Arbitrary definitions of what “far” left means aside, its not for any lack of trying to educate you.

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)

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?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, 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)

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)

Down with Toad!

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)

Well react to it over there then. The standards here are higher.

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)

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)

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)