Section 59 debate hots up again
The ongoing debate over Sue B’s bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act to remove the legal defence of “reasonable force” for parents who abuse their children is heating up again this week with two significant developments - the arrival of pro-smacking Swedish “expert” Ruby Harrold Claeson at the invitation of Family First, and the discovery of an 8-page booklet on how to physically punish your child, by Christian group Family Integrity.
The booklet was actually published last year, but was under the radar until this story appeared in the Dominion Post this morning. It’s a pretty extraordinary document. Despite concluding:
I freely admit that I do not understand the connection between a physical smack on the bottom and a rebellious spiritual condition of the heart, nor how the first drives out the latter. But the scripture declares it is so, therefore I am forced to believe and practice it.
it suggests that smacking may be a 10 - 15 minute process, and that if the child is angry after being smacked the smack was not hard enough.
Ruby Harrold Claeson, who claims that Sweden has gone to hell in a handbasket since the comparable defence to s59 was repealed in 1979, arrives in the country today. Professor Ake Edfeldt, a Swedish Education expert refuted her claims on Nine to Noon this morning.
[Update, 9am, 20/7/06: Video of Sue B head to head with Ruby Harrold Claeson on both Close Up and Campbell Live last night is now availble online.]
July 19th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
My next door nieghbour had three boys. My flatemate and I used to comment on what a good father he was; doing fatherly things like driving them out to watch the airplanes take off and kicking a rugby ball outside their house. He was a calm softly spoken person. In relation to the smacking debate I am reminded of an incident. > I was talking to him as he was about to leave with his boys. Two of the boys were fighting in the back seat. All of a sudden the back door opened and there was a ‘whomp! whomp!’. All quietend down. It seemed entirely appropriate and without malice, an act of fatherly wisdom. The three boys are all close to their parents having grown up now.
It’s unfortunate that these issues get lumbered in with “green” ones. A bit of barbed wire in the compost.
Henry
July 19th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
I find it astonishing that it is so hard for people to get a grip on the difference between a whack to the behind and a severe beating
Overall the pain mechanism has evolved over 40 million years to teach organisms to avoid behaviours that might damage them. It is the most effective memory aid and behavioural tool known and abandoning it, particularly with children too small to be reasoned with yet, invites a variety of troubles. Yes, it CAN be avoided, but it takes a very savvy, patient and dedicated parent to raise a child without it. I am sure that everyone here is perfect and capable of doing exactly that, but it isn’t efficient, and it isn’t necessary.
Nor are 15 minute beatings, and any corporal punishment of a child that goes on for more than about 15 seconds has to be considered a beating. There’s a difference and it has to do with the patience and wisdom of the parent. You don’t punish in anger. Even if you are surpassingly angry, you do not raise a hand in anger, you do it to teach and you must have a clear idea why it is necessary. The most common ones have to do with electrical outlets and roads… for those very little people have to learn to be safe in those regards long before they learn to talk and even longer before they understand the word “dead”.
I don’t think there’s an issue about 59. No such defense exists in most places, and in most places there’s no problem about the cops using their judgement about charging people with abuse. I don’t disagree with the repeal, but I don’t hold that every corporal punishment is child abuse…. failing to punish appropriately is also an abuse.
Parenting is about the hardest job I’ve ever tried to do.
respectfully
BJ
July 19th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
I notice lions smack their cubs.
Henry
July 19th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Henry,
You have obviously not bothered to spend even a few seconds reviewing the intent of Sue’s bill.
The bill is NOT:
- a means to criminalise smacking
- an ‘anti-smacking’ bill
The intent of the bill is to remove the section 59 defense in cases of child abuse.
If I am spotted smacking my children, then I will not be liable for arrest. But if the police prove that a child has been physically abused, then the parent(s) will not be allowed to use the defense that the abuse was done as part of normal disciplinary punishment.
With all the work the police have to do, I’m sure they are not going to be out looking for ’smacking arrests’.
The biggest problem with this bill is not what it aims to achieve. It is the fact that it is totally misunderstood even by Green party supporters.
July 20th, 2006 at 7:30 am
“The biggest problem with this bill is not what it aims to achieve. It is the fact that it is totally misunderstood even by Green party supporters.”
Now there’s an irony.
DuncanK, davec is correct, having nowing been aprised of exactly what her bill (as drafted) would do, unless it is amended, I expect even Sue B to oppose it. Sue B does not want to make it illegal to spank children. Sue B’s bill currently would make it illegal to spank children.
You say: “With all the work the police have to do, I’m sure they are not going to be out looking for ’smacking arrests’.”
I, for one, agree with this. But that’s hardly the point - if a bill is too stupid for Police to enforce it probably shouldn’t become a law (in its present form).
July 20th, 2006 at 8:48 am
For my two cents, I actually can’t understand why people are so hung up on the fact that the Bill would make light smacking a technical assault. Edge says “if a bill is too stupid for Police to enforce it probably shouldn’t become a law”, but if we took this argument seriously, we wouldn’t have assualt laws on the books at all. Technical assaults take place all the time (on the rugby field, for example), and we are happy for police to use their common sense to decide when to prosecute them. This would be exactly the same, and given that a Police legal opinion has indicated that they don’t anticipate prosecuting parents for light smacking, I really can’t see what the problem is.
July 20th, 2006 at 10:30 am
frog Says:
July 20th, 2006 at 8:48 am
For my two cents, I actually can’t understand why people are so hung up on the fact that the Bill would make light smacking a technical assault.
On Morning Report I was listening to the item about parents not being allowed to change their kids in public and I’m asking myself: who was it who said (in the first place) that this wasn’t o.k.????? For that matter, when I was a kid old people used to like to talk to little kids, but now as an older person I wouldn’t dare speak to a child I didn’t know in case they think I’m (you know what) etc.
Henry
July 20th, 2006 at 10:52 am
So if there is to be no real change and reasonable discipline will still be allowed then why is all this time and money being wasted on changing the law? Seriously. If I’m on a jury considering a case then I honestly can’t see how S59 or no S59 will make any difference to my decision. I will never send someone away for what I consider reasonable discipline just like I will never tolerate what I consider to be child abuse.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:07 am
JamesP
Because the way the law is currently used, beating a child for 15 minutes with a horsewhip is “reasonable” to some bizarre subset of the species.
Since the way the law is currently used allows such a “reasonable” legal defence to actually WORK.
So there is a “change” to the law required and I, with some misgivings, have to agree to this change. I might prefer a more specific exemption be written in, but it is VERY difficult to be so specific. Might be worthwhile to actually put the lawyering in now, than wait ’til something misfires in the legal system. Time will tell.
respectfully
BJ
July 20th, 2006 at 11:13 am
frog - we have an option here - pass a law that police have told people that they won’t enforce - or pass one that police will enforce that will protect NZ children from those from whom we want to protect them.
Explicity prohibit things most reasonable people consider amount to unreasonable force, and people are more likely to get the message that those things are not okay. Ban all forms of force, yet tell people that most of those who use force have nothing to fear from the law, and you may just leave the abusers we all want to stop, thinking they are part of that majority. They’re not. And Parliament has the power to amend the law to make sure they know it.
I hadn’t come across it before (thanks to the comment-poster on “No Right Turn” who brought it to my attention) but I think the caritas suggestion is a sensible one (here: http://www.caritas.org.nz/nz/section59.php). I agree with Sue B that defining “reasonable force” is abhorrent, but providing a non-exhaustive list of things that constitute “unreasonable force” seems the way to go - a list that says ‘no judge/jury will be permitted to conclude that any force involving the following … is reasonable’.
Sue B says she does not want to criminalise parents who lightly spank thier children. Given that, she has the opportunity to tell people, through this law, what is and what is not acceptable; and it would be unfortunate if the opportunity to draw a line in the sand was lost because of a desire to see the bill become law in the simplest form possible.
In more specific answer to your question “I really can’t see what the problem is.” I believe most opposing straight repeal of s 59 aren’t concerned with how the police will change as a result of repeal, but are more concerned with how CYPFS will react (Sue B has noted that Sweden didn’t see a rash of prosecutions following repeal of the parental reasonable force provisions there, however it currently does have almost twice as many children on a per capita basis in state care than NZ).
July 20th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Sheesh! There’s certainly some bozos in here, but I’m not one of them.
Davec:
“The bill is a means to criminalise smacking although it is not Sues intent to do so - ie: the bill does not reflect the intent.”
The bill REPEALS (that means ‘remove’) Section 59 of the 1961 Crimes Act which allowed parents to use the defense that they were using reasonable force to discipline their child. Without this ‘cop-out’ section, then assaults on children are the same as any other form of assault of one person by another.
How does this make smacking illegal?
Is it illegal if my wife slaps me across the face in an argument? Is it illegal for my two boys to have a disagreement punch-up in the back garden? Is it illegal for my son to punch me in the stomach during a playfight?
Yes, these are all ‘technical assaults’, but use a bit of common sense here!
The legal advice from the Police itself specifically said that “police would not prosecute parents who used physical force when they remove their children from danger”. That is about the only time that I consider smacking to be appropriate. Clearly the Police agree with me.
“the bill will not remove the defence of S59 in cases of child abuse”
Child abuse comes in many different forms. Violent, sexual and verbal. The violent beating of a child is a form of child abuse and section 59 allowed perpetrators of such abuse to claim that they were just disciplining their child. Removing section 59 will not allow that defense.
JamesP:
“If I’m on a jury considering a case then I honestly can’t see how S59 or no S59 will make any difference to my decision”
Clearly you (and I) are in a minority. Why else would a jury in Napier consider it “reasonable for a father to hit his eight year old son eight times with a piece of wood 30cm by 2 cm – leaving linear bruising visible for days”.
If you leave a hole, then you can be sure that someone will try (and succeed) to squeeze through it.
Assaults on children should be viewed the same as any other assault, and that is the intent of Sue’s bill.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Brushing a childs hair, if it was done with malice, could become a form of assault. Ofcourse the police probably wouldn’t prosectute a normal brushing, (unless the policeman was an overzealous type).
Henry.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
DuncanK - it makes smacking illegal by there being no means to defend a charge of assault if one is brought.
This is almost the definition of criminalising something.
Something being illegal and the police choosing to do something about it are different things. It is illegal to cross the road at lights when the red figure is lighted. That the police break this law themselves, and don’t enforce it against other people does not make it legal, it just means they didn’t do something about it.
You note that your examples are technical assaults (the last one isn’t: consent (express of implied) is a defence to an assualt - e.g. a rugby tackle). Technical assaults are illegal.
I agree that police will not charge parents who lightly spank their kids, however, that does not mean that those parents will being behaving legally; on the contrary they will be behaving illegally (just with no consequences).
I would also point out that the legal advice you quote of police - that they won’t prosecute parents who use force to remove their children from danger - wasn’t directed at spanking. Some opponents of full repeal had argued that carrying a child to a time-out against their will, or hurriedly snatching a child from the path of an oncoming car would be illegal if s 59 was fully repealed. The police were responding to that, advising that the other defences in the crimes act (for example defence of another) would be unaffected - so those snatching a child from the path of an oncoming car wouldn’t even need to rely on police discretion not to prosecute, but would in fact be behaving perfectly legally.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Henry - brushing a child’s hair - with malice - is illegal under the current law. Section 59 can only be used as a defence to application of force by way of correction. As brushing hair in the manner you discuss is not corrective then use of the defence in s 59 fails now, and will be unaffected by any law change.
July 20th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Its interesting that my previous comment has been deleted - whats going on Frog? Censorship?
Dunkan K wrote”Child abuse comes in many different forms. Violent, sexual and verbal. The violent beating of a child is a form of child abuse and section 59 allowed perpetrators of such abuse to claim that they were just disciplining their child. Removing section 59 will not allow that defense.”
Ang guess what - retention of section 59 doesnt either.Give me at least two examples (ok, one) of a sucessful defence of child abuse using sectin 59 or I`ll correctly assume that you obviously dont understand the law.
July 21st, 2006 at 8:41 am
Sorry davec, no idea what’s going on there… I can’t see any other comments of yours and its not in the moderation queue. It’s a mystery!
July 21st, 2006 at 9:07 am
DaveC
Perhaps if you read all my comments you would actually see the example that I quoted above.
Or do you not consider a father beating his child with a piece of wood 8 times violent child abuse!?! Perhaps that’s normal behaviour in your household?
July 21st, 2006 at 9:15 am
bjchip Says:
July 20th, 2006 at 11:07 am
JamesP
Because the way the law is currently used, beating a child for 15 minutes with a horsewhip is “reasonable� to some bizarre subset of the species.
Since the way the law is currently used allows such a “reasonable� legal defence to actually WORK.
I just want to be clear. Suppose 10 such cases come before the courts; will S59 always be a sucessfull defense or does it depend on lawyer judge and jury (I’m thinking of OJ Simpson)? Is there no way a court can’t distinguish an extent of a dissipline?
Henry
Henry
July 21st, 2006 at 11:01 am
Henry,
Yes, you are correct, it would very much depend on the lawyer, judge and jury.
BUT, with s59 in place, you are allowing that person the chance to say “But I was only disciplining my child”. Clearly this has been used in the past, and parents have been equitted by using that defense.
Without s59, that assault has to be defended the same as any other assault.
Clearly, some people believe that violent beatings are acceptable in certain circumstances when disciplining your child. Those are the people who object to this bill.
July 21st, 2006 at 12:06 pm
DuncanK Says:
July 21st, 2006 at 11:01 am
Henry,
Yes, you are correct, it would very much depend on the lawyer, judge and jury.
BUT, with s59 in place, you are allowing that person the chance to say “But I was only disciplining my child�. Clearly this has been used in the past, and parents have been equitted by using that defense.
So as we stand now (with s59 intact), it is over to the courts to decide what is reasonable and what isn’t eg 1 smack or 20..100 smacks, type of instrument used (hand, strap, 4×2). Can the court not make a subjective assesment and then decide if “But I was only disciplining my childâ€? can be used as an excuse?
Henry
July 21st, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Henry
The court CAN do and sometimes does, a reasonable job of subjectively deciding what is reasonable and bringing the worst to heel, but it also can stuff up awfully. This bill replaces the evil of providing cover for the perpetrators of atrocities against children with the evil of criminalizing effective and loving parents. It does not reduce the overall chances of something going wrong in the court system, nor does it provide better instructions to the courts. It simply removes one problem and introduces a new one.
Duncan, I object to the way this is being done and I am in no wise prone to giving my children violent beatings… It simply could be done far better than simply rendering technically illegal all spankings and slaps on the hand as it goes after the folks who take out their frustrations on their kids.
This is a baby with the bathwater problem and it should have been thought through a bit before it was ever brought in as a bill in parliament.
This is NOT something which makes me proud of my party.
I will tolerate it… for the swapped evils are no worse on one side as on the other, but it will not be a victory if it passes, and it will not be a defeat if it fails.
respectfully
BJ
July 21st, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Technically, if you grab a child from in front of a truck and save them from being knocked down you could be charged with assault if S59 is repealed. You also know that if a prosecution is brought then those involved would be ridiculed.
Likewise, taking to a child with a wooden stick until the child needs medical attention is clearly abuse. That a charge is not brought in these cases now is equally ridiculous.
But in the middle we hit the grey area - is it assault if you hold a child having a tantrum? is it assault if you pick up a child and take it to time out? Is it assault if you give them a light smack on the bottom?
Out of this I think all (or at least most reasonable) agree that the existing law is insufficient, and the new law creates a technical assault. But we can’t agree on the best resolution.
Surely, it would be better to ask for an independent legal opinion from the Clerk’s Office/Crown Law/Police/etc on how best to meet the requirement, and then pass that into law?
July 21st, 2006 at 3:41 pm
BJ,
I hear what you are saying, but lets be realistic about this.
As an “effective and loving parent” do you honestly see any reason why you would be in court defending the beating of your child?
Do you honestly think that the justice system (overstretched as it is) is going to be spending time prosecuting you for slapping your child on the hand?
Really, some people need to come back down to the real world.
What on earth are you afraid of? Are you afraid that you are already using too much force with your disciplining?
Please cite an example of how this could possibly result in “criminalizing effective and loving parents”.
And don’t nit-pick. Of course smacking will EFFECTIVELY be criminalised, but tell me how this is different from the example of my wife slapping me in the face during an argument (which is also EFFECTIVELY illegal), or my boys having a punch-up in the back garden.
Some of you people in your nice, warn and fuzzy middle-class environments need to realise that out there in the big, bad world there are some pretty horrific incidents that are passed off as ‘discipline’. If this bill results in more successful prosecutions of those types of incidents then I will be very proud of the party (and Sue) for the work they have done to achieve this.
July 21st, 2006 at 4:00 pm
bjchip Says:
July 21st, 2006 at 1:03 pm
This is NOT something which makes me proud of my party.
I think it will be a big fat shot in the foot.
[I’ll stick my (red)neck out, but I feel that there is still a case for eg policemen using a boot up the arse occasionally, especially to make citys, public transport safe. Society has been rendered safe for crims but not for the rest of us. It’s our sacred duty to be their uncomplaining victims…Thanks bleeding hearts]
Henry
July 21st, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Duncan
The situation I am familiar with that pertains is from the USA, which has no similar defence available
In the main the circumstance was a complaint by a neighbor or bystander followed by a visit from social services and a charge being laid. Exonerated but the damage was done. The social worker was not punished for this but…
The consequence of being “charged” was loss of job, then loss of house. Children in a foster home for over a year, breakup of the family… that’s the best of my recollection and I am not going to go look up the specifics… it doesn’t directly pertain
What is relevant is that when there is no specific standard ANYONE can charge abuse based on their personal standards, even if they’ve never raised a child of their own and are way outside the mainstream. What is relevant is that ANY mistake by the police or social services after that point will likely ruin your life and your child’s completely.
That’s a stiff penalty for being slack about actually doing the work of making a law that actually reflects the community expectations. Giving guidance to people who are outraged by seeing a child spanked is as critical as giving guidance to those who try to drive out demons… because the full weight of the legal system punishing innocent parents and children is just as bad as failing to punish the guilty ones.
The point is that without any guidance given in the law there is no reason why I should NOT wind up in court.
A specific law will make the prosecutions MORE effective than no guidance given to the community at all, which is what is on offer here. Consider how you inform the community as a whole about what the new law or lack thereof requires of them. Consider how much power you are simply handing the police. Making everyone technically a criminal is one of the steps towards totalitarianism. It places power wholly in the hands of the police (if the media is not involved) or robs the law of any power (if the media becomes involved). What it is NOT is a good example of the rule of law.
Making it a matter of “judgement” of the police is a cop-out on the part of parliament. I just bridle at turning a medium effort for a parliament that barely earns its keep now, into another difficult job for the police. Yet another area where the police person KNOWS he/she will be second guessed. Another cop-out that makes the job of the poliice more difficult than it has to be.
respectfully
BJ
July 23rd, 2006 at 6:47 pm
bjchip wrote (among a lot of other stuff):
“This is a baby with the bathwater problem and it should have been thought through a bit before it was ever brought in as a bill in parliament.”
Have no fear bj.
Sue Bradford has done an excellent job (as usual)!
I assure you that this matter has been “thought through” thoroughly by those concerned… including those who are expert in this area.
While I allow that you are an “expert” with your own children, we are talking about a law change for Aotearoa/NZ, with its various cultures, parenting and childcare norms and problems, its own NZ Police and its own NZ Legal System.
In this context: Well done Sue!
eredwen
July 23rd, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Sue Bradford does a great, often thankless, job it seems to me and is a type of mp who truly earns her wage with a CLARITY, that is often against whateva issues the usual prejedices have been mustered up about.
Going on from that interview, it seems there is a problem or loophole and it is a good idea to do something about it. In all likelihood there will be cases where the law is used wrongly, but probably not to the extent that it allows the quantity of abuse to go through, and i would have thought it is OBVIOUS which side of the line it is best to lean towards.
July 23rd, 2006 at 10:09 pm
even Says:
July 23rd, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Going on from that interview, it seems there is a problem or loophole and it is a good idea to do something about it.
So what is the “problem or loophole”? Is it not as bjchip Says:
July 21st, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Henry
The court CAN do and sometimes does, a reasonable job of subjectively deciding what is reasonable and bringing the worst to heel, but it also can stuff up awfully. This bill replaces the evil of providing cover for the perpetrators of atrocities against children with the evil of criminalizing effective and loving parents. It does not reduce the overall chances of something going wrong in the court system, nor does it provide better instructions to the courts. It simply removes one problem and introduces a new one.
[in otherwords judge and jury decide each case on merit but sometimes they stuff up (in someones opinion). Lets make smacking an offence and that will assure a guilty verdict when ever we want it. ]
eredwen Says:
July 23rd, 2006 at 6:47 pm
I assure you that this matter has been “thought through� thoroughly by those concerned… including those who are expert in this area.
Are you saying that the “experts” are in agreement?
If this isn’t about banning smacking it certainly looks as though it is, as, (unless I wasn’t paying enough attention) the discussions on RNZ have mainly been the in/appropriateness of smacking.
Henry
July 23rd, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Henry said :”So what is the “problem or loophole”
if u watched the campbell live interview….. it is plainly expressed:
one child a month on average dies from homicide due to abuse from parents
and it is legitimate to strike or beat children.
In context, it is not legitimate to strike or beat other adults, not with standing that adults usually are more able to defend or escape abuse than dependant children.
So Sue B’s OBVIOUS goal is to create another barrier against this abuse by making it more complicated for parents to just belt their kids, just as we do the same for adults.
Does it not seem OBVIOUS to err on the side of preventing physical abuse that is resulting in death and which might make people more self aware of their actions and problems b4 they get there, rather than on the side of intruding in peoples lives?
E.G. worst case scenario for second option, a presumably male house figure goes through a period of being seperated from children, then re-united after mistaken claim.
Worst case scenario for first situation, children are dead.
July 24th, 2006 at 9:06 am
even Says:
July 23rd, 2006 at 11:17 pm
“one child a month on average dies from homicide due to abuse from parents
and it is legitimate to strike or beat children.”
The two statements aren’t necesssarily connected.
Is it legitimate to “strike or beat” v smack, and can’t we tell the difference? It’s a matter of degree. As Peta Sharples said of the Kahui twins: “they could have had a beer-crate dropped on them, it was that sort of place”.
“In context, it is not legitimate to strike or beat other adults, not with standing that adults usually are more able to defend or escape abuse than dependant children.”
The reason we are allowed to “strike or beat” (smack) children is because we as adults are training them. Good natured parents with good social intelligence wont do it often. I think it sends a message: “bad behaviour/ physical harm”
“So Sue B’s OBVIOUS goal is to create another barrier against this abuse by making it more complicated for parents to just belt their kids, just as we do the same for adults.
Does it not seem OBVIOUS to err on the side of preventing physical abuse that is resulting in death and which might make people more self aware of their actions and problems b4 they get there, rather than on the side of intruding in peoples lives?
E.G. worst case scenario for second option, a presumably male house figure goes through a period of being seperated from children, then re-united after mistaken claim.
Worst case scenario for first situation, children are dead. ”
It doesn’t seem OBVIUOS to me but I can see you are looking at it from the point of view of constraining the the bad dangerous father (junk-yard dog) - and I’m sure they exsist; whereas I’m looking at it form my own experiences/ observations and from my feeling that society has removed the threat of any physical harm for its human population for any degree of bad behaviour, etc,etc.
Henry
July 24th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Even, Eredwen
I have to disagree. This was NOT well thought out. Had it been well thought out it would have made explicit law regarding what is and is not permissible, which is the perogative AND DUTY of the legislature. It is they unpleasant and unjustified duty of the police to fill in where the legislators decide not to decide… and when they do, it is the press that plays pile-on with unrepentant glee when they make any error at all.
This is done wrongly. It is done with the best intentions in the world, but it is not done well. It is not better to “err on the side of caution”. You are creating law. In the main it will work. For the people for whom it does NOT work, it will create a human tragedy at the hands of the state. This is not IMAO, greatly better than the tragedy of children dying at the hands of their parents. You may hold a different opinion about that, but my point is simple.
It is not NECESSARY for this error to exist at all. That it does, indicates a lack of diligence on the part of the legislators involved in writing (or in this case, simply repealing ) the law.
I am very sorry to have to disagree with you both, but this measure repealing 59 fails three ways. It fails to attempt what was eminently do-able, which was to make specific law with specific prohibitions that would be easily enforceable by police and courts. It may well fail to repeal the law totally, because it creates a controversial choice of evils, and should it pass it STILL fails to reduce evil, it merely shifts it to the destruction of some child’s family when it gets hit with a wrongful accusation and a bit of bad luck in the courts.
That may be better than letting kids get beaten to death, but how did it become a choice between THOSE two alternatives without exploring the alternative of actually making good law?
respectfully
BJ
July 24th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Many of the comments above don’t appreciate what the law currently says. An assault is an assault, irrespective of section 59. What section 59 does is create a defence to a criminal charge of assault if two criteria are met:
1) The assault constitutes the use of reasonable force; AND
2) The force is used by way of correction towards the child.
So the law currently makes out a special case for the use of force against children, solely when it is used by way of correction - i.e. an assault that may result in conviction if done for any other purpose, can be successfully defended if it is for the purpose of discipline.
As for what constitutes reasonable force, just look at these excerpts from that creep Craig Smith’s Family Integrity booklet:
“Evil is not picked up from the environment, as behaviourists such as B.F. Skinner would advise: it is already in their hearts (and in our adult hearts even still) from conception. Children are not little bundles of innocence: they are little bundles of depravity (see Psalm 51:5) and can develop into unrestrained agents of evil…
Smacking may be a 10-15 minute process. Go to a private place, collect the smacking rod, then fully discuss the crime. Ask the child to identify which of the four Ds was broken and to explain why he now needs a smack rather than a tongue lashing or isolation.”
With a jury with a few sickos like this on it, what chance is there of getting a conviction for even the most prolonged and vicious beating? And the likes of Craig Smith are the most ardent defenders of retaining section 59. Those who are supporting section 59, just think about the company you keep!
July 24th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Thanks Toad!
You have spared me the job of replying to those who seem to see the Law from the point of view of how it may possibly affect them personally, rather than the affect it may have on our most vulnerable Kiwi children in “at risk” families.
BJ: please note this quote on Sue B’s current Press Release:
“The repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which the Children’s Commissioner has also included in her recommendations, is also going to be a critical factor in changing the culture of violence and abuse in which so many of our children and young people live.”
We need to think beyond following the methods of past generations in our own nuclear families, and move towards a society where “smacking” of the small and very impressionable members of our society becomes a thing of the past for all of us.
There ARE much more effective ways of teaching behaviour appropriate for a non violent world.
BJ: How often do you smack your wife? (In some parts of the World that is still an OK thing to do.)
eredwen
July 24th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
toad Says:
July 24th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
“So the law currently makes out a special case for the use of force against children, solely when it is used by way of correction - i.e. an assault that may result in conviction if done for any other purpose, can be successfully defended if it is for the purpose of discipline…”
So long as the “assault” doesn’t constitute unreasonable force.
Maybe I miss the point????
The religious extremist thing is a red-herring I think.
I don’t agree with the “but what if someone like that is on the jury” argument.
“The repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which the Children’s Commissioner has also included in her recommendations, is also going to be a critical factor in changing the culture of violence and abuse in which so many of our children and young people live.�
By all means change “the culture of violence and abuse in which so many of our children and young people live.â€?.. but my nieghbour (top) and others are doing a great job without your interference.
Henry
July 24th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
I think Toad has a ver strong argument here, but he misses one aspect of the law. The criterion in section 59 is whether the “force used” is justifiable in the circumstances. It is not whether the use of force, or any sort of discipline at all, is justifiable in the circumstances.
A child can therefore be legally hit (spanked, if you want to use the euphamism) for refusing to obey an unreasonable command of a parent, for masturbation or sexual experimentation, for refusal to go to church, for pissing their pants, for interrupting a parent’s conversation, for refusing to eat dinner when he or she is feeling nauseous, or for vomiting at the table after being forced to.
The law does not take into account the reasonableness of the parent’s judgment as to the need for discipline, only the reasonableness of the force applied in the implementation of the discipline.
Section 59 allows parent to hit their children with no objective standard, but rather the parent’s subjective standard, of what is a reasonable cause for discipline.
It is a licence for abuse, and should be totally repealed as Sue Bradford’s Bill advocates.
July 24th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Henry: “By all means change “the culture of violence and abuse in which so many of our children and young people live.â€?.. but my nieghbour (top) and others are doing a great job without your interference.”
but Henry, the law change will not interfere with your parenting, it will only interfere in the parenting of people who abuse their children to such an extent that the police decide to prosecute.
July 25th, 2006 at 9:14 am
I see that the law society want S59 amended not scrapped: they say scrapping it will create a legal vacuum:
http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/organisation/story.cfm?o_id=500483&ObjectID =10391107
http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/organisation/story.cfm?o_id=500483&ObjectID =10391856
Henry
July 25th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Now you are dragging into this, the parental reasoning in deciding to punish the child!? Clearly your next logical step will be to legislate how to parent rather than what constitutes abuse.
This is not a reasonable use of law in a free society. It may seem reasonable to you, but it will anger me and about 3.9 million of the 4 million other New Zealanders who hear about it. I would reckon the green party would disappear under the avalanche of negative publicity. Literally.
Now assuming that this was not your intention, lets get back to the law regarding assault, which is what we ARE discussing, not parenting methods or the criteria for punishment (of any sort) to be meted out to a child.
Stuey, the law change MAY not interfere with my parenting… but it will make it illegal for me to slap the hand of my child rather than letting him stick a paper-clip into a power outlet. Illegal is illegal. It guarantees that I can be convicted if charged. It makes, at a stroke, I would guess at least 90% of parents technically criminals. It contains NO GUIDANCE WHATSOEVER to the police, the community or the courts. That’s the part that is unacceptable. There was NO guidance in section 59 and now there is NO guidance whatsoever. This is simply not well considered and you can see that in the fact that even here it has US arguing among ourselves.
UNNECESSARILY@!!!
Toad - The sickos can’t get around a properly spelled out limitation on how much force is used, but they can punish their children, with or without section 59, for “sins” that the rest of us find ridiculous - per greenfrogred.
There is a limit to what you can do with law. In this case however, rather than explore what limits would be useful to the society we have abandoned the effort to make good law in favour of making criminals of almost everyone who has kids.
…and eredwen, evolution has provided us, after many millions of years, with the pain mechanism to help all us learn. That’s why you remember about “hot”. Unfortunately getting hit by a car or electrocuted tends to be fatal rather than painful. The lesson is not learned quickly enough, there is no second chance. There is NO more effective teaching mechanism in the human brain or in the animal world. There ARE alternatives that you would have us all use and most of us are decent sorts and will try, but just as I will not strike my children’s faces I will not abandon paddling their behinds or slapping their hands. I want them to live to adulthood.
This places the onus on the police and the courts. It may work mostly but it is NOT good law. Good law would spell out “reasonable” in detail and make damned sure that it is not a judgement call by a police-person who may also be a member of some bizarre sect. The KKK and the ultra-righteous church is disproportionately represented among the police I knew in the USA. There’s no bar to them becoming members of the force here that I know of.
If you want to have a rule of law you have to have LAW, not vacuum. This establishes a vacuum and inserts the judgement of the police and the courts. I spoke above of how it could go bad one way, now I have to remind you all that it can go bad the other way as well.
The change is ill-considered and Sue may have her heart in the right place but she has made a mistake in trying to correct the problem without setting explicit law and limitations in place.
respectfully
BJ
July 25th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
BJ:
I believe that your concerns are unnecessary.
I don’t know enough about the American system to judge, but you might need to know more about the workings of our (British based) legal system to allay your concerns.
I’m not a lawyer, but I do have experience teaching and working with people invloved in various areas of the “child and family” field.
No one would be prosecuted for slapping a kid on the back of the hand as you suggest. If they were, it wouldn’t make it to Court.
How a law is interpreted depends on “precedent”. Laws are kept simple, and “Case Law” then fills in what you see as “gaps” in the current and the proposed law. In this way our laws are kept up with current thinking and “update” themselves.
As this “self update” has not happened to the satisfaction of majority opinion in this case, a law change (by removing the problem clause ) is mooted.
Perhaps one of our Greens with legal training could explain this better?
eredwen
July 25th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
I think, right at the beginning, I pointed out that this would probably be OK, but that it wasn’t properly thought through.
That remains my position. Good law is pretty explicit. This is not good law, and while I am familiar with the use of precedent to establish “law” where the law is not explicit, and the necessity for that usage, what is being done in this case sets us back. There won’t be any precedents until people wind up in court, and there won’t be any recourse if a religious minded police person turns a blind eye to what the rest of us would see as abuse, and there will eventually be some poor family ripped apart by our moral imperatives to protect the children misfiring in court in some manner.
That’s all I am saying…. this WILL probably work (for the most part), but it is not good law. It is divisive, even within this party, and it could have been done better.
respectfully
BJ
July 25th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
bjchip wrote: “…but it will make it illegal for me to slap the hand of my child rather than letting him stick a paper-clip into a power outlet. Illegal is illegal. It guarantees that I can be convicted if charged.”
No, bjchip, it will not make it illegal to slap the hand of a child about to stick a paper clip in a power socket. Section 48 of the Crimes Act provides a defence in circumstances such as this or removing a child from any other imminent danger.
48.Self-defence and defence of another—
Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.
Sue Bradford’s Bill does not propose to change the section 48 defence.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Toad
I don’t particularly want to have to rely on something that is couched in terms of “self-defence” to keep this sane and I am glad there is SOME sanity still left after this is done.
However, I will not happily accept that this society must relinquish the ability and RIGHT of a parent to paddle a child who needs paddling.
This is not “the only way” and it remains p:ss poor law. It will work but it will not ever be as good as explicitly making X, Y and Z the boundaries of permissible behaviour with respect to corporal punishment of disobedient children. Making things explicit makes the point far sharper and FAR easier for people, police and courts to understand, publicize and administer.
It also makes the bill far more acceptable to mainstream New Zealand, and keeps the green party from looking like a bunch of left of left loonies.
This way costs us votes and mindshare we can’t afford to lose and is not necessary with respect to green party principles.
respectfully
BJ
July 25th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
BJ:
PLEASE take a deep breath and pause long enough to read what Toad actually said:
“Section 48. Self-defence AND DEFENCE OF ANOTHER —
Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.”
It really is is best to leave this matter in the hands of those among the Greens whose (various) areas of expertise this is. They are TOTALLY capable of doing an excellent job!
Your floundering around on this matter does you no credit, and that is a shame because in your own areas your input is valuable and valued.
eredwen
July 25th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
eredwen Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
“Section 48. Self-defence AND DEFENCE OF ANOTHER —
Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.�
Then there’s:
Section 60 which states: “Discipline on ship or aircraft - The master or officer in command of a ship… or the pilot in command of an aircraft… is justified in using and ordering the use of force for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline… if he believes on reasonable grounds that the use of force is necessary, and if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.”
NZ Law recognises that Parents, Pilots and Masters need to have the authority and powers of discipline to properly care for their charges, be they children or passengers. The “Repeal Section 59 lobby” wants to remove this authority only from the parents, not from pilots and masters. The repeal lobby appears not to trust parents to come to the same narrow conclusions they hold: that no force at all should be applied to children. Lobby leaders like Sue Bradford MP are quite clear as to their long-term social-engineering goals: they want smacking and all forms of physical discipline abandoned by ALL parents and caregivers, even if it means legislating against it.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0507/S00311.htm
I agree with SPUC for the first time in my life. Repealing section 59 will make smacking technically illegal and casts a slur on living (and dead) beloved parents who may have delivered an imortant smack on no more than two or three occasions (I can’t say what I did!). “Social engineers” yes; and some of you are still fighting the battles of the 18th Century.
Henry
July 25th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Henry,
Backtrack a little to Toad’s explanation (25 July 1:50 pm):
“48.Self-defence and defence of another—
Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.
Sue Bradford’s Bill does not propose to change the section 48 defence.”
That answers your concerns, surely?
July 25th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Actually my concern is that smacking is technically illegal as a means of disciplining children (I think I got that right??). I’m not talking about smacking because a child puts a paper clip in a socket; I’m talking about what you might call intelligent loving smacks used for discipline and only occasionally; perhaps a handfull of times during a childhood.
[I also feel that there is a place for violence, in the sense that we need a little conditioning and respect for the violent world from which we have partly escaped. Not so long ago we were regularily eaten by larger animals. I’m not talking about gratuitous violence, but it seems to me that some people are saying that we live in an artificial cotton wool world. We need to feel the real world; to know it is there]
Henry
July 26th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Henry writes:
“what you might call intelligent loving smacks used for discipline …”
NO! I certainly would not call such behaviour “intelligent and loving”.
Think about it from a small child’s point of view. An adult male who the child trusts hits a small child deliberately because he can. (Notice that the pro smacking group on this thread are male.) The immediate message is “I am bigger and stronger than you are so I can hurt you if I choose to, and you are powerless to stop me.” Add to that “I am doing this for your own good … because you are wrong … and because I love you.”
Wow! What is the message! “Intelligent? Loving?” I don’t think so!
(Must we perpetuate behaviour “because it was done to us”?)
Children learn by example. There are more effective ways of teaching our vulnerable and precious children about living cooperatively than this. People who know how to live peacefully and cooperatively will be sorely needed in the World of the future.
(Apparently, the occasional hit in anger is less likely to be damaging in its “message” than calm and calculated physical punishment.)
In Child Care / PreSchool situations the children who hit other children tend to be those who are hit by their parent(s) … Then their parents hit them for hitting other children … and so the cycle continues.
There is plenty of literature on the subject …
eredwen (who was not smacked as a child and whose children were not smacked. Self discipline and consideration for others is BIG in our family.)
July 26th, 2006 at 8:28 am
eredwen Says:
July 26th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Henry writes:
“what you might call intelligent loving smacks used for discipline …�
NO! I certainly would not call such behaviour “intelligent and loving�.
We’ll at least I think we are getting to the nub of the issue. Proponents have been saying “this isn’t an anti-smacking law” but you just argued smacking is bad (leaving aside the validity of your argument) so there is no “baby with the bath water”.
As I (tried to say) I’m not talking about silly parents, with no social intelligence, who administer corporal punishment as an everyday thing. Parents are still growing up (or ought to be) just like children (I think cognitive behavioural therapy should be taught in schools); I’m talking about parents who may smack a handful of times in a childs life-time. I haven’t seen any indication that this is a male thing??
Henry
July 26th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
DuncanK, you refer to the bloock of wood case, and you obviously havent read the court documents, because the injuries you have claimed were not as a result of physical discipline.
In the case where a child was alleged to have been disciplined with a block of wood, whether the injuries were caused by the discipline is important. That’s because the parent in this case did not appear to get off because of a section 59 defence. Critics of this case do not mention that the boy concerned suffered injuries when he fell over while roller blading the previous day to the discipline, nor do they mention that the boy’s injuries were not solely cased by physical discipline, which is why his parent was acquitted. Nor do they mention that, although section 59 was raised, that fact appears not to be the deciding factor as to why the parent in this case was acquitted. This case is not a section 59 acquittal.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Henry, you suggested that by repealing section 59 of the bill casts a slur on parents who used smacking as a form of punishment. Like most children I was smacked occasionally, and I do not believe repealing section 59 will taint my relationship with my parents.
As for the people saying that the bill should be ammended or whatever to explicitly state what is not acceptable, can you imagine how complicated that would be? Everyone, would have a completely different picture of what should be kept in. Would, for example, the wooden spoon be banned, because that was generally what stopped me from doing something stupid. When I saw my mum reaching for it I knew to stop immediately. And I would disagree with banning it. It is much easier repealing section 59 altogether, and while it will lose you some supporters it may gain you some different ones. Yes it would be illegal to smack your child but do you guys honestly believe the police are that pedantic?
Personally Im more concerned that parents who use those guidelines of 10 to 15 minute smacking sessions be prosecuted and found guilty, than that I might technically be guilty of smacking a child once as a form of discipline and that a rare zealot of a policeman who follows the letter of the law literally catches me and prosecutes me.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Amykitkat - it IS much easier, but it is bad law. The time to make decisions about what is and is not permissible is now, in Parliament, in open public debate. Not in the mind of each individual citizen, or policeman on the scene in the instant or in the minds of the jury in the courtroom after the fact or the eyes of the public media after that.
I consider your point valid, it IS complicated, but to just repeal the section is still bad law. Better would be to make write some explicit rules into the law, which almost all of us can readily accept to fence off some behaviour (with respect to children and correction) completely, and then to allow precedent to operate in the situations where corporal punishment is still permitted. Law benefits from being explicit, and publicizing the rules will benefit from the rules being explicit AND reasonable to most New Zealanders.
However, we are stuck with this dog and we may have to back it even so. Reminds me of holding my nose in the polling booth back in the USA.
respectfully
BJ
July 28th, 2006 at 10:21 am
BJ - I still don’t undersand why you say it is bad law to simply repeal.
On the rugby and rugby league fields, basketball and netball courts, football and hockey pitches every weekend we see assaults being committed - ie physical force being applied that is outside or in excess of that permitted by the rules of the particular sports code and is therefore not consented to by those participating in the sport. Some such assaults are particularly vicious and result in serious injury.
Yet we don’t see a police officers running onto the field to make arrests or a plethora of Police prosecutions of offending sportspeople. In fact, it is extremely rare to see a prosecution arising from an assault that takes place in sport - normally the Police use their discretion to leave it to the sport’s own disciplinary processes to deal with the issue. Following BJ’s logic, this is bad law too.
There isn’t a specific defence written into the Crimes Act for assaults that occur on the sporting field, and I don’t see any of the pro-section 59 lobby advocating one.
What’s the difference between the Police exercising their discretion here, which I think they do very well, and the Police similarly exercising their discretion if an instance of a parent assaulting a child in the course of discipline is brought to their attention?
What is it that justifies a specific defence in law for parents assaulting vulnerable children in the course of discipline that no other prepetrator of an assault in any other circumstances has?
July 28th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Toad
This is basically a philosophical difference.
I support the ideal of the “rule of law”. That means that Police discretion is as circumscribed *as is practical*. This means that for me the law is remiss if it does not specify some exceptional considerations applying to the playing field.
59 provided that raising children is an exception, but didn’t specify ANY limitation on that exception, this was really really bad law. The activities on the playing field might well be subject to similar considerations.
One point, which is buried somewhere in the history of this thread, is that making everyone a criminal (should the police decide to prosecute) is one of the enabling techniques for fascism. Others I have mentioned, such as having religious zealots on the police force, whose judgement might be not to bring charges even if the rest of us would think otherwise.
The worst part however, is how it has divided us.
My calling something “bad law” here doesn’t mean that it won’t work. I allow as it probably will, and in the grand scheme of things it isn’t likely to be the worst thing we’ve done. I DO trust the NZ Police in general, to get it right. I just don’t think that it is THEIR job to work out when to apply a blanket law. Why not just have a law that says “It is illegal to do bad things to other people” and let the police apply that wherever they feel it applies? Rule of law is not simple.
What I am trying to point out however, is that well meaning or no, we did not do well by pushing for simple repeal of 59. We could have done better by making proper “law” rather than simply ditching a provision that is clearly incompete, we could have stayed onside with the bulk of voting NZ, and we could have avoided the vast waste of time and talent in debating this here.
respectfully
BJ
July 28th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
toad Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 10:21 am
“On the rugby and rugby league fields, basketball and netball courts, football and hockey pitches every weekend we see assaults being committed - ie physical force being applied that is outside or in excess of that permitted by the rules of the particular sports code and is therefore not consented to by those participating in the sport. Some such assaults are particularly vicious and result in serious injury.
Yet we don’t see a police officers running onto the field to make arrests or a plethora of Police prosecutions of offending sportspeople. In fact, it is extremely rare to see a prosecution arising from an assault that takes place in sport - normally the Police use their discretion to leave it to the sport’s own disciplinary processes to deal with the issue. Following BJ’s logic, this is bad law too.â€?
In the case of sports there are the players, the referee, the onlookers, and the sanctions for bad behaviour (not being able to play for a month etc); in a sense these are the police. If an assault is really serious, the police would get involved.
The smacking issue is about making that occasional smack technically illegal.
I think people have experiences of their own parents and observed others smacking when it would be silly to try some technique like “taking time out”. In otherwords it is entirely appropriate and intelligent thing to do in a lot of cases. Having said that we seem to have different scenarios in our minds.
I heard the plunket guy and he’s talking about how “we have to change the culture of violence”; there would have been no culture of violence amongst the smacking parents I’m thinking of. Those sort of statements are very generalising. Within a nation various elements have their own sub cultures. I tend to wonder if the opposite isn’t the problem; we have a culture that is too tolerant and easy on bad behaviour [I say that with in the framework of a valueless, dog eat dog society].
Henry
July 29th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Henry: “The smacking issue is about making that occasional smack technically illegal.”
no its not, its about removing a line of defence that abusive parents could otherwise use.
July 29th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
stuey Says:
July 29th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Henry: “The smacking issue is about making that occasional smack technically illegal.�
no its not, its about removing a line of defence that abusive parents could otherwise use.
I should rephrase that: The concern of people opposed to repealing S59 is that it makes the occasional smack a technical offence, when (they feel) those occasional smacks are appropriate in the circumstances. They don’t feel that they are part of a “violent culture” because of the occasional appropriate smack and resent social engineering by groups who think they know better. People understand that there is a body of opinion that smacking is not appropriate under any circumstances and extrapolate that this is the reason for this approach rather than that recommended by the Law Society.
Henry
July 29th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Stuey
If it IS “about” removing a line of defence it is done poorly, because it is not specific. It there is another agenda in mind, which is at least partially in evidence here, then it is even more poorly conceived.
Some people think that there is no place in parenting for paddling, and others disagree. This “law” inappropriately cedes the debate to one side without actually permitting debate.
It does any number of OTHER things poorly as well.
Not the most brilliant effort on the part of the Green Party, my word, no. Foot, meed bullet.
It MAY work…. but the cost is far FAR higher than it needed to be.
respectfully
BJ
July 30th, 2006 at 10:20 am
respectfully BJ, you are talking complete rubbish,
the line of defence is specific, i.e. only to be used for a single crime (assault) and only to be used in a single case (reasonable force for the purposes of correction) therefore removing the line of defence must be specific too.
As for your assertion that the Bill does any number of other things badly as well, perhaps you would like to list what those are?
Memo to BJ, think before you spout off eh?
July 30th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Stuey
I should create a list?
1. It makes most parents criminals under the law.
2. It takes the law-making function from parliament and leaves it to the police “judgement” … leading to two possible bad sub-results.
a. The police prosecute someone who shouldn’t be.
b. The police fail to prosecute someone who needs to be.
3. It fosters argument. Look at us.
4. It alienates a large segment of the NZ electorate. Watch what happens in the next election.
That’s four separate things it does badly.
It was entirely unnecessary for this to come to pass.
respectfully
BJ
July 30th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Experts Reiterate: Smacking Is Not The Issue:
The law change and guideline has contributed to a considerable shift in public attitudes towards both smacking and child abuse in Sweden.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0607/S00299.htm
Why childcare experts need a good smacking:
The problem with childcare is that it is too often entrusted to mothers who have not read Thomas Kuhn’s 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In that book Kuhn explained that all influential scientists — which includes social and political scientists — are liars. He put it more politely than that, yet that was his message. Most people are unconscious followers of Karl Popper, and they suppose that scientists welcome the testing of their hypotheses by others attempts to disprove them. So people believe that, when scientists encounter a fact that clashes with their theories, the scientists discard the theories.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1915020,00.html
Wikipaedia:
Minimal use of spanking
Despite the intensity of the controversy over spanking, positions between the two extremes are also common. Many parents believe that spanking is not inherently abusive and can sometimes be an effective form of discipline, but also believe that it should usually be avoided. Some, for instance, use spanking only when a child does something dangerous and it is critical that an immediate, lasting impression must be made. Others point out that individual differences in temperament have a great effect on the way children respond to discipline, and criticize both extreme positions on spanking as taking a “one size fits all” approach. They argue that spanking may be the most effective form of discipline for some children, but that it should only be used on those particular children who respond well to spanking and do not respond to alternative methods of discipline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smacking
http://www.angryharry.com/esTheSmackingMyths.htm
July 31st, 2006 at 6:09 pm
a list for b.j.
1)we live in a culture of violence…(read the mountain of stats)
2) this culture is reinforced/enabled by section 59…
3) this violence is not just towards children…but also towards (mainly) women…
4)..children lsubjected/exposed to this behaviour earn that violence is the way you solve problems…and that might is right..
5)..and we could visit the physical/visceral/visual horrors inherent in adults hitting/smacking/slapping/caning/strapping/beating..small children…eh..?
that’s it really…end of story…eh..?
you are fecking well defending the indefensible ..b.j…
pack your tent…!
disclaimer….i have raised/raising two children…one now adult daughter..and one 11 year old son…
neither have been hit/slapped etc..ever…
my parents did not hit/slap etc me….and for this i thank them….
my son and i have discussed this hitting of children..and both shake our heads at the incomprehensibility of adults claiming they regularly hit/slap etc their children…out of love…!
how fecking twisted is that…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 31st, 2006 at 7:20 pm
phil u. Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 6:09 pm
a list for b.j.
1)we live in a culture of violence…(read the mountain of stats)
2) this culture is reinforced/enabled by section 59…
Define culture of violence; how is “minimal use of smacking” a culture of violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smacking
You need to read this Phil, especially the Advantages of Reading Harry.
http://www.angryharry.com/esTheSmackingMyths.htm
Harry
July 31st, 2006 at 7:44 pm
no thanks..i don’t need to read any half-arsed defence of something i know is inherently wrong..
what’s the ‘other side’ to see on that..?…condoning something i am bitterly opposed to..?
i don’t think so..eh..?…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 31st, 2006 at 9:46 pm
OK BJ Chip
1) No it doesn’t, the proposed new law has nothing to say about the behaviour of “most parents”, only those parents who could be prosecuted for abusive violence. S59 can only be used when you have been charged with abuse of a child, therefore repealing it only affects the same number of people.
2) Complete bollocks. It is exactly the same as any other law - guided and shaped by parliament, all laws are then left to the judgement of the police and courts. The police constantly make mistakes and prosecute the innocent or fail to proscecute the guilty, for ALL crimes.
3) Disagreements between party members are a sign of a healthy party.
4) Yeah OK, I’ll give you that one. Except that this is true of many of our policies. Which other GP policies will you also sacrifice because they are unpopular? If you continue along that line we will be another grey party indistinguable from the others.
The real public opinion problem of the Bill is that it has been misrepresented by opponents and the media as being a bill that bans smacking. It doesn’t. It just makes it easier to convict child abusers.
Henry, I completely agree with your wikipedia article - most people fall in-between the two camps (pro-smackers and anti-smackers) which is why the Stuff poll last week found…
Should smacking be banned? No - 85%
I wonder what the result would have been if the stuff question was:
“Should people charged with child abuse be allowed to get off if they say I was just using reasonable force to discipline my child?”
July 31st, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Well said phil u !
I totally agree.
Meanwhile bj, henry et al: “Hit”, “paddle” or “slap” your kids if you must. You are bigger than they are, and they will remember that.
You won’t be prosecuted as long as you don’t “lose control”, but don’t ask others on this blog to agree with what you do.
I’d be interested to know how you will feel when they, as adolescents tell you that “enough is enough”, or when, in their turn, they hit your grandchildren. (They may even turn around and hit you when you are old and dependent … some do!)
There are more effective ways of socialising children, and many very knowledgeable people who could give guidance in this area.
The cycle of “mght is right” CAN be broken … and looking at the state of the World at the moment, in our homes seems like an important place to start!
best wishes
eredwen
July 31st, 2006 at 10:11 pm
AND Well said Stuey !
August 1st, 2006 at 12:04 am
eredwen Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Meanwhile bj, henry et al: “Hit�, “paddle� or “slap� your kids if you must. You are bigger than they are, and they will remember that.
I do remember being smacked and it was entirely appropriate. I was only ever given a light smack; the point is that your side seems to believe all smacking is bad and that there is always a better way (every situation).
I was talking to someone today who was hit by a 4×2 “I was trying to get into the girl next door” He’s in his seventies. He added that the 4×2 was rotten and broke. He wasn’t bitter with his father (Pop must have been mad at him)
Henry
August 1st, 2006 at 12:54 am
Gee Phil
You really don’t seem to realize that what I have been defending has been:
1. The rule of LAW. Not the rule of Phil’s opinion. Not the rule of MY opinion. Not the rule of the opinion of the cop on the beat.
2. The legislative PROCESS. It is in the parliament that law is made. It is made after proper debate is heard and considered. That’s a GREEN process.
3. The right of parents to decide, within limits, how to raise their children, and…
4. The need of the society to have specific guidance as to WHAT THOSE LIMITS ARE.
I have pointed out repeatedly the difference between abandoning law in favour of a vacuum and abandoning bad law in favour of better and more specific law.
Your outburst is hardly without precedent. I have annoyed Eredwen as well, though she was far more polite. The key here though, is that there IS law being made by this effort, and it abrogates all 4 of those things I just listed.
Lest you forget, the highest correlation between beatings that constitute child abuse and anything else, is having step-parents. Not “was Momma or Poppa beaten as a kid”.
I won’t “pack my tent” and I won’t let BS trump logic in this any more than I will let BS trump logic with respect to warming.
BJ
August 1st, 2006 at 1:42 am
Stuey
Take away 59 and replace it with nothing and MOST parents, abusive or not, are technically guilty of assault.
There is a full stop at the end of that sentence. Whether the police decide to prosecute DOES NOT CHANGE THE LAW.
So the first item remains an issue.
As for the second, I am quite sure that giving the police specific laws to enforce will make them happier, will make the work of the courts easier, will make the societal prohibitions clearer. Far from being “bollocks” I would maintain that it is better “law” and would have QUITE adequately corrected the legal abuse of the section.
Repealing it based on emotional outbursts and criminalizing a lot of very good parenting (and you know and I know that this isn’t going to get changed once it is removed)…. that’s just plain wrong. It may work, the police are pretty damned good, but it has the potential in it for greater harm to the society. More accurate law would serve us better. More accurate and specific law is ALWAYS better if you are to have a “rule of law”.
The point in 4 has nothing to do with compromising “Green” principles in order to maintain our mindshare. It has to do with the fact that there was another alternative to simply ripping out section 59, and it would’ve made us reasonable in the eyes of the rest of the society AND it wouldn’t have compromised our principles to make specific law rather than making it ALL illegal and vaguely waving our hands in the direction of the police and saying “they’ll fix it” .
However, that would’ve missed an opportunity. Those folks who believe that ALL spankings are wrong (and we now know who a few of you are here) appear to be attempting a finesse, to get their view turned into law by stealth… not after honest debate or by an open political process. The more I look at this debate here and the specifics the more I am inclined to doubt the real motives of many of the people who are trying to yank 59 and leave nothing. I know what they SAY, but I observe what they DO.
As for 3 being the sign of a healthy party, I have my doubts given this observation.
respectfully
BJ
August 1st, 2006 at 6:36 am
bj ’sniffed’….”..Your outburst is hardly without precedent…”
by that bj..do you mean…that i have called you before on your evident propensities to engage in long/detailed/complex pin-head-dancing exercises…?
and gee bj..just pause for a moment..and wonder why we just can’t hit other people (adults) if and when we choose…?..(and ask yourself…is this an improvement..?..)
next quesrtion…why are you opposing another improvement in human relations..?
and bj…reflect that in their time..most of your arguments would have been used to defend such practices a schildren working in mines etc etc…..(’legal niceities’ and all..)
and then ‘think on’ a bit..eh..?
as i said..end of story…eh..?
(and it does amuse me how you ‘lift your skirts’ in shock/horror because you don’t think i am ‘polite enough..’..(is ‘feck’ too strong for you..?)
(btw..do you smack/slap/hit children in a ‘polite’ manner..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2006 at 6:59 am
Phil
My arguments have nothing to do with children working in mines. Since you are attempting to pass idiocy and gormless drivel as argument I see no particular reason why I should be constrained to be polite with you.
Why the hell don’t YOU think a bit, before you post such abysmal cr@p?
Have you thought your position clearly? You want the law to say. Don’t do bad things and let the police pick and choose who to prosecute for whatever “bad things” are in style now, or in 1984? How about when someone from the Brethren gets elected? Rule of LAW is what makes us civilized.
Since you are clearly incompetent to post anything without being both stupid and insulting … I have the virtual ignore button here….
BJ
August 1st, 2006 at 7:36 am
bj..i will say it slowly…
i am but an naieve idealist…i want our children not to be hit/slapped anymore…by anyone…
and repealing section 59 is..to me..an ‘easily do-able’.. ..
so that’s where i’m coming from…
that’s my take..pure and simple…bj..
why do you have such apparent difficulty undertanding that….?
and if you understand that simple statement…it must follow that your points/arguments are rendered irrelevant to me…eh..?
as i said..i couldn’t give a feck about your dancing around points of fecking law….
(you appear..bj.. to have raised ‘deck-chair-re-arranging’ to a fine art..eh..?)
and as for your ‘virtual ignore button’..bj…let’s hope i’m as successful at pushing that button of yours as i am at pushing all your other buttons..?..eh..?..bj..?…
“..idiocy..gormless..drivel..abysmal crap..incompetent..stupid..insulting..”
(phew..!..bj..breathe through your nose..eh..?..gobble some st johns’ wort/rescue remedy…or something..have a puff/smoke..chill…!
.you know you aren’t meant to get that excited..eh..?)
and in case you hadn’t noticed..bj..your patina of passive aggression cloaked in politeness is cracking..eh..?
come over to the dark side..bj..and join the ‘overts’…and speak your mind…
(but not just the above ad hominems..eh bj..?..they don’t really cut it..eh..?..)
and in a sporting analogy you will no doubt comprehend…bj..
consider yourself ’slam-dunked’…eh..?
(ooh..!….how’s that for a multiple-button-push….eh..bj…hello…bj..your face is turning red….bj…..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 4th, 2006 at 11:44 am
I know I’m joining the game a bit late, but a while back you gave us a list Phil, remeber that,
“1)we live in a culture of violence…(read the mountain of stats)
2) this culture is reinforced/enabled by section 59…
3) this violence is not just towards children…but also towards (mainly) women…
4)..children lsubjected/exposed to this behaviour earn that violence is the way you solve problems…and that might is right..
5)..and we could visit the physical/visceral/visual horrors inherent in adults hitting/smacking/slapping/caning/strapping/beating..small children…eh..?
…my son and i have discussed this hitting of children..and both shake our heads at the incomprehensibility of adults claiming they regularly hit/slap etc their children…out of love…!”
well there’s a couple of problems with your argument
1. Yes NZ has disgusting rates of child abuse and homicide. What I don’t get is the correlation with reasonable discipline? In the Ministry of Justice Survey done in 2001(the largest one done on NZ opinion on this matter) they found that, of the 80% in favour of reasonable force, the majority were of European descent-how does this correlate to the figures that show that the majority of cases of child abuse are in Maori or Pacific Island families? (No, i’m not racist, I’m just stating the figures).
2. If Section 59 encourages this (which I don’t see, but hey, I’m humoring you here), then surely defining what isn’t acceptable will help dispel any illusions people may have that smacking your child for 10-15 minutes is acceptable.
3. If removing a defense in law is going to be so effective at stopping abuse, then how come we still have spousal abuse? ( last time I checked, that was illegal)
4. If smacking causes violence in children, how come in a peer review of 18 seperate studies (no, not one isolated study, 18!) they found that in Sweden there has been a 672% increase in child against child assaults since smacking was banned? If you’re really worried abut stopping violence in youths and children, put you efforts into something that has conclusive evidence like TV & video games.
5. as for all the horror and psychological trauma smacking causes-I think my 4 year old summed it up best when she chose a smack over McDonalds!
This is the TRUE story from three days ago…
We were about to go out, and I had promise my kids that after we had run our errands we could get a happy meal for lunch. While we were out, my daughter tore a seam on her carseat because she was fiddling with a loose thread-I had seen her do it, but asked her anyway-did you do this? she said no. I explained to her that I’m sure whoever did it didn’t mean to, and we don’t get in trouble for things that are accidents, but she still said no, she didn’t do it. She lied about it twice more, even blaming her little brother. I finally explained to her that I had seen her do it in my rear view mirror, and I didn’t mind because it was an accident, but that lying was very wrong and because she had continued to lie about it, I was going to have to give her a smack as punishment, she of course said ‘ no, please don’t', so, feeling sorry for her I said, okay, you do have to punished for this because lying is a big deal, but if you want you can miss out on McDonalds instead-her choice, what did she want? SHE CHOSE TO HAVE A SMACK, RATHER THAN MISS OUT ON MCDONALDS! and it only took her a split second to make up ger mind. I’m sorry but I don’t see the deep psychological damage that was occuring here?
And guess what Phil? I talk about it with my 8 yr old son too (who, by the way, randomly comes up to me and says ‘you’re the best mum in the world’-as you can see our family is just one big boiling pot of resentment and anger). He understands that smacking is something I don’t enjoy doing or watching, but that it is necessary for his own good-just like immunisation shots, or putting tree tree oil on a cut (which by the way stings like hell), or making him stay at home as punishment instead of going out to the movies with a friend.
August 7th, 2006 at 10:50 am
There may be no connection with smacking but I’m sure that in many peoples minds the two issues are connected in so far as it reflects our attitude to punishment being a ‘no no’:
From the “Press”
Canterbury police’s acting youth
services manager, Graeme Crosson,
said offenders aged under 19 were
responsible for more than half of the
burglaries committed in Christ-
church each year.
“They have no conscience and no
fear of consequences. They have no
empathy at all,” he said. “The justice
system holds no fear for them. It’s
just a minor irritant.”
Crosson, the head of a team
dealing with Canterbury’s worst 30
youth offenders, said the heftiest
penalty that could be given to
burglars under 17 was a two-month
stay in a residential youth justice
facility, even if they were repeat
offenders.
“It’s not a problem for us getting
prosecutions, but what is frustrating
is the act (the law governing
penalties for young offenders) is
meaningless for high-volume, recidi-
vist offenders,” he said.
Crosson said most of Christ-
church’s young burglars were career
criminals from crime families.
Many of them got their introduc-
tion to burglary at a young age, such
as being helped through the window
of a home targeted for theft by an
older relative, he said.
The families of these young
criminals either helped them with
their crimes by storing and selling
stolen goods or knowingly sup-
ported their life of crime, Crosson
said.