by frog
Question: Why are some pressure groups, such as Family Integrity, so staunchly opposed to the repeal of section 59?
Answer: Because they believe parents have a God-given right to beat the evil that inherently resides in children out of their kids.
That much has now become clear. Family Integrity has been a leading member of the pro-beating lobby. It has now provided pamphlets which promote beating kids to an Auckland school. The school has, in turn, distributed the pamphlet to parents. One of the pamphlets reads (quoting the Old Testament):
Children are not little bundles of innocence: they are little bundles of depravity and can develop into unrestrained agents of evil. Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him.
That a group which spreads such venom is taking part in a mainstream political debate beggars belief. I’m not suggesting that the pro-beating lobby generally holds this view, but certainly it appears to be the motivating factor of many of Sue’s opponents.
As Sue puts it in the Herald this morning:
It’s based in the Old Testament. It’s a really terrible approach to take theologically, politically and socially. I think it’s a real pity that a Christian school isn’t following the Christian principles of compassion and love for children rather than advocating physical discipline at this level…
They say that children must be under the total control of the parents and that it’s the parents’ literally God-given right to physically discipline their children, not just by smacking but also with a stiff, flexible rod. I accept his right to say that. But I hope other parents will be as shocked as I am by the fact that some people are seeing little children as evil. It’s a disgrace.
Published in Health & Wellbeing | Society & Culture by frog on Thu, August 25th, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
The “pro-beating lobby?”
I thought lying was a sin. Shall I put words in your mouth too Frog? Can one voice now speak for ALL greens? Which voice shall we pick to bolster the argument Greens would prefer to kill a person than see a tree fall. I can find a Greenie that talks like that Frog. I’ve met a few.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ZenTiger, Frog says “I’m not suggesting that the pro-beating lobby generally holds this view”.
I do agree though that discrediting a lobby by concentrating on the pronouncements of its more extreme members seems slightly disingenuous, but Sue could hardly let that sort of statement pass without comment, once it had become public.
Your “greenie” acquaintances who would rather see a person die than a tree fall wouldn’t get on well with the Green Party principles, which include social responsiblity and non-violence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmm, I just read the brochure. Not as bad as you made out. This was not saying Kids are evil, but what things lead to an evil character. Are there no 14 year old children that would drop an 8 kilo concrete block on a car and kill a man?
Although, to stop any confusion do you think we should ban quoting from the bible? That seems to be the basis for your outrage.
Would you support quotes from the Koran instead? Can we accept that all quotes are to be taken literally. Then we can dispense with believing softer interpretations of Muslim laws and stone the lot of them now. Is that what you are suggesting?
You and your Green friends increase the venom many times over, by your inability to read the entire brochure and see where these people are coming from. How on earth do you think you can discipline a child if you do not possess empathy and a willingness to seek understanding of a different point of view?
You are so certain that a smack is wrong, you are prepared to find the worst possible interpretations of select areas and use it, not just to bolster your argument, but paint the vast majority of parents that believe they can administer a disciplinary smack as part of a suite of parent tools as Evil.
I am beginning to favour of a pollution tax.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zen, it’s abundantly clear from Frog’s previous posts and from the regular recent thread discussions on the anti-smacking legislation where the Green’s stand, and it’s not an extreme position (go and browse back a few to refresh your memory).
The origins of the quote don’t matter, only that the ideas are utterly discredited by psychological sciences and the proponents should be dragged, kicking and screaming into the current century.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ZenTiger,
Do you have irrefutable knwoledge that the 14 yr old who dropped the concrete block of the bridge, killing a driver beneath, had or had not ever been smacked as a child? For all I know that child may have been beaten as a child. Who knows? Joy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry, I really don’t think that smacking your kid is that bad – just as long as it is properly linked with punishment and consequences and so forth. Of course, there is no fair way to legislate parenting so the govt should steer well clear (just seems a little too Orwellian, and surprising in my mind for the normally pro-civil-liberties greens).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Smacking a child is not a civil liberty any more than the “right” to bear firearms. (This also begs the question: what are the ramifications of such “rights”?)
Moreover, what of the rights of the child? Being in a greater state of vulnerability than adults, children should be accorded greater protection and care.
And even if one were to believe that Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 were justifiable, the provision of a statutory defence for smacking a child (which have ALREADY TAKEN PLACE) is quite different from advising parents how to smack their kids, encourgaging such behaviour and promoting physical discipline as a moral virtue. Note that the pamphlet posits the “rod of correction WILL…” – denoting a future occurrence.
Painting children as “little bundles of depravity” with the potential to “develop into unrestrained agents of evil” sound little more than a call to arms to ‘mete out swift and harsh justice towards this pestilence known as disobedient children’. In other words, this language bears much resemblance to an INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE – much like Islamic extremists’ rhetoric of the necessity of waging a jihad against infidels.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have mentioned this elsewhere, but it seems I need to illustrate it once more. I was born in an era when children were beaten, strapped, thrashed etc. Astoundingly I was not, but boy, did Dad ever threaten us with his razor strop! Then as a young parent, the climate was for smacking, mainly of the under five year olds. Now my under five year old grandchildren, ( in two separate families) are being brought up without smacking. Their parents seem to have no trouble setting boundaries, teaching about consequences, developing respect for others and generally good manners. So I am proud to see that this can be achieved.
Looking back at my own history I am saddened that yes, I did sometimes smack my little children and I regret that I knew no better.
I support the repeal of section 59. Joy.
PS. I do not smack my little companion dogs either. Sound dog obedience training and the Jan Fennel Dog Whisperer book guided me through the happy raising of three fox terriers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Zen, don’t be so precious! It’s the cut and thrust of political debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey, if you cut, then this is the thrust back. That kind of talk reminds me of Jordan Carter’s recent experiment. He called some-one a racist xenophobe with scumbag views to see if it validated his theory that right wingers get abusive when spoken to in that way. He then went on to say “of course I withdraw that statement” now that he had proved his point.
With that kind of lefty logic, this is where the Greens try and say calling smacking the “pro-beating lobby” and that all parents concerned about the repeal of s59 are really wanting an excuse to bludgeon their children to death. I don’t accept that. I will continue to call these baseless escalations, which rephrase a debate where the genuine well being of our children is the goal, into a battle of “good vs evil” with the smackers lumped in with beaters, child abusers and so forth.
You lot are most naughty. There, I’ve said it. What are you going to do about it? Accuse me of murder?
Don’t go screaming to Mummy if it doesn’t go your way. I see a shit stirrer, I call a bully.
Joy, you
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Joy, whether the 14 year old angel full of goodness was smacked or not as a young child is not the point. The brochure advanced a theory, quoting from the bible that evil in children should not be permitted to fester and grow.
This was paraphrased by the Greens to make out that children are considered evil by the pro-bludgeon lobby. It further tries to infer that 14 year old children are actually paragons of virtue and goodness, and fancy us allowing a group of people to discuss evil in children.
When the facts are dropped on you like “a 8kg brick” you might begin to wonder if the point the brochure was making is not that a child by default is evil, but that a lack of discipline is a contributing cause to this.
This is even before we reach a debate on the ideal types of discipline, and when each type or method should be used and the limits to each (for example, a tongue lashing calling a child a useless twit that will never amount to any-thing) seems to be the order of the day by some parents that don’t believe in smacking. Obviously we know the reason why. That kind of love from a parent is enough to drive a kid to suicide. At least they may not have been smacked.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Their parents seem to have no trouble setting boundaries, teaching about consequences, developing respect for others and generally good manners”
I don’t doubt it. If you don’t have to do it then good, I’m not saying the smacking is the best option. But seriously, growing up I was by far the eldest child, and while I don’t have the experience of child rearing under my belt, I can sympathise to some degree with parents who have a million and one other things to worry about rather than whether their style of discipline is illegal or not.
You shouldn’t be allowed to beat your kids, and yes, they do have some rights (though this is mitigated by the fact that parents MUST bear some of the responsibility of their childs actions), but really – there is a limit to what we should be dictating by law. Promote good parenting, offer alternatives, raise awareness yes, but criminalisation is a sledgehammer solution to a delicate issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What freaks me out is this repeal of S59 is being pushed by the UN via UNICEF. They have unlimited resources to impose their agenda on us. If they fail this time, they will keep trying.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Agreed Stymied. It needs to be noted that I think smacking is over-used, not always the best option and needs to be used sparingly. What I mainly object to is a bunch of people want to assume I do not care for my children, and that if I did happen to smack one of them (which would be incredibly rare) it would be done in a disciplinary way, and certainly not excessive.
Much easier to escalate this to a fight of good vs evil and discount any opinions that do not suit the agenda.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Setting boundaries for a 7 year old is one thing. Setting boundaries for a 2 year old is another. His hand may be slapped on rare occasions and an occasional spank on the bottom can be instructive. There are limits to what you can permit with hot kettles, stoves, hammers, knives, electrical outlets and roads.
Pain is the most efficient teacher nature provides us. It is the product of 40 million years of evolution to warn us of dangers before we actually do somethign that is fatal. It is not entirely benign, can be overused and often is, but it is not without its place in the toolbox.
Rhetoric on this topic is shocking in its extremes. “Smacking” is, to me, a blow to the head. Perhaps I misread it. I don’t know how this culture even uses the word, but a spanking is not a smacking, or a beating, or a pummeling or a bludgeoning. If this tool is removed the behaviour of children will be difficult for parents to control… and the law ALSO holds us responsible for that behaviour.
respectfully
BJ
( who wishes he could get his 6 YO daughter who was raised without spankings to quit kicking and punching him in the eye… and wishes he’d spanked her a long time ago )
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When debating the merits of a certain course of action, we must be mindful of the state run institutions that will enforce the action. It would be prudent to ensure that such institutions vested in such power have adequate safeguards in place to protect innocent people from destructive outcomes.
From BigNews:
http://big-news.blogspot.com
A girl escapes from the care of CYFS after an argument. She wanted to go home to be with her mum. Her mum does not want her daughter in the care of CYFS. So she has gone into hiding with the girl.
The court has said if the mother dies not come out of hiding she will be arrested. Police were looking for her last week. The judge said he has substantial concerns for the girl’s wellbeing. She is being parented by the state. I’ve not heard whether they have come out of hiding so I assume that a warrant is now out for her arrest.
The reasons for being parented by the state are suppressed.
From Sir Humpreys:
http://sirhumphreys.blogspot.com
A drug that interferes with communication between the nerves in the brain.
A drug that is not recommended for children.
A drug that may have permanent effects.
Risperdal is the drug being given to control the boy that just wants to go home after his mother was found not guilty of assaulting him. Yet Child Youth and Family has the power to keep him and drug him with something potentially harmful and irreversible.
I’ve been doing a lot of research in WW2 and effects of the German occupation in Poland. Over 60 years ago, many people joined together to create underground movements to protect other citizens from the German authorities. Authorities who were not acting in the best interests of the people, to put it mildly. Hiding someone from these authorities was punisheable by death for the entire family involved. Yet still people risked their lives because they knew it was the right thing to do.
How far away are we here in New Zealand from needing this type of underground movement?
People vs The State. It’s getting close. Let’s hope exposing these cases will be enough to shame someone in power into acting.
Come All Greens. Please rise to the challenge: Defend the State in all circumstances. Or be true to your stated principles and DEMAND an independant enquiry into these two incidents. Please insist the investigated parties get to nominate witnesses and champions to carry the findings to the public. We know the government will surely present its case with the usual ability to use unlimited tax payer funds to defend themsleves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wow Zen, thanks for waking me out of my over-molly-coddled-left-induced-thinking-stupor to the clear and pressing perils of the over zealous nanny state.
An alternative explanation might be that CYFS is a pathetic joke. It may not be a conspiracy by the oppressive nanny-state at all….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
know what you mean about the way people think, fwwog,
like you say ” its a disgrace”
like peoples thinking for thesselves when they got Sue and red rhetoric rod to think for them,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No problem Huskynut. That’s what I’m here for.
Whether CYFS is a joke or a conspiracy, its real lives at stake. I strongly suspect amongst the good, hard working social workers that have to deal with some truly horrible cases, there are others that, for whatever reason, are doing an extremely bad job and destroying families. This was exactly the case of IRD, with suicide and countless stories of financial ruin attributed to a few bad eggs protected by a bad culture), and widespread reform in the late 1990′s and early 2000′s have seen an improvement.
People love to talk theory. Here is practice. If legislators think they have the right to tell me how to raise my children, “or else”, I’m very interested in the “or else”.
What I’ve found is cause for alarm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
lucyna,
If you think UNICEF has “unlimited resources” then the world you live in is quite different from mine.
Sounds like a planet I’d like to live on, though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Huskynut
The problem is that the people of that pathetic joke have the POWER to do pretty much whatever they damned well please to any child whose case they decide to take.
It is the power of the state in the hands of a few overworked social-workers who are probably pretty good people but who are completely submerged in amazing levels of maladaptive human behaviour.
Misusing drugs to control behaviour is, IMHO, more damaging and damning than a well timed and controlled spanking. I would be loathe to claim that spanking always works, but if medical intervention is required it is only required after ALL other reasonable forms of discipline have failed… including spankings.
Those who champion the “rights” of the child would do well to remember that rights are always balanced by responsibilities, and that children are not adults. From irresponsibility to responsibility isn’t something that happens magically, it takes a lot of work. The irresponsibility of a child automatically limits the rights of the child and failing to recognize that limitation is an egregious error in any social development theory.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zen,
You’re confusing two issues. They may be related, but they aren’t the same.
I agree that CYF isn’t perfect, and that tragedy results from that. So the legislation which covers what CYF does may need work.
But the s59 stuff isn’t part of the legislation that governs CYFs powers. This wouldn’t change CYF’s powers. One of the cases you reference shows that. You don’t have to be convicted of assaulting your kid in order for CYF to have the power to take your kid away. Their assessment of risk to the kid is what matters.
As for CYF:
In fairness to them, they get blamed both when they are too keen to take kids away and when they are not keen enough, with tragic results both ways. But they seem quite bad at changing their minds when there is evidence they have made a mistake, and that can be very bad indeed. Nonetheless it’s very hard to legislate improvements in an organisation’s culture: I don’t know if legislative changes are the correct fix for this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
One only has to watch any of these parenting TV programmes on TV to see what one can attain in the way of positive parenting and teaching parents skill.. their are much more ways of getting a good result than smacking.. the key is teaching parents how to parent. Most kids being naughty are doing it to get attention and smaking though negative is attention none the less.. therefore the kids are winning in a way.,.as to christian’s spare the rod and spoil the child thing.. well how far do you take the bible.. back in those days they stoned people to death and nailed them to crosses.. and beating the crap out of your kid .. comes under the same level of brutality..The key is better parenting courses and if necessary literally forcing parents to take a course in postive parenting.. hell you need a license for a gun or a dog… what about a license to be a parent !….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No question in my mind that CYF is overdue for a serious audit, and I mean a thorough one which results in more than a restructuring into a funder-provider model..
But Icehawk is right, this is of zero relevance to the anti-smacking legislation under discussion.
I’m sure someone on a previous thread quoted police as saying they’d not be investigating simple smacking, but only the intended targets. Henstly, does anyone think the police have the *time* to be surveiling parents for the usual kinds of smacking? And is it possible to write legislation that is sufficiently prescriptive to distinguish acceptable and unacceptable in every case? We expect the courts to interpret legislation, and the evidence to date is that current legislation they interpret makes pretty full-on assault legal in some parental circumstances.
Which is worse, attempting new legislation, or remaining with the demonstrably unacceptable legislation? Is there some reason Sue’s bill can’t subsequently be repealed if it is widely abused?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As I said, I stand with the repeal. Yes, the headlines certainly do suggest that recent, and perhaps current actions of CYFs do at times appear dysfunctional, but an overhaul of CYFs is not the issue here. (And I am sure that that IS an issue which will eventually surface).
You are quite right. Our police force do not even have the resources to investigate serious assaults and crime in a timely manner. To consider them rushing in to the kitchen of every tired parent who smacks their toddler’s hand is farcical.
Yes, sound parenting does need to be supported. Encouraged. Educated etc. More strength to Plunket and Wellchild and similar programmes, in support of healthy parenting.
One thing though, I am sure, just as with a criminal case, when a CYF case hits the headlines, the full details are never released to the media, the public. We may be tut-tutting in ignorance of all the facts, for or against any or all involved. Joy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
AlyC, you ought to read today’s Dominion Post, section D. Parenting programmes are firstly entertainment. Don’t take them seriously like my childless sister does. Luckily now she’s stopped, but she used to phone me up and give me the latest thing I ought to do to raise my kids “correctly” based entirely on what she’d “learned” from the TV programme. When the childless are telling parents what to do, you ought to realise something is wrong.
BTW, do you have children, AlyC?
IceHawk, I should have added the word “virtually” to “unlimited resources”.
See Smack Smoke and Mirrors to how UNICEF have used other organisations to push through the s59 repeal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Section 59 is (or course) nothing to do with smacking, it is about having the defense of “reasonable force” to counter a charge of assault.
My (somewhat tongue in cheek) question is – why is Section 59 limited to children and parents? Surely if this defense was available to all assaulters we could rid the criminal justice system and jails of many criminals who were using what a jury determines to be reasonable force in thumping another?
Whats so special about children that we have to beat them and not (for example) traffic wardens, politicians, parents, cold calling salesmen etc??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dbuckley, the relationship between child and parent is unique. Equating it to any other relationship trivialises it, which I think is the intention.
Anyone can raise your child, right? That seems to be the view of the anti-smacking, pro-kidnapping lobby.
Why is Sue Bradford silent over the drugged child she used as her example as to the need to repeal s59? Is it that a sacrifice is being called for? Every child doesn’t count?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Funny how things changed, I was institutionally whipped regularly for “evil” acts such as running in the corridors, pinching girls on the bottom (now that deserves a whipping doesn’t it boys), nicking off out of school to buy Big Macs, and climbing over the tennis court fences – it was called the cane…
I went to Viard College, Porirua, Father Idolf used to dish out the cane, 3-4 was fairly standard, jeeezus it hurt too. “Idolf will take your hide-off” the saying used to go.
Can someone please put me in touch with a lawyer now taking all these cases to the abuse courts – I’d love an out of court settlement, 25 grand for severe pain, hurt feelings and the impact on my life would be ok….
haha…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Many of you think that the police choosing not to investigate a complaint of smacking will be because they lack resources, and that makes it safe to repeal s59.
Many of you equate a disciplinary smack to beating and abuse. Others simply say any smack is wrong.
Many of you think there is no connection between the powers of CYFS and the repeal of the law. On studying cases in Sweden, the police did not matter in the end. The social workers were expanded and a special family court by-passed the standard system.
The State hounded people in Germany, and any-one found harbouring Jews were killed. Far fetched? Who here has investigated children held up to three years in prisons in Australia, because they had the status of refugee. Stories of self-mutilation, acute depression, mental problems and even suicide have been verified. That was Australia.
New Zelaland. A judge rules a mother innocent of assault, CYFS refuse to return the child, 10 months after the case was judged the child has not been returned. The mother awaits another hearing. The boy has tried to escape to return to his mother and now is being drugged with a drug known to have permanent side effects. CYFS is a legal system unto itself, and police cannot move to return a kidnapped child. New Zealand.
How many of you have read the material available? Investigated the Swedish links we have provided on the associated sites?
A reasoned debate? Starting with Frog using terminology like “pro-beating” mantra?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
lucyna, I dont disagree the relationship is unique, and yes I am a parent, so I have some experience in the area.
But the case against S59 being anti-smacking is fundementally broken.
S59 provides a “reasonable force” defense against assault . In order for this defense to be employed, an assault has to have occured. If no assault has occured, there is no case of assault to answer, and S59 is irrelevant.
Therefore, S59 legitimises assault under limited circumstances, and I happen to believe (as an ex smacker) that smacking and assault are two different things, and legitimising assault against what is our most vulnerable sector of society must be wrong. How can anyone possibly argue that assaulting kids is Ok?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No, the case against S59 being anti-smacking is not broken. See : http://sirhumphreys.blogspot.com/2005/08/police-commissioners-office-smacking.html
You know, dbuckley, I went the other way. I used to be totally anti-smacking. Where I did draw the line, though, was at telling other parents what to do. I once tell a guy that his 2yo would probably respond better to being told WHAT to do rather than what NOT to do, but that’s as far as I went. Repealing S59 goes over the line for me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I very much doubt anyone will get far enough down this thread to read this post, but here’s my opinion. – assault is currently against the law, yet the vast majority of scuffles that occur go completely ignored by the police. Why? Because the police consider that minor insidenses are not worth making an arrest over. Does this mean that assualt between 2 adults should be made legal providing that the force used is “reasonable”? I dont think so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So do people completely disagree with my proposition that the social services system of removing children from parents will bypass the standard Police system? Do you all disagree CYFS cannot intervene in a families life and remove children from custody, and not require the Police to act.
When CYFS work with a “problem family” they can propose voluntary removal or forced removal. Forced removal would involve the police, charges being laid etc. Voluntary removal would be where the parent succumbs to the pressure from the social worker, and in return is promised “consideration”.
A kindy teacher can make a report to CYFS. If the parent reacts the wrong way, it can be enough to “confirm an opinion” and the whole process begins. Since the pro-kidnapping lobby in Sweden got their way and banned smacking, the number of kids moving into state care ballooned. The study quoted by the Greens ignored the age groups most affected by this – a 489% increase in reported abuse cases. Known cases of false accusations by arguing people, with children wrongly removed. A culture in Social Services where to smack was treated equal to abuse, and some 20,000 children removed. Punishments in excess of crimes.
Theory and Practice. How absolutely certain are you that you are doing the right thing? Check out the cases where it has gone to court, and abusers tried this defence. Unreasonable is very easy to detect.
Theory and practice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You Greens are so full of spin. Sure, child-beating is a problem, but undisciplined youths with no respect for their parents are also a problem. I was smacked by my mother but not my father, and I have 10 times more respect for Mum than Dad now for some reason. I am happy with who I am, and I believe smacking (not BEATING) played a part in that.
Banning smacking is not the answer to intergenerational problems, it will just make things worse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
AJC – Lets just say we aren’t ALL entirely pleased with the way things are, and we aren’t ALL that sure that what’s been proposed is the best way to handle it. It isn’t “environmental” and as a result Greens, though generally left of center, aren’t completely united on the issue – and nobody has proof of any theory of childrearing, despite the many years of experience represented on this board and others. I doubt you’d find complete agreement on this issue within the confines of ANY party… maybe destiny… except I am not sure they are exactly a political party…
zenTiger -
“The difference between theory and practice in practice is greater than the difference between practice and theory in theory.”
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, the Police are too busy to go into the homes of families that smack their children. Sue Bradford is right there. People will be able to still smack their children.
But those people had better watch out. They wont know when someone might report them to the Police or CYFS, CYFS especially. If one person makes a complaint CYPS with the Police will be in there taking their children away and putting them in a Fostser home (and we have all heard horror stories of some foster homes). Then the parents will have to wait 5 or 6 months or more for a court hearing where they will not have s59 to defend them so they will be found guilty and put in jail for up to 2 years. It will happen.
We have already seen what happens when people are found innocent by a jury of 12 who know “all” the facts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I know how tight church communities can be. If that did happen to somebody the whole church would be at the door of the police station, or CYFS, and there would be a furore until the children were given back.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On one hand, the use of force in disciplining a child only teaches the child that force is okay to use if you can get away with it. Which is why some kids beaten as children grow up to be screwed up in the head.
So I oppose child-spanking.
On the other hand, I really hate children and can understand where some of the pro spanking lobby is coming from. I mean, I can’t even look into the eyes of a toddler without thinking about how cruel and horrible children were when I was a child, and how sweet it would be to take out some of that rage and pent-up-and-buried frustration out on a target who represents the bullies that tormented me when I was young.
I can understand why you’d want to smack a child around. But it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that no matter how much you hate children – no matter how satisfyingly simple a solution it would be it would be to hit them, returning some of the pain that the child caused you… you just don’t do it.
Kids are evil but that doesn’t give you an excuse to sink to their level.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OMG, Brian, do everyone a favour and make sure you never have any.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Totally not a problem, Lucyna.
How much does a vasectomy cost in New Zealand, anyway?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Brian, your opinions of children are thankfully vastly different from all good parents. Your immaturity is obvious. You do not attempt to understand another’s point of view, you simply exaggerate and wrap the whole thing up in hateful talk.
If you could consider for a moment that (apart from a small minority) parents love their children more than ANY-ONE else, and would typically give their lives for them.
My objections to this law change are NOT about the right to beat my children. You need to grow up. Your extremist extrapolation of this, is to the point you appear incapable of listening to another point of view, and discussing the subject coming from the angle that both sides have the best interests of children, perfectly reflect why I, for example, believe that the State interfering in this degree, to criminalise a disciplinary smack and equate it to abuse, is why the State has no right to make that judgement. The whole argument is flawed from the outset – determined to prove good parents are evil.
Brian said “no matter how much you hate [your] children”
A good example of total disrespect for a parents position, one that I find extremely distasteful. I hate having to “stoop” to the level of the pro-kidnapping lobby, but I have yet to hear from them much more than the mantra “a smack is wrong because I think so”
In Sweden, suitable punishment (in some notable cases) became removal from the home on the suspicion of a smack. That is not justice. That is kidnapping.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Brian, I’ll do it to you for free
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I do not doubt for a second that most parents love their children. I do not doubt for a second that my parents loved me (and they smacked, occasionally, but not beat), their parents loved them and that 99.9% of parents love children.
Because the people, like me, who don’t love children, don’t become parents. I have no parental instinct, no desire to accept the tribulations of parenthood because I don’t see the joy in those tender moments of first words, first steps, etc.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that I think that parents who smack thier children are like me – those who do not love their children. On the contrary, I was not setting myself up as a straw man – merely agreeing with the central premise that kids are evil without agreeing with either the reason why kids are evil or the idea that smacking them is acceptable.
Not all parents who smack their children hate their children. Some do. And by some, I mean: “A rough guess of maybe… 6. Maybe 6-7 parents in New Zealand,” not that there is some sort of kid-hating epidemic going on.
Your arguments that the state has no right to make the decision whether or not a disciplinary smack is abuse doesn’t hold much water. Indeed, this seems to be a tempest in a teapot. Is the kid showing signs of injury? Is the smacking excessive and arbitrary? Then we can clearly say it is abuse – and I don’t see a reason why there can’t be a middle ground of allowing light taps to make a point without eliminating the loophole that allows people who do smack with intent to injure, or punish severely, to be prosecuted for child abuse.
Now, keep in mind, the attitude that “the state can’t tell me how to raise my kid” doesn’t hold a whole lot of water with me. If it wasn’t for the state, you’d have parents putting their kids to work in the coal mines. Most parents love their children. Some don’t.
And the idea that smacking is such an integral part of child rearing that you’re worried about the state saying that it’s wrong – well, it doesn’t work, it’s counterproductive, and if you can’t discipline your kid without resorting to physical punishment, maybe you should get some help from neighbors or relatives on how to sternly administer time outs, groundings, and the like.
That said – when i say I don’t like children, I’m not accusing any parent in the world of hating children.
I’m saying that I really, really hate children.
Maybe I’m a bit more expressive about this than I’d normally be since I just got out of a relationship where she wanted children and I didn’t – and that was one of the reasons we broke up. I know I wouldn’t make a good parent.
If you want me to make a political point about the law, it’s not that I think parents who smack their children hate their children.
What I’m saying is, even me, even a guy who would rather undergo a root canal than babysit, someone who finds children more grating than a parmesan topping factory… even I would manage to find a way to deal with kids for as long as I had to without hitting them, no matter how much I hated them, so it puzzles me how someone who absolutely loves children and theirs in particular feel the need or the desire to smack their children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Which leads me to say that that is something I am mystified by. Why loving, ‘good’ parents are so bitterly speaking out against the repeal of s59. I am astounded. I had, naively, expected parental groups, other than some christian sects, to welcome a bill that prevent genuine abusers from using this section as a defence in law.
And as for some christians, I recall being in a christian group and a couple whom I had begun to like and admire very much were talking earnestly to me about the evil demon of stubborness that resided in their 4 yr old adopted daughter. They “had a battle with Satan” for her soul. I was new to the group and thought this seemed a bit far fetched. Joy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“maybe you should get some help from neighbors or relatives on how to sternly administer time outs, groundings, and the like.”
How do you “sternly” administer “time outs, groundings, and the like” without using reasonable force?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Joy, if you ask your question in all seriousness rather than just rhetorically, I suggest your work your way through Nordic Society for Human Rights website. They were formed because of the damage the child “protection” laws are causing in the Nordic countries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s a good article to read : The Effects of the Swedish Anti-Smacking Law
Summary of Main Points :
• The Swedish law on the abolition of the physical punishment of children has resulted in hundreds of normal parents being harassed by the police and social authorities, prosecuted, sentenced and criminalised, because they have smacked their children for bad behaviour.
• The claim made by EPOCH (End Physical Punishment of Children) that only one Swedish parent has been prosecuted for smacking a child since 1979 is far from the truth. In reality, there have been hundreds of cases, but they are difficult to trace because they appear alongside cases of assault and battery.
• While having the appearance of being altruistic and humanitarian, the 1979 law has led to unwarranted interference in private and family life, and has caused serious damage to the relationship between parents and their children, to the detriment of the family.
• Before the Bill abolishing the physical punishment of children was presented to the Swedish Parliament, several leading lawyers expressed strong misgivings. Their fears that the law would lead to prosecutions of parents who employed mild physical sanctions, while doing nothing to reduce the number of cases of genuine child abuse, have materialised.
• Parents belonging to ethnic minorities and parents with strong religious convictions, in particular, have been victimised under the 1979 law.
• The social authorities and the courts enforce the law concerning the child’s right not to be subjected to physical punishment, irrespective of what the child has done. Many Swedish parents are therefore afraid of their children and dare not correct them for fear of being reported to the police, indicted and fined or sent to prison.
• The law against physical punishment does more damage to children than a smack from a mother or father. When the authorities intervene in the life of a well-functioning family, its life is destroyed. There is nothing that can mend the resulting hurt, pain and bitterness, and the children are the losers.
• When children are removed from their supposedly ‘abusive’ parents and taken into care, they suffer the torture of forced separation from parents, brothers and sisters, and other relatives and friends. They are also exposed to the risk of real abuse. Such children are frequently subjected to physical, mental, and even sexual abuse, but social workers seldom listen to the complaints of children in care.
• The 1979 law has caused incalculable damage to countless families where allegations have been made and investigations carried out, even where the charges have been dropped at an early stage.
• The law has given rise to cases where children have accused their own parents of ill-treatment, without appreciating the consequences of their actions. The public prosecutor then takes over the case and may pursue it even where the parents deny any abuse and where children withdraw their accusations. In this way, the legislation has been directly responsible, not only for the destroying relationships between parents and children, but also for the break-up of many marriages and families.
The damage caused by this legislation is so serious that it should not be followed by any civilised country. Rather, Sweden needs the help of other nations to have this destructive legislation repealed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So, Sweden’s got a bad law.
What does it have to do with New Zealand’s law, which is bad in the other direction?
Put another way: Hitting your kids should not be specifically protected like it is in New Zealand or specifically prohibited like it is in Sweden under the law. There are laws regarding assault and battery, and there are laws regarding child abuse – we can reasonably enforce these laws using the same criteria of harm without specifically prohibiting smacking in children.
Put another way, I do believe that we can catch those who hide behind the law to protect child abuse, and discourage child smacking, encouraging other coercive behavior training techniques, (i.e., Time Outs,) instead of smacking, while not ushering in a wave of children unreasonably snatched from parents.
Sweden’s law does go overboard, not in criminalizing smacking but in having the punishment be child removal – repeated assault does require child services to come and take the child away, but a single spanking can be rectified by giving parents training in how to discipline kids without smacking them.
To put it another way: It’s very hard for me to buy that Sweden’s problems will be replicated here because it is a different country, different laws, and a different situation.
In America, you can spank your children, you can’t abuse them. Simple as that. Spanking is becoming discouraged, but we have no laws on the books which -protect- spanking. That’s what this is about. I have no idea why NZ felt it was nessessary to write such a law, as this whole thing seems a bit irrelevant.
So can we all agree on a number of things?
– Some parents abuse their children.
– Some parents smack their children with no lasting harm as a corrective measure.
– Some parents smack thier children as abuse.
– S59 can be used to protect both those who smack their children for correction and those who smack their children as abuse.
– A repeal of S59 would essentially criminalize spanking
– The criminalization of spanking might net both false-positives and those parents who are otherwise fit parents but had a frustration-driven lack of judgement or just simply forgot that the law was in effect and spanked out of force of habit. These should be minimized but that can happen and probably will.
– Therefore, the enforcement of “spanking crimes” should not include severe and lasting penalties. They should not be entered into a criminal record, and they should not include, as many fear, and should instead include mandatory training, designed to give loving parents training in how to discipline children without hitting them. (Think of it like a defensive-driving class that you take to remove points from your licence.)
– This way we do not radically punish those who spank their children, but the state would be able to stop more actual child abuse.
– It would also deter spanking as a punishment, which has been shown to not be as effective as other means, and in some cases, counterproductive. (Heck, as a kid, I’d rather get spanked than a time out. Spanking’s over in a second. Time out lasts forever…)
If we can agree on those points, we may be able to come to a compromise that suits both sides.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How, exactly, was the Swedish law worded? Exactly the same as the NZ draft bill? If not, then how is it different? I have significant trust in the select committee process and the substantial opportunity for people to lodge submissions. Joy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not to mention that they are a rather weird repressed bunch the Swedes – the authorities also come and take away drug users against their will and put them into forced treatment camps – if you fail a urine test, that’s it. Maybe Dunhill should move there, he’d like it.
I also fail to see how a law in one country that bans smacking is relevant to a law in another country that removes a limited defence for assault,
Also, lucyna stop it with the “I’m a better parent than you” shite.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)