by Sue Bradford
My regular New Zealand Truth column this week is about section 59 of the Crimes Act and the child discipline referendum:
In just a couple of weeks we are all going to be asked to vote on the child discipline referendum question in a postal ballot.
Voting opens on 31 July and closes 21 August.
The debate we had for two years between 2005 and 2007 when my original member’s bill on s59 was before Parliament is happening all over again.
However, this time around, it feels as if the current controversy is as much about the referendum itself as it is about the physical punishment of children.
A lot of people have suddenly realized what the wording of the referendum question actually is, and are amazed that such an ambiguous proposition is what we will all be voting on.
Many think it is a total waste of $9 million of the taxpayers’ money, especially at a time when Government funding cuts are impacting on jobs and services.
For myself, I accept the democratic right of the referendum’s proponents to organise their CIR petition and I certainly acknowledge the hard work that went into collecting the huge number of signatures required.
What I do regret is that the question is not a clearer one.
That is why I have put up a new Member’s Bill aimed at ensuring the Clerk of the House, who approves referenda questions, will in future only let questions go forward for a petition when they are NOT ambiguous, complex, leading or misleading.
It appears the Government may pick this up, although nothing is certain yet.
Despite my reservations about the referendum question, I am also busy encouraging all those who support the s59 law change to vote ‘Yes’.
Our new law is working well. Parents are not being prosecuted in their thousands for trivial assaults on children; and above all children deserve the same protection in law as we adults enjoy.
I also reckon the sentence handed down to Christchurch man Jimmy Mason the other day was an example of entirely appropriate sentencing for assault on a child. Help with anger management will, I hope, be more useful to Mr Mason and his family than any kind of more punitive sentence.
Some people ask what the effect of the whole s59 controversy has been on me personally.
The worst period was in early 2007 before my bill became law, when some people became very abusive, threatening violence and even death.
Others make the most amazingly offensive personal remarks, or accuse me of never having had children. In fact I’ve had five, including twins, and can speak from rather extensive personal experience about the realities of parenthood.
However, the nature and source of some of the worst abuse has only served to reinforce my belief that violence breeds violence, both in thought and deed.
I will continue to do everything I can to work for a society in which parents bring up children without assaulting them. Every small step we make in this direction more than compensates for any amount of vitriol.
Published in Justice & Democracy | Society & Culture by Sue Bradford on Thu, July 16th, 2009
Tags: child discipline, Jimmy Mason, New Zealand Truth, Section 59
More posts by Sue Bradford | more about Sue Bradford
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Sue, ask Toad what he’s using to get waste oil out of his skin and use that to wash away that vitriol.
I’m voting Yes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Our new law is working well. Parents are not being prosecuted in their thousands for trivial assaults on children; and above all children deserve the same protection in law as we adults enjoy.”
No it’s not as it makes it illegal to smack a child as part of parental correction; the public don’t/ didn’t want that (overwhelmingly) and politicians work for us!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I.E the issue isn’t whether the police will prosecute or not it is the fact of our elected representatives going against our wishes by making (what is commonly understood and interred by the word) “smacking” illegal.
As Chris Trotter puts it in his recent column re foreshore and seabed
“Parliament is not the be-all and end-all of the political process”
in fact to me, MMP is like a game show where we get our (votes inthis case) and then it’s all about us we spend them on what we who know what’s best* want.
*not true!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3532/features/10321/show_me_the_child.html%3Bjsessionid=7FB7A22D3456B6B0E6B32F120328FCA5
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh,
Only presidents, editors and people with tapeworms have the right to
use the editorial “we”
MARK TWAIN
I suggest people ignore the referendum question and instead answer this one:
Have you stopped beating your child yet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JH, please think back in time and replace child with wife. It shouldn’t be illegal to assault our wives? Looking back it is obvious that it is NOT ok to hit our wives. If we go forward into the future and look back it will appear obvious that it is not right to be able to assault anyone including our children.
Similar arguments applied to other, at the time, unpopular pieces of legislation. Do the statements, “it is my right to not wear a seat belt/ motorcycle helmet”, “it is my right to smoke anywhere I please”, look so clever anymore?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Scott said: …please think back in time and replace child with wife.
As I blogged a few days ago, Scott.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
mugwump Good point! what as it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
With all due respect, this controversy has nothing to do with “assault” on children. Really nothing at all. What has the public angry enough to tear pollies limb from limb is the lack of sense shown in the referendumb, the existing law (which works after a fashion) and the original law.
If someone had been specific about what was and was not reasonable force someplace in that menagerie of weasel words, it would not currently be the case that no person in NZ is able to tell if they are or are not in violation of the law until and unless they are hauled into a court… and we wouldn’t be spending 9 million dollars on what is effectively a rebuke to parliament.
It is currently no less legal than it was before, to stop a child’s disruptive behavior, at any age, with a “reasonable” whack on the head with a cricket bat. That’s because the law only forbids the use of force for correction and uses the same words about reasonable force relating to the other motivations for parental intervention. The same defense applies in all other cases and the “motive” has to be discovered and attributed in order for there to be a case.
…and it is all up to the cop on the beat, who could be an evangelical with a “spare the rod and spoil the child” attitude shaping his decisions as easily as a paragon of political correctness.
It is working because it isn’t really a law. It is basically a bunch of suggestions and an abdication of parliamentary responsibilities in favor of the police taking power. The referendumb is as bad as the original law.
The reason this is “working” is that the police here are comparatively honest…. and it has scared people. The law itself is nothing.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
mugwump – I noticed that Winston Peters used ‘we’ in his apologetic email -
‘ We are sorry…
Some say he is a tapeworm…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj – I meant to ask you
Do you think it is possible to successfully raise a child without ever smacking them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sue – have you ever smacked your own children?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sue’s on record somewhere (can’t find it at the moment) saying she never smacked her children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
she also called men who smack “perverts”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Scott:
“Similar arguments applied to other, at the time, unpopular pieces of legislation. Do the statements, “it is my right to not wear a seat belt/ motorcycle helmet”, “it is my right to smoke anywhere I please”, look so clever anymore?”
but people who cycle don’t have to wear hot sweaty inflatable suits to avoid injury.
Teachers complain that the pendulum has gone too far when it comes to keeping order; kids can’t climb trees and my wife (who is Japanese) laments that she fears for the future of this country when she sees the behaviour of some young people on public buses. Adults are also the victims of children who can be sadistic naughty little b’s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Is the assult law regarding adult on adult defined to your satisfaction?
jh,
I couldn’t find the relevance of your second link (the 5 page listener article) but the last line said we need to change from ambulance at end of cliff approach. I reckon the s59 repeal does this. It does nothing much in itself, but over time it may change OUR culture of acceptance of violence.
Your first link (the herald one) contains the biggest evidence in support of smacking kids
“Preliminary analysis showed that those who were merely smacked had “similar or even slightly better outcomes”
The same article says that this is refuted by thousands of international studies. Most parents would not hesitate at giving their kids a wack, if it were shown to benefit them. But the evidence is not there. Discipline is obviously beneficial but can be achieved in other/better ways I think. But this is a side issue. The issue is that people are scared of being done for assult if they smack their kids (occasionally and lightly). This is NOT THE CASE!
If you’re worried about that, then the guy who smacked Steve Price out cold last night in the state of origin game should go to jail for attempted murder.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This issue will never be resolved untill the underlying issue of the status of children is resolved. Are children property, as maintained by thinkers such as Aristotle, Hobbes, and Jefferson, and enforced by Roman law? Or are they immature citizens who are to be protected by the parens patriae jurisdiction as has been the case in NZ since the inception of NZ family Law?
Without such a resolution both sides will continue to talk past one another because they start from different sets of presuppositions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would say parens patriae jurisdiction, but wouldn’t that have been the case before the repeal of S59?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The argument that kids are seen as the property of parents has been used frequently by people who support law that will ban smacking, (suggesting that parents want the right to engage in cruel and/or inappropriate behaviour). In fact) parents just wanted to a) not have their parenting skills slandered and b) choice in how they deal with misbehaviour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I couldn’t find the relevance of your second link (the 5 page listener article) but the last line said we need to change from ambulance at end of cliff approach. I reckon the s59 repeal does this. It does nothing much in itself, but over time it may change OUR culture of acceptance of violence.”
The second link is about the significance of the Dunedin Study
as for the last line Family First may be on the money when they want us to review a system that makes a child the equivalent of “the gentleman that pays the rent” in our welfare system.
“refuted by thousands of international studies”
those studies didn’t look at the occasional light smack and if they did the extent , scale and methodology of the Dunedin Study refutes them.
“Discipline is obviously beneficial but can be achieved in other/better ways I think.”
Many possible situations, many different individuals; I doubt the naughty mat is always best.
“The issue is that people are scared of being done for assult if they smack their kids (occasionally and lightly). This is NOT THE CASE!”
I really don’t think that is the issue at all as I say (above)
“parents just wanted to a) not have their parenting skills slandered and b) choice in how they deal with misbehaviour.”
and
” the issue isn’t whether the police will prosecute or not it is the fact of our elected representatives going against our wishes by making (what is commonly understood and interred by the word) “smacking” illegal.”
people are saying “bug out”! it is a rejection of the left-wing in our lives.
People don’t want their lives ruled by the Bradford and Clarke “How to Raise Children in Aotearoa Handbook“
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why do you keep going on about the ambiguity, Sue. It is perfectly clear. If you think a smack can be part of good parenting, then you cote no. Simple as that. Trying to conjure up some confusion is just silly.
Obviously, you’ll vote yes, as you don’t think parents have a right to bring up their children how they will, within reason.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sofistek – you have got it wrong.
What if you don’t think a “smack” (whatever that may mean) is a part of good parenting, but you don’t want parents to be prosecuted for hitting their children in circumstances when it is not in the public interst to do so becasue no harm has occurred?
How do you vote then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
this may help sort it out Toad:
In the article titled “Good Motive, but bad law”, Mr Illingworth QC who specializes in public law says that the anti-smacking law is an inappropriate response to the problem of child abuse for three reasons – “the first is that the amendment is an extremely poor piece of legal drafting in that it is calculated to create confusion rather than clarity. The second is that it criminalizes behaviour which should not be classified as a criminal offence. The third is that it fails to provide adequate protection for those whom it was designed to help.”
He also attacks the confusion of the law, which has been confirmed by recent research commissioned by Family First, and says that it “translates into an absolute rule that you are never allowed to administer even a very mild smack if your purpose is to help a child to learn how to behave. Confused? So am I. And it seems obvious that a law which confuses people is not going to help much in regulating their behaviour.”
Mr Illingworth rejects the police discretion clause and labels it “muddled thinking” and “bringing the law into disrepute”. He says “It is a serious thing to say that someone has committed a crime, irrespective of whether the person is prosecuted. Surely we should reserve that kind of condemnation for situations that really warrant the intervention of the criminal law.”
Significantly, he ridicules those who have attacked the Referendum question as confusing and says “the question is a justifiable response to the problem created by the wording and legal effect of the new section. The law, as it now stands, means that the use of mild force for the purpose of well-motivated parental correction is a criminal offence. The question posed in the referendum simply asks us to say whether that should be so.”
“Mr Illingworth is right and the politicians should pay attention to this legal analysis. If Q.C.’s find the law confusing and unnecessary, where does that place parents simply trying to raise great kids,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0907/S00164.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad puts on the dunces hat and asks:
What if you don’t think a “smack” (whatever that may mean)
well the “ground breaking” Dunedin Study managed to use that word in their “world renowned” study
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
“but you don’t want parents to be prosecuted for hitting their children in circumstances when it is not in the public interst to do so becasue no harm has occurred?”
you shouldn’t post when your pissed Toad
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh said
“parents just wanted to a) not have their parenting skills slandered and b) choice in how they deal with misbehaviour.”
and
” the issue isn’t whether the police will prosecute or not it is the fact of our elected representatives going against our wishes by making (what is commonly understood and interred by the word) “smacking” illegal.”
I agree with all of that, except your use of the ‘royal we/our’. And yet I am still very comfortable with the law. It allows for specified exceptions and comes with Key’s promise to review if good parents are prosecuted. I don’t think parents should have free choice as to how they deal with misbehaviour (and I bet you don’t either). There is still choice. As for parents having their skills slandered; I think they’ll get over it… or not.
BTW- I read 5 pages! (your listener link) thinking I may read some evidence of benefits from smacking, now you tell me it was just to show the significance of the first (herald) link! i.e. “preliminary results… same or slightly better”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh said: you shouldn’t post when your pissed Toad
Picked up that line from someone else having a go at greenfly on g.blog jh.
Typos on blogs don’t necessarily mean inebriation – often they result from busy people having to move onto the next task, and fitting a wee blog in between far more important tasks.
You’re not Sean on g.blog perchance?
Same line in response to minor typos.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad says
What if you don’t think a “smack” (whatever that may mean) is a part of good parenting, but you don’t want parents to be prosecuted for hitting their children in circumstances when it is not in the public interst to do so becasue no harm has occurred?
How do you vote then?
As silly as it is you have to vote yes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Indeed, jimmy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh really? Sue, I would suggest that you take a trip to Singapore. In Singapore, you still find a society where what you call violence is still a reasonably common form of punishment; parents smack their children at home, teachers cane students at school, and the judicial cane is still a punishment for a number of crimes. What you find is not a violent society, what you find is a very law abiding society where crime is negligable, and violence is non-existent.
Perhaps instead of having an “Anti-Smacking Bill,” it might have been far more appropriate to look at the causes of family violences and addressing those things. Items such as excessive consumption of alcohol, and the consumption of illicit drugs – of course, even a suggestion of looking at those things would have an impact on the socially liberal nature of most members of the Green Party.
Further to that, the state expects that parents should take responsibility for their children’s actions, yet the state does not allow them to use a very good tool of influencing their children’s actions to the extent that parents in South Auckland are complaining that they cannot smack their truant children anymore (and it was in the Herald).
I am voting No, and I still think that the old law was a reasonable one, even if it did need a few tweaks thanks to sometimes idiotic judges.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
[Deleted by Frog - Keep to the issue and lay off the personal stuff d4j, if you want to post here]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
d4j, toads have a dry skin. They are not slimy at all. Learn your biology.
And I’m proud to support Queensland in State of Origin, although disappointed by last night’s result, and the Cockroaches’ thuggery in bashing Steve Price to get it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Okay, frog deleted d4j’s comment before I responded. But I guess most people will get the gist of it from my response.
Anyway, while the brutal assault on the rugby league field that I cited is vaguely on topic, lets get the issue back to that of whether it should be lawful to hit children, which is what this post is about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh well Frog smacked my comment into touch, however I was reacting to bile spewed by the toad over at Whales.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well react to it over there then. The standards here are higher.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Studies prove need for repeal of Section 59
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/14291
“These studies, part of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, show that some parents *are not deterred* from beating their children so badly it results in long-lasting physical injury and emotional trauma, Green MP Sue Bradford says.
“We just can’t go on ignoring the evidence, because of unfounded fears that parents will be turned into criminals for lightly smacking their children. These findings reinforce that it is imperative that we eliminate the anomaly in New Zealand law which gives people a defence of ‘reasonable force’ when they hit or beat children.
“The fact that violence against children is legal helps to sustains a culture of ongoing severe violence.
—————————–
Dr Millichamp:
“One finding that stands out from the rest is that extreme acts of punishment are not controlled or clearly thought out beforehand. In many cases, *extreme punishment presents in the form of ‘blind rage’* meted out to girls and boys indiscriminately, younger and older children, and, irrespective of the child’s characteristics or actions preceding it.
Additional findings indicated that extreme physical punishment was more frequently: 1) directed at the child’s head and torso, as opposed to the limbs or bottom; 2) associated with lasting and/or serious injury (eg, lacerations, broken bones, loss of consciousness); and 3) associated with strong signs of emotional distress in the study members reporting it.
“When we examined the reasons for administering punishment, it was apparent that often, the punishment did not fit the ‘crime’,” she says.
“Some children were punished very violently for the smallest of things, such as, wearing the wrong clothes, talking while the TV was on, or just being in the same room as an angry parent.”
The study also identifies a number of parental characteristics associated with the use of extreme physical punishment.
These include: gender, with fathers and stepfathers significantly more likely to use extreme punishment than mothers; and psychological problems on the parents’ part such as alcohol abuse and perpetual bad temper, as reported by study members.”
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/2006/27b-01-06_press_release.html
——————————
Sue Bradford:
“”The figures show that four out of five children in one study were physically punished, that 45 percent were hit with an object and six percent were subject to extreme violence. These findings bear out all other evidence that New Zealand remains a very violent place for children to grow up.”
————————
Dr Millichamp
Some surprising results were reported in relation to the study members’ views of the worst punishment ever received, she says.
“The category of punishment most frequently cited as worst was non-physical punishment such as grounding and loss of privileges. Many study members stated that even though they were smacked or hit with an object, they viewed the loss of privileges as far more negative.
———————————
Sue Bradford
“I look forward to seeing the results of the next stage of the study, which examines the long term effects of physical punishment on children.
“These two investigations will be very useful in informing the work of the Select Committee,” she says.
================
Dr Millichamp:
I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids,” she said.
Dr Millichamp said the Dunedin study so far found no evidence of the “slippery slope” theory – that parents who started off smacking often progressed to abusive punishments.
“We couldn’t find any,” she said.
The findings undermine Green MP Sue Bradford’s bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows parents to use “reasonable force” to discipline children.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Down with Toad!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I will simply add that it is likely that; of children neither smacked or assaulted, those smacked but not assaulted and those who are smacked and also victims of assault: it is those neither smacked or assaulted who do best.
The issue is about moving parents to better parenting – and if parents smack less because of the change in law and consequent debate then it has achieved that purpose.
Hopefully it will also reduce the number of parents who both smack and commit acts of assault on their children (possibly the same people who also commit other domestic violence).
Society evolves, we use to
1. tolerate husbands using physical discipline on their wives (including rape)
2. allow teachers to cane or strap students.
How many people who advocate for smacking of “children”will now still advocate for the parent doing this to teenage females or using the can or strap on teenage males?
Their biblical injunction was not to “spare the rod” – today they only defend the use of the open palm on the buttocks …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC, what you said is all good and well, but if you look at Singapore, it flies in the face of what you said – there, you have a well ordered, high achieving society where physical punishment is still so commonplace that it even features as part of the judicial system.
Even if you compare Western societies a mere fifty years ago, you had an environment where physical discipline was very common, and you also had a well ordered society where children (and adults) were obedient and violence was at the fringes of society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
50 years ago
domestic violence was either hidden from society or when exposed tolerated. It was commonplace – only violence against another adult male or a female one you did not know was assault (except on the sports field).
As to the idea that crime has increased since then – rising crime rates are associated with disadvantaged ethnic minorities (FBI BSU back in the 1980′s) – since 50 years ago most western society has experienced greater disparity of wealth and become more multi-racial. If we were more mono-cultural and more egalitarian we would have less crime – the decline in physical discipline has nothing to do with our rising crime rates.
If Maori and Polynesian etc were doing better (iof we closed the gaps) we would have less crime.
Singapore
An interesting attempt to link (your longed for) society approval of physical punishment to correct behaviour and a society successfully focused on wealth generation. Why miss out their focus on suppressing political activism and free speech or their use of state sector investment socialism to provide direction to their economy? They have a foreign to us focus: the Asian take on the secondary importance of democracy, essentially, they sacrifice an individual base to their concept of sovereignty. This builds their sense of common group effort (a form of egalitarianism), this allows the acceptance of the ethos of the group and conmsequently the group exerting “discipline” over the individual.
Many Christians in the USA are moving away from democracy and this is why many now see their Republican Party vehicle as an authoritarian movement – bringing in a Christian dominion where wealth is celebrated as a blessing from above, the kingdom of authority come, your will and not that of our democracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
I will simply add that it is likely that; of children neither smacked or assaulted, those smacked but not assaulted and those who are smacked and also victims of assault: it is those neither smacked or assaulted who do best.
…………….
Well not so (it seems):
“Preliminary analysis showed that those who were merely smacked had “similar or even slightly better outcomes” than those who were not smacked in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement.”
————–
“The issue is about moving parents to better parenting – and if parents smack less because of the change in law and consequent debate then it has achieved that purpose.”
So what’s the problem (or should that be: where’s the problem)?
““One finding that stands out from the rest is that extreme acts of punishment are not controlled or clearly thought out beforehand. In many cases, *extreme punishment presents in the form of ‘blind rage’* meted out to girls and boys indiscriminately, younger and older children, and, irrespective of the child’s characteristics or actions preceding it.
“When we examined the reasons for administering punishment, it was apparent that often, the punishment did not fit the ‘crime’,” she says.
“Some children were punished very violently for the smallest of things, such as, wearing the wrong clothes, talking while the TV was on, or just being in the same room as an angry parent.”
The study also identifies a number of parental characteristics associated with the use of extreme physical punishment.
These include: gender, with fathers and stepfathers significantly more likely to use extreme punishment than mothers; and psychological problems on the parents’ part such as alcohol abuse and perpetual bad temper, as reported by study members.”
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/2006/27b-01-06_press_release.html”
form that I presume you get this:
“The fact that violence against children is legal helps to sustains a culture of ongoing severe violence.”?
In fact the notion that we have a culture of violence against children doesn’t seem to be born out unless you include the occasional smack. Otherwise you could conclude is that everybody has to change so it might affect the behaviour of alcoholic no hopers of the type we see on Crimewatch.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh said:
Otherwise you could conclude is that everybody has to change so it might affect the behaviour of alcoholic no hopers of the type we see on Crimewatch.
Yes jh, there is a lot to be said for the idea that the culture must change in order to improve the lot of all of those within that culture, including those who cannot make the changes as individuals. Good point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fin
I never looked up the assault law with respect to adults, it is irrelevant. I imagine it is less subject to ambiguity as there is damned little in the way of responsibility for training other adults that is accepted by the society.
Most adults are not only untrainable, they are unteachable.
Whatever the law is with respect to adults it is IN NO WAY applicable or relevant to the relationship between parent (who has the responsibility) and child (who needs training if he/she is to survive to adulthood). Rights and responsibilities remain linked here.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes jh, there is a lot to be said for the idea that the culture must change in order to improve the lot of all of those within that culture, including those who cannot make the changes as individuals. Good point.
Not everyone within that population has the same culture or is influenced by others culture, besides lumping those who smack as belonging to “a culture of violence” is a half truth.
The most pertinent thing to come out of this thread is this (I think);
Sue Bradford:
“I look forward to seeing the results of the next stage of the study, which examines the long term effects of physical punishment on children.
“These two investigations will be very useful in informing the work of the Select Committee,” she says.
Studies prove need for repeal of Section 59
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/14291
and the subsequent silence when the evidence didn’t go her way
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – “culture of violence” is your term and one I didn’t use.
We do seem to have another culture here, that around drinking alcoholic beverages and a light-hearted culture that seems to be. We don’t seem terribly concerned really, about heavy drinking, nor even about driving after having a drink. We seem very tolerant and casual in fact. A change or even a maturing in that culture would surely have benefits across the board. A maturing in the way people view behaviour management for children would also have benefits across the board, in my view.
As for your insistence on ‘catching Sue out’ over her statements or lack of statements, I wonder why you are so fixated on her opinion. After all, once Sue had proposed her bill, the others – (90% maybe) supported it, and still do. Perhaps you’d like to do an exhaustive study on whay each of them said and are syaing. You’ll be busy!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh is obsessed with anything he deems “left”. It is not healthy. Unlike some other obvious non-lefties who are nonetheless happy to argue the issues, jh is never far from his pet topic – the Bradford/Locke conspiracy within the Green Party. Makes arguing with him pointless, imho, so I’ve mostly stopped unless he says something really over the top.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
o dear – am I breaking the law or am I a pervert (as Sue says) I occasionaly give my (4 yr) daughter a “tap” on the hand if she is uncontrollably naughty – aka – reasoning fails – naughty stair fails – everything fails. The tap/smack (never that hard) works.
Am I a bad parent and am I breaking the law?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
npb – you can control uncontrollable behaviour!!! You are an astonishing person!
I can’t tell if you are a pervert or not (though having to ask strangers on-line makes me very suspicious!) but you’ve certainly perverted the laws of physics!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Vote no, Toad. Clearly, expressing an opinion about how children should be brought up is of little relevance for a referendum. A referendum is only of use where it might result in a change in legislation. So if you don’t want smacking to be illegal, then vote no. Don’t make up excuses to avoid expressing your opinion about the law. The notion that the question is ambiguous is just absurd, as a means of avoiding a decision on how to vote.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As for your insistence on ‘catching Sue out’ over her statements or lack of statements, I wonder why you are so fixated on her opinion. After all, once Sue had proposed her bill, the others – (90% maybe) supported it, and still do. Perhaps you’d like to do an exhaustive study on whay each of them said and are saying. You’ll be busy!
……………
Stii it is interesting to ponder why she/ the 90%
“I look forward to seeing the results of the next stage of the study, which examines the long term effects of physical punishment on children.
and the next stage is (apparently) conveniently ignored?
“jh is obsessed with anything he deems “left”. It is not healthy. Unlike some other obvious non-lefties who are nonetheless happy to argue the issues, jh is never far from his pet topic – the Bradford/Locke conspiracy within the Green Party”
I don’t see why green belongs to the far left.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Arbitrary definitions of what “far” left means aside, its not for any lack of trying to educate you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)