next time (i.e. correction) then that is illegal.
So if a child misbehaves and you smack them, if you SAY it was to -
- STOP them, then that is perfectly legal.
- CORRECT them, then that is a criminal offence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jimmy
I pointed it out way up the thread. Pain is a learning mechanism honed over hundreds of millions of years of evolution. It is as a result, extraordinarily powerful IF it occurs in the correct context and is appropriate to the offense.
It is also possible to apply it in such a way that absolutely nothing at all is learned.
Also, if you skim through the thread you will find a proposal that is vastly more explicit than what we have, that would have been passed by acclamation rather than spawning a referendum. Including ages.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jimmy says “What is it about a smack that makes it so effective in correcting behaviours?
Is it the pain, the fear , both or something else?”
It’s both of those but particularly shock.
The pain is fleeting and gone in five seconds, so doesn’t rate compared with dozens of other daily scrapes and scratches from sport, bike riding. climbing trees etc.
The fear works, and can be used as a warning so in my experience 9 out of 10 times the warning changes the behavior – so you don’t actually need to smack i.e. you’d better not do that again or you’ll go to your room / get a smack / lose your toys or whatever.
But I beleive the main thing is shock. It works like a switch and takes the child from what might be excited out of control behaviour back to “normal” mode.
Of course for it to have a shock value, it has to be very infrequent. And it’s just as important to follow up with a calm down period, an explaination about what they were doing wrong and a cuddle.
Jimmy – you ask what ages. Experts say toddler to six years olds, then if starts to lose effectivemness (at 6 chiodren can start to understand reasoning). BJ’s proposal suggests definitely not before 10 months and not after 12.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And eighteen percent of those polled in a Research New Zealand poll think the child discipline referendumb is “a good use of taxpayer dollars”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad… worded as ppoorly as it is, both sides can easily agree on THAT
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and it would be if there were half a dozen other pertinent questions asked – all that to ask One Question? – insane kiwi…
I hope you would be smackers take a moment to ponder the complexities of such attacks on one Michael Jackson’s life.
Successfull – yes
Weathy – yes
Happy – fatally not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad – referendum cost $9m
OR it could have been asked at the election and cost nothing.
OR polititians could stop passing ambiguous laws that 80% of the population is against, then there wouldn’t even be a referendum.
The responsibilty of the $9m wastage lies with those above.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark – you jest?. Michael Jackson was unhappy and died because he was smacked when he was little?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – $9 000 000 could have made the lives of so many of New Zealand’s precious young children so happy, had it not been wasted by those heartless monsters who squandered it on a pointless referendum that will advance the lot of those darling children not one little bit! I’ll never forgive them that!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks bj, found your post and you’ve obviously put some time into this.
The obvious issues with any legislation is how hard is too hard and it’s seemingly impossible to talk that one through.
I would have to say that a ten month old baby seems to me to be too young to physically correct but I’m not an expert on this – you would need to take their nappies off first though wouldn’t you?
Can you say that you trust all parents to do the right thing when it comes to physically disciplining their children? I couldn’t and that’s one reason why I feel the way I do about this legislation.
Your reference to millions of years of evolution honing pain as a learning mechanism is great and quite true but it does make me wonder how much we have “evolved”. In this modern age surely if we have evolved that much we would not have to physically strike our children – heaven forbid there are tools out there that would deliver the correct amount of pain but I am almost certain no-one would advocate the use of corrective collars on kids. Doesn’t bear thinking about.
As a race, are we any different from the animal kingdom? The dominant individuals get what they want by being physically superior and all is well.
Just beware when you aren’t up to it physically anymore.
“But I beleive the main thing is shock. It works like a switch and takes the child from what might be excited out of control behaviour back to “normal” mode.”
photonz…have you seen people in a state shock, like just after they have been in a car accident. Hardly normal. But I agree that shock is definitely part of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
nothing to jest about death my friend – perhaps a little mischevious….but then I can draw a pretty near psychological profile from what I’ve been studying on the man.
Yes, he was in geat pain – yes that pain was installed and serviced in his childhood – yes his desparate and dramatic plastic surgeries were so he didn’t have to look like his father (the predator).
I only use his case ‘cos it’s well known for every, Jacko, Elvis, Janis that dies young – there are 100,000,000 others that don’t get a footnote.
I hesitate to mention my psychiatric qualifications – it upset whole rooms of people when I mentioned it last year.
But yea – abused children die young.
The violence visited upon them (they are helpless and relying on their abusers for LOVE) is unquestionable fatal (sooner or later) and ime adults are merely expressing their anger and frustrations upon defenceless targets – perhaps the most cowardly human activity – I won’t try changing your point of view – try and forget mine – if you can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – look at yourself on this one.
Anybody who forces through a law that the vast majority of the population are against have to accept responsibility for the backlash.
Surely you don’t expect us to beleive that those pushing to criminalise the majority of New Zealand parents were so naive that they didn’t know this would happen.
Or perhaps they were.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And I wonder how much it cost for Sue Bradford to implement her little ideology project? I would guess well in excess of 9 million.
Perhaps if Sue hadn’t gone on some ideological crusade more could have been done to stop the brutal murders of all those children in recent months.
Many more kids were killed since this law change than parents ever even used S59 as a defense.
Ideologues make me sick, sitting around thinking you’ve done something while the murders continue.
But hey you’ve got back at all those fundie, neocons that are doing so much damage to society. Enjoy the vandalism greenfly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz said: ..polititians could stop passing ambiguous laws …
Section 59 is not ambiguous. It makes it very clear that you cannot use force for “correction” – ie punishment. It also makes it clear the circumstances in which force can be used on a child, and the level of force that is reasonable. The “reasonableness” of the force is an objective test – ie the minimum that is perceived as necessary to achieve the objective – rather than the subjective test that existed when force could be used for the purpose of correction.
The precise wording of it was drafted by the Law Commission, rather than by politicians.
Any perceived ambiguity has been promoted by misinformation campaigns by the likes of Family First.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
mark – so Michael Jackson’s tragic life was all because he was smacked, and his plastic surgery, skin colour changes, hairs changes etc were all because he didn’t want to look like his father?
And how many analysis sessions did you have with him?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Any perceived ambiguity has been promoted by misinformation campaigns by the likes of Family First.”
Oh toad you forgot to mention “funded by right wing fundamentalists from the USA”
What crap toad, the law is an ass.
Anyone that can read can see its a total mess.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – I too am appalled at the number of children who have been murdered since John Key announced that he will spend $5 000 000 of our money on a cycleway. I hold him personally responsible for their deaths. Had he put that money into protecting those vulnerable young children, they could still be alive today. His ideological crusade to boost tourism has turned him into a MONSTER !!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly – it is very ambiguous. I’ll repeat
The law make it legal to smack a child to STOP a behavious but not to CORRECT it.
The ambiguity is obvious without family first – polititians who voted for it dissagree what it means. Lawyers dissagree what it means,
I can carry out EXACTLY the same disciplie – a smack for bad behaviour.
And it will be either legal or a criminal act, NOT because of what the child did, NOT, because of the action I took, but because of the thought I have in my mind at the time.
If I tell the court I was stopping the behavious, it is legal.
If I tell the court I was correcting the behaviour, it is criminal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I can’t decide who to trust in the debate over Sue Bradford’s bill. The name ‘Family First’ comes up a lot. They sound nice. Can anyone confirm that they are the voice of reason in this debate. Bob McCroskrie sounds a level-headed chap – anyone know much about him? Would you let him bathe your children Shunda?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – ” I hold him personally responsible for their deaths.”
“His ideological crusade to boost tourism has turned him into a MONSTER !!!”
With all due respect, this sounds like the words of a lunatic extremist full of hatred..
Did you feel the same about Helen Clark? Or the green party when they were part of govenment?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly, just don’t complain when all your sustainability projects become un-workable due to constant vandalism from non smacked, self determined, expresive youth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Christchurch women’s refuges have seen a huge jump in women asking for help as the recession bites and are also concerned that more children are abusing their parents.
Battered Women’s Trust manager Lois Herbert said there had been an “extraordinary increase” in the number of community clients women they help who continue to live in the community, rather than going into a safe house.
“There’s been a 60 per cent increase in a couple of years that’s huge,” she said.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2521754/Surge-in-violence-during-recession
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is from the Maxim Institute per Lindsay Mitchels Blog:
I agree (in this case)
“This is possibly the best summary of the week. From the Maxim Institute;
The continuing debate over the referendum on child discipline took a turn for the surreal this week, with politicians from across the spectrum lining up to attack the referendum question as nonsensical, saying things like “the law is working” and “the question is weird.”
The question we are supposed to answer does not seem hard. “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” Committed to his brokered “compromise” John Key can’t afford to admit the law is not working. Phil Goff can’t afford to offend elements in his own party, ideologically committed to the ban on physical discipline. And neither of them want to ignore the large majority of Kiwis who keep telling pollsters they support a good parent’s right to make disciplinary decisions.
So, they pretend contempt for the question, and count on a low turnout.
This in itself is a damning indictment. The growing popularity of referenda and public distrust in politicians, are the products of people feeling that the government is distant, that they don’t care what we think. Regardless of the merits of the question (whose limitations are unavoidable given that it must be a yes/no question) the gist of the referendum is clear to both the Yes and No campaigns, and the public should have their say on it.
Contempt for the democratic process is far too general across the spectrum—from Parliament, when it abuses urgency, to leaders when they disregard the feedback they are receiving from constituents. Luckily for the country, our democracy does not belong to them alone—it is a precious right belonging to all of us. From the end of July, we should all do our duty and value the imperfect but vital process of democracy—especially when others are not. ”
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Self determined, expressive youth!!! Organise a hanging, quick!
(or a smacking, I’ll leave that up to you Shunda)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – nah, just Key.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly – so you don’t mind other polititians wasting millions of dollars on things that could have save childrens lives – just Key.
That tells me you are not really genuine about saving childrens lives – just geniune about hating Key (it shows this is a greater priority to you).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What it should show you photo, is that I’m pulling your chain. Never the less, it shows me that despite my patient work in seeking to understand your point of view, test the veracity of your claims and proposals and my description of the work I do with young people, you are happy to write me off in the blink of an eye. You are a very reactive guy. I can see that a ‘short sharp shock’ would be your favoured method of dealing with an issue. It’s a characteristic you share with Shunda.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly -you put yourself across as a radical nutter, then say you’re not really.
Which statement should I believe?
Perhaps there’s more truth in your radical statement than you’d care to admit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
enough like him to know – sarcasm wears me not – if you ask a serious question – i’ll give you an answer, if you wan’t to be abusive – I’ll leave you to it – angry response there – see how prevalent it is?
How – I don’t have to ask – after the first few thousand cases, patterns do emerge I assure you – now I’m gonna look after my flu – please don’t try justifying yourself by intimidation – I will not respond to that – though the accumulative knowledge would say you are part victim, part predator, and very angry. Interesting no?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
mark “though the accumulative knowledge would say you are part victim, part predator, and very angry. Interesting no?
Wrong on all counts., except the last…….
Intersting? No.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark! You’re a victim………of the flu? Me too! Day 4, no fun.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark – it’s hard not to be sarcastic when you say you can analyse Michael Jackson because you’ve had lots of sessions with people just like him.
I would have thought world famous child superstars were not very common here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – don’t mess with Mark – the man’s a serpent-whisperer – he understands and speaks ‘Key’! Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssss……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I can see that a ’short sharp shock’ would be your favoured method of dealing with an issue. It’s a characteristic you share with Shunda.”
At least I’m honest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fly – you are one clever light: though I may not readily assume the mantle you rest; I have to say others have done so: If i were feelin weller i would say; Billie Jean is not my lover, she just the girl that says blah blah one, love.
Photo – money and fame make NO difference – it’s what brings a lot of such people down.
He could no more refuse the forces that formed him any more than you and I could.
The superbly courageous thing he did was to break the chain between ancenstral and hereditary abuse to a desire to become a reflection of love and love only; it’s also why so many suspected him of being a paedophile – a failure of understanding – but the pressures of those accusations were so abbhorent to Michael, that you can send him home innocent, and also plant the seeds of his death within him at the same time.
I know you are concerned with this issue, and seek to help – comparisons may not be helpfull, but I don’t want you to undergo psychoanalysis online either – what is fair about that?
My experience is, the more money one has, the longer one can put off a good bite of reality.
Yet the inevitable is just so, rich or poor, white or black – partly why I think the small notion called NZ has the chance to work it out – and I don’t mean by Container Prisons.
Show yourself some mercy, some forgiveness photo – it is way past due I’m sure you know.
Your hurt is not justification to hurt others – sorry to be so blunt.
Fly: That is one helluva thing for me to live up to – I’ll need help.
Bad flu – Gulf War syndrome is just such – with added aches and pains – and sensibilities i wish I were blind to.
angels to clothe you in the eternal pinkness of healing light.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark “Show yourself some mercy, some forgiveness photo – it is way past due I’m sure you know.”
What ???? You are talking psycho babble.
If this is evidence of you ability to analyse, then you have failed completely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘Trussssssst in me…jusssssst in me…
Look into my eyesssss Mowgli…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – “‘Trussssssst in me…jusssssst in me…
Look into my eyesssss Mowgli…”
You’re on the wrong board.
The debate on egalising drugs boad is elsewhere.
(though you message makes a good point against it).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photon
Your leg has been pulled to such an extent that if you were to stand with one foot on the Empire State Building and one foot in a hole it would have to be a damned deep hole.
Actually I think the fever is getting to both our flu sufferers.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The survey is interesting, but even more interesting is that Barnardos lied about the results.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
davec, I’ll accept that the reporting of this survey by Barnardos, and the survey question itself, is not perfect.
In fact, it is about the same standard of wording and reporting as the various surveys that Family First have relied on in their campaign to reintroduce a justification defence for the use of force against children for the purpose of correction – probably slightly better.
At least Barnardos release linked to the full survey information so people could form their own opinions on the validity – most of those relied upon by FF and the “no-voters” don’t even do that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark, intellectual masturbation is a disease.
Seek help.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad,
At least Family First don’t lie. And you guys obviously know where to find the questions. So you have obviously have formed an opinion on the validity of the surveys which quite frankly are a hell of a lot more valid and reliable than anything done by Barnardos and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner.
Perhaps you could have informed your readers that the Barnardos survey was with stressed kids, of which only 10 percent took part – in terms of valid surveys, the questions were appalling and the reporting was lies.
So why didn’t you? Why does it have to be people like me to point out the facts of the matter?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
that’s another shade of Green altogether – share your remarkably interesting hobby ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad, that is exactly my point. You want to treat kids, of all ages, as adults but only want them to have the “rights”, none of the responsibilities. You can’t, on the one hand, say that they should be treated as adults but, on the other hand, say they shouldn’t be. That is the crazy thing about all this; you can’t even see your hypocrisy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)