by frog
So the extensive comments on our earlier posting The votes are in, and s59 is on the way out seems to have hit a technical limit. So for those of you who want to keep the debate going, here you are!
Published in Society & Culture by frog on Mon, March 19th, 2007
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
And here is the post from Zana that may have done the poor old camel in (too many comments on earlier post).
Hiya BJ, and thanks for your reply. These are very good points and they reinforce for me even more the reasons why I think the word “corrective� needs to go.
In my mind, the whole purpose of section one is covering behaviour and circumstances which I regard as “correctiveâ€? – that is, they are (by my interpretation) to correct/modify/stop the behaviour of the child in “real timeâ€?.
Unfortunately, as it has since been pointed out to me (thanks Dave), the word correction has an established legal meaning that is specific and does not line up with what my (and I assume many others) personal understanding of the word.
This is the thing that drives me absolutely batty about legalese – the lawyers have an elite language that means something to only them whilst appearing as complete gibberish or utterly ambiguous in plain spoken language that ordinary people use.
We’ve already managed to get insurance companies and financial institutions to sharpen up their act (somewhat) and start writing their contracts in much more layman friendly language that an ordinary person can understand, and I think it’s about time we started applying the same pressure to the elitist bunch of prats that call themselves the “legal profession�.
The way I understand the application of “time-out�, as promoted by TV shows like the Nanny, is that it is a real-time intervention and I argue that time-out should legitimately be acceptable under the terms of Section 1c “…for the purpose of preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour� and also Section 1a “…for the purpose of preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person�
Parents typically employ the time-out method as a way of intervening when a child is being obscenely disruptive or stubbornly engaging in behaviour that might harm themself or others – and they are either too hysterical or too willful to be reasoned with verbally in the moment. I do not regard this employment of the time-out as “punishmentâ€?, but as “performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parentingâ€? in real-time.
But I also acknowledge that there are parents who might use the time-out method as a means of “punishment� rather than “real-time intervention�, and that is not only a misuse of the purpose of the technique, but would also count as unacceptable under the terms of Section Two.
I would also like to add here that this inappropriate use of the time-out method could quite rightfully be regarded as “psychological abuse by isolationâ€? – and thus account for the statistics that Dave cites in this Otago Uni study – which I haven’t had time to read as yet and subject to my own personal peer review – research papers on issues that require qualitative methodologies can be very very tricky and prone to missing a bunch of inter-related facts (due to poor questionnaire structuring that doesn’t allow subjects to contribute significant related data, or have it adequately collated in the raw data processing) such as the time-out method being MISused as I illustrated above.
bjchip Says: The standard of law I am used to is that it is better for the guilty to occasionally escape than for the innocent to be punished. That is perhaps, a difference in my background from the usage here.
That would be my ideal standard of law also BJ, and I think if you meander through the many inspired writings that our Nandor has formulated on legal issues and law reform, you will find that it is very high on the Greens list of legal concerns as well. I am sure the majority of us here would agree too, as gut-wrenching as it is at times to see cases like the recent police rape trials get off scot-free – even though we knew they are clearly guilty as hell.
So, don’t sweat it BJ, I think we are both on the same page as you on that point – as well as the same side of the Pacific Ocean. And if you’re anything like me, you probably feel just as passionate about plugging up loopholes in ALL laws (common, tax, environmental, etc etc) that allow lecherous lawyers to pervert the true intention of those laws and the protection they are supposed to provide….
Which brings us back full circle to this S59 appeal… and it’s primary purpose… which is to plug this particular loophole.
I think in the course of this discussion that we are coming closer to the middle ground which we all share – which is that we BOTH do not want abusers to get off on a loophole as much as we do NOT want good loving parents to be prosecuted on an ambiguity.
So, I am curious to hear if others agree with BJ and myself on this Section 2 flaw, and have any ideas as to how we could shape up the wording so that it achieves both these objectives? Are there others who agree that the word “corrective� needs to go and can suggest a word (or phrase) which is more definitive to replace it?
Cos I am waaaayyyyyy too tired to be thinking that creatively at the moment – after having so little sleep last night. Hehehe Dave, I hope you managed to catch a few more Z-Z-Z-Z’s than I did!
Cheers m’dears,
Zana
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Retrieving my off-topic-thread-hijacking-response from elsewhere
The word “retaliation� springs to mind Zana (your long post got e-mailed despite the blog limitations) … I think there may be better words and phrases to put in place here, but I would probably accept that one.
However, I would also consider seriously including the inverse of Borrows’ amendment words in the sense that any act using an implement, striking above the neck, leaving lasting bruises would not be automatically be covered by section 1.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They almost had me fooled but I am back on the anti side.
59 Parental control 5
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
“Corrective� in law means any action taken to deter future similar behaviour.
As this is not allowed under section 2 (which overrides all of section 1) it makes smacking illegal in most cases except when it is done to prevent something.
So if I bit my son to prevent him biting me (before he bit me) that would be ok
But if I bit him after he bit me that would be corrective and therefor illegal.
Same at the supermarket, I could smack his hand to prevent him pulling over the stack of cans, but if he had actually done it a corrective smack would be illegal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OnceBitten Says: They almost had me fooled but I am back on the anti side.
Come on OnceBitten, this is just a silly thing to say. This repeal is not trying to “fool” or “trick” anybody here, so please try and dispense with the conspiratorial stuff and read my post again.
I believe we are on the same page as regards to the word “corrective” in section 2, except that my opinion is that they have foolishly used a word that is ambiguous and misleading as it is used in this particular instance.
It would be common sense to all good parents reading section 1 that these kinds of parenting techniques are corrective as well as preventative – because the whole point of good parenting is to intervene with our kids in a way that also “teaches” them that this is not a behaviour we want them to repeat in future.
The people who used the word “corrective” here seem to have overlooked that fact that in the minds of good parents, all the parenting they do is to either reinforce good behaviour or to redirect and modify bad behaviour – and it makes logical sense that the later is “corrective” in the “curative” sense rather than the “punitive” sense.
Whoever dropped that word into the bill should have bothered to check the thesaurus – which cites both “curative” AND “punitive” as synonyms of the word “corrective” – the former being a good positive word in the context of parenting and the later having cruel negative connotations in the context of parenting.
So I said it before (and for those who missed it) I say it again…. the word “corrective” needs to GO.
And it looks like we both agree on that point OnceBitten, so instead of wallowing in the victim approach that Sue is just trying to hogtie the good parent of NZ with this bill, let’s get pro-active together and put some “corrective” input into the rewording of this bill at it’s next reading – this is what’s called “participatory democracy” and is one of the core principles of the Greens.
So now we have a fresh new page (thanks to the Frogster), I propose that we embark on a fresh new approach to this topic and cogitate together on ideas for refining the wording of this thing which can be presented at the next select committee hearing.
What can we replace the word “corrective” with that does not negate the positive corrective/curative/preventative/protective intent of section one and also makes a clear statement that force used for cruel intentions is not OK?
BJ has already started the ball rolling on this by suggesting the word “retaliation”. So please go and grab your thesaurus OnceBitten and get creative with us to find a more appropriate word.
Cheers,
Zana
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OnceBitten – Read again what zANavAShi is saying about “corrective” in his post and see if you can suggest something better in terms of wording.
This forum isn’t an official input but it IS collaberative if we can find ourselves any common ground at all… and I do believe there is some for some of us.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS: And a very big thanks to the Frogster for starting up a fresh topic where we can continue this conversation – that was a good scheme jelly bean!
See OnceBitten! the Greens are all about creative solutions for win-win outcomes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hiya BJ! (((((waves))))
I meant to add before that I enjoyed your second “inverse of Borrows’ comment and it has the seeds of a very good idea.
I haven’t had much time to mull it over yet, and I haven’t had a chance to lay my hands on a copy of the suggested Borrows amendments either – which as I understand, was worded in a way that looks like we are encouraging physical methods of parenting rather than promoting creative intelligent parenting strategies that do not require physical force.
I’d enjoy seeing more discussion from others on how we could practically implement that idea into the bill – cos let’s face it peeps, for all the good parents out there, I expect there are just as many who mindlessly repeat the same old tired parochial parenting that was passed down to them from previous generations and might not have as good of a sense of how much force is reasonable force as they think.
Cheers,
Z
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My last post was a rebuttal and update on my personal view from my last post on Friday.
It was not meant to be taken as a direct reply to Zanas post.
It also was cut and pastes mainly from other posts on the last page which I considered personally relevant and thought might be helpful in bringing new readers up to speed without reading the last page.
I apologise if this was upsetting to anyone.
I notice there were no objections to the actual content of my post.
I will be searching my thesaurus as we are possibly on the same page here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zana
I am not restricting myself to whatever the heck it was that Borrows says.
Section 4:
Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as permitting striking a child with any implement other than an open hand, striking a child above the neck or striking, shaking or handling a child roughly enough to cause lasting bruises and/or internal injuries.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. I’d suggest a real lawyer turn that into real legalese and anyone with additions in mind should speak up, cause the nature of this is that it has to be as thorough as possible (Did Borrows even consider shaking, handling and mishandling? Abuse is not always a matter of “striking”).
Good on you OnceBitten…
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The point is that if Bradford and the Prime Minister can’t clearly articulate if and when smacking is permitted, and the lawyers can’t agree, then the law, as drafted, is rubbish.
Don’t criminalise good parents, else the only thing “on it’s way out” will be Labour Party, followed closely by the Greens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ouch, Zana! And BJ, for that matter. Us lawyers aren’t that bad, really! At law school these days they teach “Plain English Drafting” – that is, to say what we need to say in as few words and as plainly as possible. Still, to ensure clarity in the law certain words always have certain meanings, and other words are defined in the interpretation section of Acts.
While I don’t feel knowledgeable enough on the new s59 to weigh in on the debate, it’s a shame that while almost everyone seems to agree on the intention of the amendment, they just can’t agree on the execution of it! I will read up a bit more and get back to you.
Really I don’t think there was anything wrong with the original section -it’s just the judges who have made a right mess of things with their interpretation of “reasonable force”. (so don’t blame it on the lawyers! We just argue our best and trust the judges to get it right, just like everyone else does)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Geez Peter if they were to do that they couldn’t retract it later
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am now wondering if “reasonable forceâ€? was the sticking point before, is ” if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances ” is any better?
or am I just being un-reasonable?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
zANavAShi Said:
… I haven’t had a chance to lay my hands on a copy of the suggested Borrows amendments either – which as I understand, was worded in a way that looks like we are encouraging physical methods of parenting…
The Borrows amendment adds the term “correction” (i.e. punishment) to the list of purposes for which force that is reasonable in the circumstances can be used.
It then provides that force that amounts to conduct prohibited by an enactment that creates a criminal offence other than assault on a child, or by a male on a female, or common assault is prohibited, along with force that causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory and trifling; or any weapon, tool, or other implement is used; or it is inflicted by any means that is cruel, degrading, or terrifying. The full wording is here.
It has several serious difficultes:
1) It anticipates that the parent will be able to anticipate the degree of force that will cause harm that is more than transitory or trifling. Many parents will not, but will be subject to criminal liability on the basis of the effect of the use of force, rather than their intent. The parent who didn’t intend to bruise, but inadvertently did so, would be criminally liable.
2) The prohibition on infliction of force by a means that is terrifying is subjective. What is transitory and trifling to one child may be terrifying to another.
3) The amendment effectively prescribes a level of violence against children that is “okay” if the purpose is punishment. This sends the wrong message.
4) Some actions that would be permitted under the Bill as reported by Select Committee would be prohibited under the Borrows amendment. For example, the infliction of a moderate injury through, say a rugby-style tackle, should be justified if the child is in danger of more serious injury as a result of its actions. The Borrows amendment would make this illegal, as the injury inflicted is more than transitory and trifling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Once Bitten said: I am now wondering if “reasonable force� was the sticking point before, is � if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances � is any better?
The difference is that the reasonableness will, under the Bill as reported by Select Committee, be determined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the force is applied. As I have said above, force that causes injury that is more than transitory and trifling (whatever those terms mean, which is another problem with the Borrows amendment) may be reasonable in circumstances where more serious injury to the child or someone else resulting from the child’s actions is a possibility.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ok that makes sense we can rugby tackle our kids if they make a dash for the road, but cannot smack their hand if they made it to the other side.
Reminds me of a chicken joke.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sarah
Don’t reckon lawyers here are quite as bad as they are in the states… different arrangements entirely… but I do have a long standing objection to lawyers becoming lawmakers (as happened in the US, most legislators there are indeed in/from the legal profession).
I’ve always regarded lawyers as “hired guns” and in an adversarial legal system, they HAVE to be in some degree “amoral” in that they accept a case to win. I do not blame the lawyer for thinking up the arguments that sent s59 from “reasonable” to reasonably meaningless. The Judge and Jury as you point out, have much more to answer for in that. The lawyer succeeded, and was probably a bit surprised, but it was his/her job to make every possible effort to get his/her client acquitted.
This is why I prefer explicit law, law that addresses actions rather than law about “intent” or “reasonable” interpretations by the police or the judge.
It is also why I am not bashful about WANTING a lawyer to work over the a piece of legislation to ensure that it does what we expect it to do legally. All well and good for us to want the law to work a certain way, but only legal training and experience can give any hope that it actually will work that way.
If you want to actually have rule of law, the law has to contain actual rules.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK Admin time to front up.
Does Sues bill mean we are able to use reasonable force in preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence.
But NOT as a punishment for the same.
As Toad stated “The amendment(Burrows) effectively prescribes a level of violence against children that is “okayâ€? if the purpose is punishment. This sends the wrong message.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Seems only the hardcore is left on this one.
I’ve been surprised at the sources of support for Sue’s bill, not least Bernard (?) Hickey of the Independednt Financial Review on Agenda on Saturday morning who was very strong in his support of the Re[peal of S59. More surprising to me was the views of Deborah Coddington (that’s right, ex-ACT MP) who says:
“Since 1999, when I wrote a feature on the death of 4-year-old James Whakaruru, I have advocated repealing Section 59. Research involved interviewing James’ whanau, where smacks were every-day – nay, every-hour – “discipline” for their kids. Mum’s busy; smack over the head. Dad’s hungover; smack around the ear. Stop grizzling; smack around the bum. Smack, smack, smack. That’s often the only touching many New Zealand children receive from those they look to for love and affection.
The only way to change these people’s attitudes is to change the law, and anyone who doesn’t agree should be consistent and oppose laws against speeding, seatbelt wearing, smoking.
Beatings, such as the one which killed James, started with smacks.”
and:
“Now the Act party argues that good caring parents will be criminals for administering a loving smack. In what way is a smack loving? Isn’t that what abusive husbands tell their wives, and why abused wives stay? He did it because he loves me? And why doesn’t Act advocate the abolition of speed limits because good drivers are turned into criminals every time they do 53 or 105km/h?”
and, finally:
“Some years ago, marriage used to be a defence against rape. I wonder what today’s politicians would say if we were changing that law today? Amendments defining the type of force husbands could use? Maybe when the wife deliberately refused him his conjugal rights? If she hit him? If she dented his car?
A stupid comparison you say? Tell that to those who argue the Government shouldn’t regulate what happens in the home. If persons in the home are being hurt then the state must step in to protect them.”
As Bernard Hickey said on Agenda – he thinks it’s good for New Zealand that we as a society are having this discussion.
For the full text of Deborah’s article:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10429339
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good post Kiwinuke, very interesting insights.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bittern :
Does Sues bill mean we are able to use reasonable force in preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence.
But NOT as a punishment for the same.
That’s the intent, it seems to me. It’s certainly what I want it to mean!
For example :
1) a mother bites her toddler, having just been painfully bitten, not for the first time, to put an end to that intolerable behaviour (the biter bit, as the proverb says) : THIS IS OK UNDER THE INTENT OF SUE’S BILL!
2) a mother bites her toddler, to punish the child for throwing their food on the floor. THIS IS NOT OK UNDER THE INTENT OF SUE’S BILL!
Now, if the lawyers think that a cop might charge mother number one, or that a magistrate might consider convicting her, under Sue’s bill, then we’ve got a problem and the wording has to be tightened up.
Likewise, if mother number two might be immune from prosecution under Sue’s bill, we also have a problem with the wording.
I suspect that you would agree with me in both cases, or am I presuming too far?
But I don’t speak lawyer, so I have no idea if there’s a problem with the wording or not!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
alistair
I also do not speak lawyer, hell just do what everybody else does who supports this bill…tell lies..the BIGGER the lie the better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If Debrah Coddington thinks repeal is the answer it must be a good idea “cause she’s an ex ACT MP!. We should follow the great minds in the community.
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The fact that this issue sparked up so much debate is ridiculous, really.
Children are the ONLY case where an assault can be defended on grounds of reasonable force. Assault against children is in no way more justified than against anyone else, so either we should repeal the section that allows reasonable force or we should apply it to everyone else.
Seeing leaving the section in place inspires juries to allow people to hit their children with sections of piping, I think repealing it is the right idea. We should be able to prosecute parents who do legitimately abuse their children, and police are smart enough to know when to use their discretion.
I also agree that “corrective” needs to be clarified to say “punitive”. Preventing further misbehaviour is good, punishing for misbehaviour happening at all is bad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kiwinuke, if James Whakaruru’s parents didn’t take any notice of the laws on serious assault, grevous bodily harm, and murder, do you really think they are going to go “oohh – we’d better not brake the anti-smaking law or we’ll get in trouble”?
This is not going to stop any parent who seriously beats their children.
Sue Bradford not only admits this, but says that it was “NEVER INTENDED” to stop these people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A “corrective” smack as a deterrent is the only thing that stopped my small boy continually trying to go onto the road, after everything else failed.
This would be criminal under the Bradford bill.
Do those that support the bill seriously suggest I should have kept perservering with corrections that failed (time out, loss of privaleges etc) ?
Do they really think it would be best to risk my child’s life to save him from the one single light smack that stopped this behaviour?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve been thinking about Deborah Coddington’s article:
Research involved interviewing James’ whanau, where smacks were every-day – nay, every-hour – “discipline” for their kids. Mum’s busy; smack over the head. Dad’s hungover; smack around the ear. Stop grizzling; smack around the bum. Smack, smack, smack. That’s often the only touching many New Zealand children receive from those they look to for love and affection.
And
Beatings, such as the one which killed James, started with smacks.
Conclusion:
The only way to change these people’s attitudes is to change the law
Except that smacking wasn’t the only element in the mix; otherwise we would all end up mutilating our children [the smoking pot leads to hard drugs or slippery slope, argument]
She advocates intervetion, but not just the Whakaruru “whanau” (amoral scumbags) , but for the whole of society.
Intervening in the Whakaruru “whanau” would be would be counter to our human rights (culture?) where no one is seen as scumbags but as “clients” of cyfs, and people are victims [refer SueB comments on the Kahui case:
http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.greens.org.nz%2Findex.php%2F2006%2F09%2F06%2Fsue-b-on-poverty-2%2F&ei=g73-Ra-BOL3GiwHY76irDA&usg=__OiQhpg0e_4-dJa45GuYzvU26Rhg=&sig2=pzgrgU5m_bj4lp69gIl6bA
These people have a bad culture generally, they are the amoral, surounded by the amoral, nutured by a state system that views them with rose coloured spectacles.
and anyone who doesn’t agree should be consistent and oppose laws against speeding, seatbelt wearing, smoking.
Except that occasional smacking isn’t speeding, rather tootling along at 20 -30 km/hr. The other two examples also fall over with a bit of thought.
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
O/t Frog:
Just watching BBC, a lovely girl having to work as an indentured servant for free in India (I think), a few years ago (or generations ago) rich people managed to force them of their land. The same is taking place in China now and here (essentially) as the government forces us to compete with rich foriegners, and the economic chaos of rising house prices has allowed some people to get filthy rich for doing nix — All under the riegn of our air-brushed Queen Helen “ I’m the most popular prime minister ever!
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It would seem that everyone IS now pretty much on the same page here (there never was any disagreement that s59 as written had to go).
Most of us seem to now agree there ought to be some further refinement of the wording of the amendment to bring the punitive/retaliative functions out of the realm of the permitted but NOT put good parents at risk of prosecution.
I don’t know how much of this is wishful thinking on my part but at least the misrepresentation of those of us who have favoured changes in the proposed change seems to be diminished.
I thought a bit about the strategic advantage in adding that “inverse of Borrows’ amendment” wording and I believe that it would add significantly to the power and acceptance of the bill.
59 Parental control 5
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of retaliation.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) justifies (a) striking a child with any implement other than an open hand (b)striking a child above the neck or (c)striking, shaking or handling a child roughly enough to cause lasting bruises and/or internal injuries. An exception to (c) exists where no other action is possible to save the child from worse injury or death.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) prevail over subsection (1).
The questions are not however, whether this diversely constituted and loosely organized mob will accept it
A. Legally does it do what we THINK it will do
B. Is it capable of being accepted by the hard core.
We aren’t officially anything, though given our overall makeup, if we CAN manage to agree on something the event is worthy of notice.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great effort BJ but I am still unsure of subsection 2
Biting a child back is still retaliation no?
or smacking a hand after it pulled over that stack of cans is also?
Could you spell out the intended objective of this subsection in simple terms for me, affraid I may be missing the point altogether here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ari,
But it isn’t “assault”.
You can’t put an adult in time out, or “physically remove them from the situation”.
Are you arguing that a parent shouldn’t be able to do these thinks either, on the basis that it would be unacceptable to do to an adult?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
typo…things…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yep its very well comparing smacking a child to assault on an adult, but when adults break societies rules we get punished by the legal system.
As minors are immune from prosecution for obvious reasons, it is up to the parents to meter out the appropriate punishment. I am not avocating recurrent physical abuse but a consequence for negitive or self endangering behaviour.
http://www.acestudy.org/docs/GoldintoLead
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip Says:
March 20th, 2007 at 7:16 am
It would seem that everyone IS now pretty much on the same page here (there never was any disagreement that s59 as written had to go).
_________________________
My sympathies lie with the 20,000 or more children – on Police estimates – in family violence situations, and not with the imagined consequences of my Bill upon parental rights, “ Ms Bradford says. .
I agree with Lindsay Mitchell > Red Herring. There are only a handfull of cases, where people got of in cases where children have been severely beaten (Sue B’s words)…… Myth, Myth,..Myth and Myth…..
Bigfoot anyone????
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
20,000 families out of how many I wonder????. What other issues do these families have??? drug and alchohol abuse? insufficient commitment to providing a loving and stable environment for children (just wanna get on the DPB?), state sponsored feral societies?.
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why did the children cross the road?
Because once they reached the other side it was illegal to punish them.
It must be possible to write a law stating what is an appropriate physical punishment and under what circumstances it should be applied.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PeterExitLeft says
You can’t put an adult in time out, or “physically remove them from the situation�.
Actually you can, not just in prison, but in sport and in the workplace. In ice hockey there is the “sin bin”, and in soccer the “red card” is a kind of extended time out. Workplaces can also fine defaulters, and initiate dsicplinary procedures which can result in suspension (a kind of time out) or dismissal.
To go further, a publican or shopkeeper can order an adult from the premises if they are intoxicated or having a tantrum.
What sporting bodies, refereees, employers, publicans and even the state corrections system are not allowed to do is thrash defaulters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not only can a publican order an adult from the premises but if they refuse to go he can remove them using reasonable force as they are trespassing
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore1
Do you have children?
My daughter usually does what she is told. She has never, to my knowledge, been smacked. My son, however, can be disobedient.
He had one episode where he awoke at night, and tried to open the window. We got up, put him back to bed, telling him not to. He repeated the behavior. Five times. Finally, after a warning, my wife gave him a gentle slap, followed by tears, followed by a hug, then put him back to bed.
He hasn’t done it since.
Smacking worked. No one was “thrashed”.
So, who wants to criminalise my wife?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL
“So, who wants to criminalise my wife?”
Sue Bradford and Helen Klark
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OnceBitten – I am not even sure of the status of biting. If it stops a behavior that is causing injury it might be construed as covered by section one, and not retaliative, and where did the child get bitten in return??? If you are unhappy SUGGEST something that may fix.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The problem with section one is “preventing” also, ie pre-event or before the fact. So any action after the fact could be “correction” or “retaliation”.
Rewriting this Bill is a job for lawyers and above my ability.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And above the ability who ever worded it in the first place!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peterexitsleft – I had a very similar suituation with my boy. A light smack worked like magic when non-physical punishments failed repeatedly.
This bill is supported by a fanatical theoretical idealogy.
But not a single person who supports the bill – not one – has come up with any proof that a light smack is worse then their suggested alternatives.
In fact the only research I’ve seen that separates out different punishments says that those corrected witha light smack are LESS traumatises, LESS violent, and get in LESS trouble with the law than those who get non=physical punishment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oncebitten “And above the ability who ever worded it in the first place!”
And also above the countrys top lawyers – they can’t agree on what it means.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But we should have faith, let it become law and then allow the sensible police to make judgement calls.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Most trusted professions – 4.Mothers, 8.Fathers, 9.Teachers, 10.Judges, 11.Police officers, 12.Childcare providers, 21.Lawyers, 27.Real estate agents, 29.Car salesmen, 30.Politicians
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SouthernDave
Indeed.
What I find most irritating is that I’m not telling them how to raise and protect their kids, but they insist on telling me how to raise and protect mine.
Perhaps they’d like to assume responsibility for my kids, too? And if my kids come to harm, which one of them will stand up and answer for it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have received some pretty sick but funny pixs and ppts suggesting alternatives to smacking. If you would like copies email me paulandkaren@clear.net.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PeterExitsLeft “What I find most irritating is that I’m not telling them how to raise and protect their kids, but they insist on telling me how to raise and protect mine.”
What’s more, it looks like their methods are not only more traumatic for children, but their children are slightly more likely to be violent and in trouble with the law.
Let’s face it. Making smacking a criminal offense isn’t about what’s best for the children – it’s about making a small number of parents feel better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I support the bill because I think that using force against other people is wrong. My support is not concerned whether they are “your” children or Doris Blogg’s children next door. Self defence is another issue that is covered by other laws so it is not even relevant to the s59 debate.
I would like someone to supply some evidence supporting why children need a bit of biffo to get them to behave, rather than suggesting that the onus is on s59 supporters to provide evidence to the contrary.
I have no doubt that most people love their children whether they smack them or not. What I have not yet seen from any of you are arguments supporting why the valid use of force should rely on an arbitrary distinction between children and adults.
Go figure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why is it that proponents of the bill never use the terms smack or light smack?. When talking about smacking, almost without fail they will replace smack with something completelydifferent that is far worse, like biffo, bashing, beating, hitting, violence etc.
The major problem with this whole issue is those people who can’t tell the difference between a light smack and biffo, bashing, beating etc.
Is it a good idea to deliberately try to confuse this further
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SouthernDave Says: The major problem with this whole issue is those people who can’t tell the difference between a light smack and biffo, bashing, beating etc.
Exactly! Which is why I use your exact same argument in defence of the bill.
Oh the irony!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whenever I see the term “light smack” it always makes me think of heroin, for some reason.
“There’s nothing wrong with light smack. It’s good clean fun. Not like that nasty dangerous crack stuff.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stu Donovan Says:”I support the bill because I think that using force against other people is wrong.”
Does this sweeping statement include rugby? using reasonable force by a publican to remove a drunken patron? reasonable force by police in arrests? and using reasonable force to drag a kicking, screaming child from across the otherside of the road?
“I would like someone to supply some evidence supporting why children need” a light smack “to get them to behave”
Read above there are plenty of examples eg to stop them biting, stopping them climbing out windows and crossing roads, where other non-physical methods have failed. And come on now be sensible, Biffo is abuse.
“rather than suggesting that the onus is on s59 supporters to provide evidence to the contrary.”
Because there is no evidence to the contrary, you support the new bill you defend it.
“What I have not yet seen from any of you are arguments supporting why the valid use of force should rely on an arbitrary distinction between children and adults.”
Because adults have already been taught our lessons. When adults break societies rules we get punished by the legal system. As minors are immune from prosecution for obvious reasons, it is up to the parents to meter out the appropriate punishment. I am not advocating recurrent physical abuse but a consequence for negative or self endangering behaviour
The major problem with this whole issue is those people who can’t tell the difference between a light smack and biffo, bashing, beating etc. so It needs to be spelt out in a rewritten bill for ALL to see and understand.
And alistair Hugs not Drugs if I catch my son with any he will get a smack across his crack.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Most people find that light smacking doesn’t lead to the hard Stuff:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/view-poll-results.html?section_id=6009&poll_id=14588&option_id=22575
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m off to the supermarket to buy some light snacks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>I would like someone to supply some evidence supporting why children >>need a bit of biffo to get them to behave
I would like someone to supply some evidence supporting why children need a bit of incarceration against their will in oder to get them to behave
Stop the emotive nonsense and I’ll take you seriously
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Once Bitten
“I’m off to the supermarket to buy some ‘light snacks’.”
should that read ‘light smacks’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(1)(c) “preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour” seems to cover much of this The problem with section one is “preventingâ€? also, ie pre-event or before the fact. So any action after the fact… objection??
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What does the law society say (at this point)????:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/organisation/story.cfm?o_id=500483&objectid=10391107
The society strongly favoured change, but a majority of members believed simply repealing the section without any kind of replacement would create a legal vacuum.
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stu
A long time ago in a thread far far away I am sure I pointed out that we are not fully logical entities when we are young. We are small animals learning how to survive in a very hostile universe. You remember when you were 3 years old? I don’t. I learned a lot of stuff, but I don’t remember any of the learning.
As animals we have benefitted over many millions and millions of years of evolution by having a mechanism for avoiding death which is based on pain. If it hurts, don’t do it. If you do something that hurts, remember what it was so as not to do it again. There is absolutely no way to argue that the tool is not powerful and it works on us from birth.
It is not at all trivial to toss such a powerful tool away yet in the socializing of young animals into fully human adults we can possibly and with a lot of societal support, manage to teach without using pain to enforce respect for our authority as parents or to obtain immediate compliance in the face of life threatening circumstances.
It is an admirable goal, painless childhood. It isn’t achievable in reality and the real world itself is far from a painless place to live.
However, pain IS a powerful tool and while it is not damaging when used excessively or exclusively there has to be protection against it being used by an angry parent in retaliation and it is QUITE damaging when it is misused.
Without that tool however there needs to be more knowledge, money and support for parents to make socialization of our young animals possible. There must be much more effort, time and money invested to get the same result. That isn’t any part of the proposed amendment or the discussion, and omitting it means that failures of child-rearing become far more likely.
Failing to get the socialization however gives a generation with little or no respect for the society they are in. Not a guaranteed result, the statistics are unclear but no nation as violent as NZ is has ever tried to go so far so fast as this bill is attempting to go. Whether an increase in juvenile crime is tolerable to the society is not clear either.
In theory then, we might succeed. Practically this is an unlikely outcome when we work as hard as we do for as little as we get.
The necessity of parenting classes in our colleges remains uncommented.
The necessity of providing far better support for parents who MUST be present and rested in order to cope patiently with children through love and repetition and guidance rather than a spank on the bottom is lost as well.
The problem of failing yet again to apply practical limit or any definition of what can and cannot be done remains in the wording of the new bill just as egregious a flaw as in the current bill.
So spanking gets a pass from me, but if the words of this amendment are tweaked to something just a tad less likely to see us all in courtrooms (the actual job of parliamentarians and lawyers, NOT police), it can work.
Nobody here argues that s59 should stay as is. We all want the abuse to stop. The manner in which this is done is important.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No Michelangelo that shouldn’t read ‘light smacks’? but I will share my trip to the supermarket with you.
most of the way around my boy was well behaved as we treat this time together as a learning experience naming the items that go in the trolley. Near the end he was restless and complaining which resulted in me carrying him and pushing the trolley full with our monthly shop. On the way home he deliberately poured his juice out over himself and the car, did he get a smack for this? No just a AH AH AH in a deep tone, followed by “we don’t do that” and me taking the juice off him.
You see I am not an extremist at either end of the scale, not an abuser nor a conscientious objector, but part of the 90% of middle New Zealand that will vote this Bill out of existence at the next election, unfortunately the RMA and Kyoto Protocol will become victims also of the preposterous piece of legislation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ta Once bitten
You are a patient and wonderful father – with a great sense of humour.
It seems that we all have a lot to vote for at the next election – has anyone told those in parliament yet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for taking the bait Michaelangelo I suspect you knew it was.
I am hoping someone does tell the politicians and they come to a decision that stops child abuse but doesn’t criminalise good parents. That would be worth celebrating and supporting come election time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see Comrade Sue has asked the govt to push this through the house under urgency, perhaps she is starting to worry that some members are wavering, or perhaps she is worried about the huge protest march organised for next week?
Either way I have changed my mind about this bill, I really hope that it is passed next week.
Initially I was disappointed at John Key’s silence on this matter but I now concede that he has pulled of a masterly political stroke, all he has to do now is wait for the Greens and the corrupt Labour govt to push this trough against the wishes of 80% of the population and next years election victory is assured.
Remember this post when the votes are counted after the next election, this piece of legislation (social engineering) will be the death of the Greens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Opponents of the bill will march on Parliament next Wednesday.
Ms Bradford yesterday said she was concerned some of them were being influenced by hysteria whipped up around the bill,
[by your posts BB]
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4001964a11.html
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh
Do you not see the irony in that statement from Bradford?..her of all people being worried about protesters being whipped up by hysteria..if it was not so serious it would be hilarious.
The arrogance of Comrade Bradford is breathtaking, she is quite happy to fly in the face f OVERWHELMING public opinion for no other reason than to score political points.
Make sure you remind her after the next election that she and she alone was responsible for the demise of the Green party.
I am genuine when I say that I do not want to see the end of the Green party, but in her case I will gladly dance on her political grave.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes it appears that labour will lose the election over this bill, and United Futes suport will go down as well at the next election. This could only mean a surge for the centre right – meaning NZ first and National – at the enxt election.
Labour is down the tubes – and it has its tubes tied by the Green party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh BB you are so full of it sometimes. I remember Sue well from back in the days when she worked her butt off at the Auckland Peoples Centre and I can tell you for a fact that she is not a person who would do anything for the sake of political points.
Try and use your common sense for a change why don’t you – it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that any person who was looking to score political points would hardly seek to do it by supporting such an unpopular bill, would they? If you want to score political points in NZ, all you have to do is chant “tax cuts” like your hero brash.
(hey don’t you think he bears a striking resemblance to Montgomery Burns off the Simpsons? Would it upset you if we started a website like http://www.bushorchimp.com with pics comparing your hero donny boy to old monty?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Last time a western govenment tried to push through something this unpopular was Maggie Thatchers politically suicidal poll tax – bye bye Maggie, bye bye Helen.
I have to agree with Big Bruv about Sue Bradford. She has become very duplcitous.
One day shes saying the police have culture of abuse and violence. The next she says they can be fully trusted to NOT arrest people for wehat she is going to make a criminal offense.
One day shes says the courts have got it completely wrong. The next shes says the courts can be trusted and they don’t get it wrong.
One days shes says her bill will not outlaw smaking. The next she says that if someone smacks their child in a supermarket they could very well find themsleves in court.
She simply changes her mind depending on what audience she has.
What other laws should we make to criminilise people but ask the police not to prosecute? This is antidemocraticv insanity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ENOUGH OF THIS BULL$HIT ALREADY!! I AM SICK TO DEATH OF HEARING YOUR CR@P ABOUT OUR CARING, HARD-WORKING GREEN PARTY MP’S!!!!
It is one thing to trash somebody from another blog, website or political party here, but it is beyond the realms of common decency and good manners to come to another persons home and trash them there.
You wouldn’t visit somebody’s home in the real world for the purpose of trashing them and insinuating that they are a liar or a fraud and you have no business behaving that way towards the members here and the representatives that we support who are ALSO members here.
If you want to conduct a civil discussion about the ISSUES that a Green member supports then by all means feel free to do so but will you all just kindly F%@# OFF with the character assassinations and go spew your vomit somewhere else where the members enjoy revelling in such excrement.
The Greens are the only political party in New Zealand who make their elected members available on line like this for us to talk to and if you cannot recognise this for the privilege that it is then I wish you would just LEAVE and let the rest of us get on with it in peace.
GROW UP AND GROW A SET OF MANNERS FOR F$#@ SAKES!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ :
It is an admirable goal, painless childhood. It isn’t achievable in reality and the real world itself is far from a painless place to live.
I disagree that it’s an admirable goal. I feel very strongly that children should not be packed in cotton wool. They need to make mistakes, fall over and hurt themselves, learn their limits and the consequences of doing stupid stuff.
I have always given my kids plenty of opportunities to bump into obstacles and get hurt. This makes them wiser and stronger. I barely even needed to warn them of the greater, life-threatening dangers : they measure them instinctively. They are adventurous, but behave safely.
What then DON’T need is violence from adults to warn them of dangers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zana “but it is beyond the realms of common decency and good manners to come to another persons home and trash them there.”
What about going into peoples homes and telling them the way they bring up their children is criminal.
Sue Bradford wants to make me a criminal – not just say I;m one, but actually make me one under law, along with nearly a million other caring Kiwi parents.
And you talk of common decency – her extreme arrogance disgusts me.
It’s amazing how upset you are (perhaps you should read you own advice about being decent).
All I did was point out how Sue continually makes a statement that so often contradicts one she made previously.
Are you angry at me pointing this out, or angry because she said it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
alistair “They are adventurous, but behave safely. What then DON’T need is violence from adults to warn them of dangers. ”
So what would you do if they were adventurous, and DIDN’T behave safely? In fact what if they behaved in ways that were outright life threatening, and nothing you tried stopped that behaviour?
Would you just keep on risking their lives while your correction methods failed?
Or would you try a light smack if it could mean the difference of them living or dieing?
My kids are very adventurous too, and it’s quite possible that on any given day there could be a dozen times where they’ll hurt themselves more painfully than a light smack.
Do you understand why I find the anti smacking attitude extreme, when something as minor as the thirtenth most painful thing on a given day can save a life when all other methods fail.
But you think this is so evil that I should be made a criminal for it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Or would you try a light smack if it could mean the difference of them living or dieing?
Well of course I would. But I’ve never found it necessary or useful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
All the action always happens when I’m off line. I see a protest is happening next weds thanks for the heads up, My son and I will make the long trip to our capital to join in. This will be the first protest I have been to in my 20 years of being a voter. Now to be fair to Sue although she is a commie this has nothing to do with her stance, remember Stalin he murdered heaps of children. She is also not lying, her bill will not outlaw smacking if it is done to prevent negative behaviour, though if someone smacks their child in a supermarket they could very well find themselves in court only if the smack was a consequence of their negative behaviour (ie after the fact). Remember she raised two girls without having to smack them and ass.u.me that every child is like hers. Is it really her fault that her bill has more holes than a piece of swiss cheese pumped full of birdshot? Abusers still will get away with it, “I did that to prevent them…” and ordinary parents will find themselves in court, “I did that as a negative consequence of their actions”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Southern Dave
Very well said.
Zana
Grow up, one of the things you need to learn about life is that if you dish it out then you have to be able to take it.
Bradford is a proven liar and despite your emotional rant she is in this for nothing other than cheap political points and a desire to implement state control.
It is well known that one of the goals of hard line socialism is the destruction of the family unit, this outrageous bill is evidence of that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
UNICEF have been actively pushing the section 59 argument that children should be treated like adults, that is, there should be no defence of reasonable force. Now this guy comes along and says children should not be treated like adults. D minus for consistency.
http://www.lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/
Interesting twist.
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And why are the Greens supporting a private members bill under urgency!?!
tinyurl.com/ysyn4b
You’ve seriously lost the plot. This is going to inflame voters even more than they are already.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
zANavAShi – Ad hominem abusive, I believe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL
“PeterExitsLeft Says:
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 am
And why are the Greens supporting a private members bill under urgency!?!
tinyurl.com/ysyn4b
You’ve seriously lost the plot. This is going to inflame voters even more than they are already”
And that is exactly why I want this bill pushed through the house.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Heh heh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What then DON’T need is violence from adults to warn them of dangers.
A spanking is a very small pain compared to a 3rd degree burn, being bitten by a poisonous snake, assaulted by some stranger or drowned. Teaching using a small pain to avoid a much larger one is and always has been part of our socialization and learning process. Since you know childhood isn’t painless and we both agree it probably should not be, the question then becomes whether parents should be permitted to use this tool to try to teach their children and socialize them.
I shudder to think about making laws about WHY something is done. It is automatically a dogs-breakfast of a problem because the state of mind of the person doing whatever-it-is, is not observable and cannot ever be introduced in evidence. Only the external actions and demeanor can be assessed, and this is fraught with difficulty.
That is only ONE aspect of this law (or any that replace it) which I am concerned about. Applies to Sue’s version and the version I posted earlier… I prefer to have law that is clear and related to observable acts, rather than intentions. Probably you have little or no trouble with this specific preference. It goes to the issue of “correction” vs “punishment” vs “retaliation” which has been brushed against but is critical to the wording of Sue’s version and my derived version.
My preference is to define the actions that cannot be taken, the singular exception to the prohibition, and leave it at that, leaving motivations out of it. In service of this the wording would become something like:
59 Parental control 5
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies (a) striking a child with any implement other than an open hand (b) striking a child above the neck or (c) striking, shaking or handling a child roughly enough to cause lasting bruises and/or internal injuries. An exception to this clause exists only where no other action is possible to save the child from worse injury or death.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
…………..
I am at some odds with myself because I WANT to prohibit “retaliation” by parents, but that conflicts with my desire to have the LAW be clear as crystal and easy to enforce. Bad parenting will continue to exist until we manage to put “parenting” into the school curriculum and learn that respect is not earned by recursive retaliation.
Could take a generation.
So we are denying this powerful tool to the parents, but we cannot and will not prevent accident and painful injuries. The child must learn to avoid them and avoid the dangers, the child must learn to follow rules of behaviour so as not to endanger either the child or others. All this learning can POSSIBLY be done without any spanking… but it is the quickest and most potent tool there is.
The question becomes, why are we denying this tool to our parents? The child WILL feel some pain in childhood. We’ve restricted the administration to parents specifically IMHO because the children’s behaviour is their responsibility. Why will we deny parents the ability to enforce their authority?
Saying this is about “violence” is all well and good, but the problem is oversimplified by such a measure. Spankings are not the sort of violence that damages kids, and we know that as well as we know that there’s an element in our society that is quite happy to damage our kids for us. This isn’t a conflict… it is raising a child.
I say that we Greens have gone a bit too far here and the observation made that Key is playing for a strategic win that annihilates us by letting us have a bit of rope is as like as not, truth.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hope to see you all at parliment on weds. If I lived on the Chattams I would still make the effort. My son will be the one ripping around on his eco-friendly electric quad bike.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Details of March on Parliament.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00226.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well said zANavAShi !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen, shouldn’t you at least pretend to be consistent?
“so PLEASE treat people on this blog with respect.”
tinyurl.com/2hdssc
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I vacillated a lot on this bill. I was for it, then I was against it, now I’m for it. The rhetoric on the right is pretty heated, and the many changes the bill has undergone have been confusing. Also, I keep wondering, why this bill? Why stake the Greens’ reputation on something that, while bold, is not the reason people like me vote Green?
(I’ve just heard a podcast of Sue on Morning Report. She sounded calm and reasonable and made a lot of good points. Nice to see she’s ratcheted things back a bit after some testy exchanges a couple of weeks ago.)
Anyway, what swayed me to support the bill again is the demagoguing of opponents of the bill. That parents will find themselves in the lock-up? That they’ll be criminalised nationwide? Please.
Also: major children’s orgs like Plunkett, CCF, and Save The Children are on board, and that’s good enough for me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
zANavAShi and eredwen by the same token you must have been happy with my post http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/03/19/let-the-s59-debate-continue/#comment-25235
Freedom of speech/protest for those who agree with 99.9% of the Greens policies?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Plum
The problem with the bill is not that the intentions are so bad. The intentions are good enough and there is a lot to like in the bill, but there are some legal definitions for “correction” which appear to gainsay Sue’s intent and there are real problems with leaving definitions up to the police and courts rather than spelling them out.
We’ve dug ourselves into a hole and being in it, we seem intent to dig ourselves out of it. This is not something that makes me proud to be Green.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>That parents will find themselves in the lock-up? That they’ll be >>criminalised nationwide? Please.
Yes. If you make something against the law, you criminalise it. That is the point of making something illegal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DPF has it right I think… the effort now is to get it behind us as fast as possible, cross our fingers that no good parents wind up in court before the next election and hope the public forgets. I don’t like our chances.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hello b.j/cassandra…
still spreading your gloom/doom i see…
a commenter over at farrars’ summed this whole debate up in a very tidy fashion..
he said..”..decent people have nothing to fear from this bill..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Plum we all support what the bill is trying to achieve.I too have swayed but from against,for and back to against.
I don’t think these organisations will support it with 80% of us in jail. Have you read and understood ALL of this story?http://www.stuff.co.nz/4001964a11.html Do you think the remaining 20% will want to pay for this incarceration?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and plum said..
“.. I keep wondering, why this bill? Why stake the Greens’ reputation on something that, while bold, is not the reason people like me vote Green?..”
aside from the ‘correctness’ of this piece of legislation as being reason enough to support it..
the mechanics of it all are..
this is a private members bill…not a party bill..
and as such it went into the lottery that is ‘the ballot/hat-draw’..
and up it popped..
(which brings us to today..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Isnt it interesting – merely an observation and not an intended judgement or criticism – that sometimes the words that are used by another have such an effect on us and visaversa. Words are simply just that words. it is the intention behind the words and the reactions that are the real issue.
As I have said before we speak to hear ourselves so that we can become aware of our deeper innate qualities and perhaps those that we need to become more familiar with – patience for example.
Here is a one of the bits of wisdom that we used on the self-development courses that we facilitated over the last 10 years – that everyone has found useful – “What ever anyone says, does, feels, thinks or says has everything to do with them – and nothing to do with you; however whatever you notice about your own thoughts, reactions, feelings, words and actions in relation to this, has nothing to do with the other person/situation – but everything to do with you.” In other words try not to miss the opportunity to recognise what your reactions are telling you.
As we exchange ideology, thoughts, aspirations, personal views – I believe that it is important to be supportive to oneself and to the others in the blog, family, workplace, etc…. As I have said we are really saying more about ourselves and intentions. By doing this we will understand far more about ourselves, our creative powers and our lifes purpose.
This awareness attitude follows through into the things that we discuss and into the life that surrounds us, our society, organisations, etc….. When someone reflects something back to us – each of us will feel/understand/respond to it slightly differently – how we deal with what we have noticed within ourselves is the gift that has come to the surface.
So how we feel about ourselves will ultimately fashion the reaction/response or way that we view and interact in the world outside of ourself. I often (when I remember!) ask myself – what is the intention, feeling, quality that I want to convey behind my words and actions. So I find, much to my delight, that I am always the student.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil – He’s wrong – respectfully BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil u Says:this is a private members bill…not a party bill..
I say they should treat it like one then eg allow concience voting and follow due process.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Just to be quite clear that lawyers regard the current version and any currently proposed future version as imperfectly useful
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0612/S00267.htm
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“decent people have nothing to fear from this bill”
Unless they experience custody cases turned nasty, and interfering zealots…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Real Child Abusers have nothing to fear from this bill.
Family Law Section Of The New Zealand Law Society says: The proposed amendment does nothing to assist the police or the Courts in defining what level of force, if any, is appropriate and the Section’s view is that it will only increase legal uncertainty as to outcome when prosecutions are brought. Furthermore it will enable a more indiscriminate use of force than had otherwise been justified under the old legislation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil u reported “he said..â€?..decent people have nothing to fear from this bill..â€?
Nothing to fear from the govenrment telling you that the way you bring up your childrens is so evil that you are a criminal, but “most won’t be arrested”?
And this, aimed at those parents who bring up the LEAST violent, LEAST criminal, LEAST traumatised kids.
If they have nothing to fear, why are you so desperate to tell them they are all criminals?
If they have nothing to fear, if this is really true – then that makes the bill totally pointless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dave – Or would you try a light smack if it could mean the difference of them living or dieing?
Alistair – Well of course I would. But I’ve never found it necessary or useful.
So because you haven’t found it necessary, you want to turn other parents into criminals?
Your kids may have ceased to push the boundaries after non-physical punishment, but when this fails to work you expect parents to either risk their kids live or be criminalised – what a fantasdtic choice.
Perhaps your kids do not push the boundaries or are as adventurous as you think.
Sometimes the methods Sue Bradford used (according to her, locking them in a room and yelling at them a lot) don’t work for all kids, all of the time, or are not appropriate for a certain situation, or are far more harmful and traumatic, or have to be used over and over before they have effect.
However those who believe they know better insist that despite not knowing the child, the parent, the situation, their methods MUST be used even if they are patently more abusive, more traumatic, have to be repeated, and still don’t work, when compared to a solitary light smack.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wow..!..the level of passion/invective around this ‘right’ to hit their children by opponents to this bill is somewhat mindblowing..
um..don’t you (frothing ones) flinch at that (repeated) smacking-footage shown on the news..?
or do you critique/admire the style/technique of the smacker..?
“..look..!..he’s got her up in the air..held by one hand..while he lays into her backside with the other..!
very efficient..!..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil – It is what I predicted would happen when this first came up in another thread many months ago… when the s59 bill first appeared (was selected).
Yes, I appear very much as a Cassandra here. I predict and nobody believes me and my predictions come true. Damned depressing. We’ll see how bad it gets. You should recall that I also predicted that the police would probably do their best with it, and we might avoid trouble for a fair while behind their being willing to create the legal definitions that this law doesn’t. Inevitable trouble doesn’t necessarily show up immediately.
The party however, is going to be in deep poo.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How do Greens feel about using urgency to ram this silly bill through the house given the late Rod Donald’s stance on “urgency”.
It seems that the Greens have fallen a long way since the days of Rod Donald.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oh..!..absolute alarmist rubbish..!..b.j..
six months from now..etc etc..
and get some perspective b.j…
the same cries of impending anarchy were shouted up and down the land when caning in schools was abolished..
do ya wanna go back to that..?
talk about a feckin’ storm in a teacup..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil – I do not know what you are talking about. Alarmist about Greens being tossed out of parliament? Yes I am, but that isn’t in 6 months and has nothing to do with impending anarchy and caning.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree with phil.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
are you really so feckin’ linear..?..b.j…?
and of course..no..you don’t reply to the caning in schools point..eh..?
are you a virgo..or a tauus..?
(with aries rising..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
taurus..but you know that..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil – I am so damned straight they use me to calibrate rulers
Sagittarius if it is important to you. I don’t pay it any heed.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is not about caning in schools.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil – Sagittarians do like the last word – usually
nice one BJ
As we are congregating into star signs – mine is Aqarius with moon in Gemini.
As for the Greens – watch this space!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why do you SUPPORTERS of this bill think it’s ok to bash, thrash, beat or horse whip our kids?
Family Law Section Of The New Zealand Law Society says: The proposed amendment does nothing to assist the police or the Courts in defining what level of force, if any, is appropriate and the Section’s view is that it will only increase legal uncertainty as to outcome when prosecutions are brought. Furthermore it will enable a more indiscriminate use of force than had otherwise been justified under the old legislation.
Or is the “cult of personality” so strong that you would believe Sue if she said the sky is green? Read the facts.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0612/S00267.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil “wow..!..the level of passion/invective around this ‘right’ to hit their children by opponents to this bill is somewhat mindblowing..”
I’m sure you are not so silly as to really beleive that this is about being able to hit children.
People who are doing a very good job of bringing up their children will no doubtedly be angry at being told by people like yourself that they are so evil to their children that they are criminals.
And you seem to forget that children have a right to have boundaries set to keep them alive, safe and out of trouble.
And just because the methods you use fail on some children, they shouldn’t lose the right to have boundaries set to keep them safe.
Yet by supporting the bill you are taking the rights of these children away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sth dave..
“..Yet by supporting the bill you are taking the rights of these children away..”
um..the right to be hit..?
have you thought of asking them..?
and no..i’m not talking about some child currently under such a regime..being asked by one of their ‘hitters’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil can’t you read? read my last blogg, the one above this one
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil u “um..the right to be hit..?
have you thought of asking them..?”
Yes they have been asked – in the world renowned University of Otago long term study.
Those who received non-physical punishments were MORE traumatised by them than by a light smack.
Also a much higher percentage thought non-physical punishments were much WORSE than a light smack
Clearly you want make it forcable by law to traumatise our children MORE.
The same styudy says our children are LESS likely to be violent adults than yours, and LESS likely to get in trouble with the police than yours.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Bill has died a painful death details here http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/03/19/let-the-s59-debate-continue/#comment-25293
Or does no-one read new bloggs anymore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yeah..?..
well why don’t you ask my son..?
and others like him..?
not those already brutalised/innured to the violence being done/having been done against them….
the thought of me hitting/slapping/smacking him..on my part..and him being hit/slapped/smacked by me..on his part..
is totally beyond the pale for both of us..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil read this carefully every word use a dictionary if necessary.
Why do you SUPPORTERS of this bill think it’s ok to bash, thrash, beat or horse whip our kids?
Family Law Section Of The New Zealand Law Society says: The proposed amendment does nothing to assist the police or the Courts in defining what level of force, if any, is appropriate and the Section’s view is that it will only increase legal uncertainty as to outcome when prosecutions are brought. Furthermore it will enable a more indiscriminate use of force than had otherwise been justified under the old legislation.
Or is the “cult of personality� so strong that you would believe Sue if she said the sky is green? Read the facts. That means open the link below.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0612/S00267.htm
Your arguements are no longer valid. The Bill is Dead
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil “well why don’t you ask my son..?
So what ever works for one person (you) and one child (your son) in partuicular situations (yours) should be enforced by law onto every iother parent, every other child, in all situations – just because it happens to have worked for you?
Time out, removal of privaleges, telling off etc all failed repeatedly to stop my child going onto the road.
If I used your methods, my son would be dead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog have I been excluded or are Phil and Sth Dave just ignoring me?
The Bill in its current form is dead.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/03/19/let-the-s59-debate-continue/#comment-25293
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They ignored me when I pointed at that as well Once-Bitten. I didn’t claim that the bill was dead however, just pointed out that the opinion of the law society is that in any of its current variants it is bad law… which is something I have been saying to unlistening ears for a while now already.
This is Frogblog OnceBitten – we don’t exclude people. Greens do not in general, like to exclude anyone.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oncebitten,
You also have some of the countries top lawyers saying the bill as written is an “unmittigated piece of nonsense” and a “dog’s breakfast”.
However you are quite wrong about the bill being dead. In a weeks time Sue, phil u and others will be able sit back in their armchairs satisfied that they have criminilised hundreds of thousands of New Zealand’s best parents because they don’t follow thioer child rearing dictate.
It’s not surprising that a group so fanatical about iforcing their ideas onto others are also anti-democratic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks BJ I was wondering thats all, due to phil using an outdated arguement probably due to how he gave up cigs lol.
Hopefully they can rewrite the Bill to stop abuse but not alienate 80% of the population. Hopefully this will then be remembered at election time with a corresponding 80% of the voe for the Greens. Now that would be worth celebrating.
SouthernDave Now the The New Zealand Law Society is on-board I don’t think it will survive in its current form, hopefully in the rewrite they will listen to (t)reason.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well said Eredwen
(just kidding)
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Southern Dave said: “Time out, removal of privaleges, telling off etc all failed repeatedly to stop my child going onto the road.”
Supervision and a gate works wonders.
aladin
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My son climbs over any fence or gate that can practically be put in his path, he has learned how to open locked doors. Supervision is a wonderful thing Aladin, but YOU HAVE TO BE THERE EVERY SECOND. A five minute distraction and he’s across the damned street and tossing pebbles into the brook.
In short Aladin, there isn’t any faster way to teach and there isn’t any safe way to give less than 100% attention and not teach.
Teaching him NOT to do something takes only a couple of episodes, caught in the act… and then he is far safer. HE is always wherever he is, monitoring himself. We can never match that.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dave said: “Time out, removal of privaleges, telling off etc all failed repeatedly to stop my child going onto the road.�
Aladin,”Supervision and a gate works wonders.”
Spoken like someone either doesn’t look after children, do grocery shoppng, walking buses etc……..or like someone who has never had this problem.
Or perhaps like someone who has never had to answer a phone – do you ever have to go to the toilet????.
Real world calling aladin – come in please……..
Oh sorry – I shopuld have realised (with your name) – you live in a fictional world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve just completed a preliminary check on the above posts (both threads) for indications of:
thoughtfulness,
politeness,
inclusiveness/encouraging two way communication,
consideration for the feelings of others,
arrogance,
rudeness,
put downs/discouraging two way communication,
disrespect for, or ignoring the feelings of, others,
There are noticeable differences between the “pro” and “anti” groups.
(Whether these differences also relate to the way in which the members of each group were brought up themselves would be interesting to find out.)
“As the twig is bent, so does the tree grow.”
Some enterprising Social Science student may wish to follow this up!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen – I totally agree. A quick summation of some of your points…
arrogance – some of the most extreme I’ve seen – labeling most of New Zealand parents as criminals for the way they bring up their children.
rudeness – from an anti-smacker “go spew your vomit somewhere else where the members enjoy revelling in such excrement.”
put downs – from an anti-smacker ‘ “F%@# OFF”
discouraging two way communication – from an anti smacker “I wish you would just LEAVE”
disrespect for, or ignoring the feelings of, others,, from an anti-smacker “GROW UP AND GROW A SET OF MANNERS FOR F$#@ SAKES!!!!!!”
So you forgot to say what your conclusion was.
To be honest, I don’t have a problem with the above comments – it’s good to see people passonate about things, as long as they don’t force them by law down everybody elses throats.
And compared to being thought of as so evil that I should be criminilised for the way I bring up my children, the above comments don’t even make a blip on the radar screen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nice try SouthernDave!
I should have explained that CONTEXT was an important factor.
Thank you for highlighting the fact that it would be useful to include “veracity” as another category. (Again, there is a marked difference between the “proâ€? and “antiâ€? groups.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SouthernDave it seems you have become the new mouthpiece for the right-wing echo chamber in this thread. And in the typical style of a right-wing echo chamber artist you seem to believe that repeating your points over and over and over again will somehow add new weight to your argument, when in fact it only serves to dilute your arguments and stifle the healthy flow of co-operative debate that we were at one point (in the top quarter of this page) looking like achieving here.
Also, in classic style of the right-wing echo chamber, you have managed to twist the entire point of what I was so “passionately” protesting about in my rant from last night – which was that people argue their points only and dispense with character assassinations – which is not only rude to Sue, but also are a very ineffective method of gaining support for the points you are trying to argue. There are many of you here who could do to study up on your netiquette in that regard.
Not one of my comments that you quote here has been taken in the context which I made it in, as pointed out in my previous paragraph and I can only interpret from this that you are trying to misdirect my intentions because you have run out of intelligent arguments to make for your own case. The ONLY thing I am demanding here is that we have constructive and respectful debate, and if it takes a hissy fit a-la-Basil Fawlty to press that issue home then so be it.
I would also like to point out that I took the time to very respectfully address a number of your concerns in my post at the top of this page (that Frog carried over from our previous S59 thread) and how rude of you it was to not even bother to acknowledge that I had thoughtfully and empathetically considered your concerns and was for the most part actually on your side with those concerns. I don’t see much sign that you have been decent enough to reciprocate and try stepping into our shoes like this.
I also object to being labelled as an “anti-smacker” when I went to such lengths as I did (in the previous S59 page) to offer my own interpretation of the first section of this bill and highlight examples where I thought a smack would be perfectly appropriate “reasonable force” on a number of scenarios. And if you will also note, it was BJ and I who were championing the revision of that second section and dumping the word “corrective” – which is the “criminalising” word in this bill.
If you have any kind of sincere motivation for us to make constructive progress with this debate then I suggest that you stop treating supporters of this bill as “the enemy”, stop demonising the people who do not entirely agree with you, stop misrepresenting what supporters of bill have actually said, stop trying to drown out the opposition and drop this conspiratorial attitude that you have about what the Greens are “secretly trying to achieve” by this bill.
What concerns me the most about this current thread is how silent our regular peace-loving Greens supporters and blog members have become here and how disproportionally the conversion is being dominated by a small and loud group of newcomers who came from god-knows-where for the apparent purpose of rail-roading this blog.
As a member wisely said here recently, “You have not convinced a man just because you have silenced him”?. So if you are measuring your victory on this blog by the amount of regular members you have managed to drive away – from boredom or frustration or despair that we can’t have a civil discussion – then it is a hollow victory indeed.
If you sincerely bothered to read and acknowledge the intent of the majority of us participating here you would see that there are plenty of left-wingers here who are just as averse to yourself at seeing good parents criminalised by this bill and we have more than enough common ground to work together on that premise.
As for myself, I do not think in terms of “victories” because I do not regard this as a “war”. If a good parent gets convicted because of this bill then we have ALL lost, and if an abusive parent escapes conviction we have ALL lost too! So all I want to talk about is how can we keep the bill and REPAIR this flaw.
Since you are new here, you are probably not familiar with one of of my core principles of life that I often quote on this blog, which is “If you’re not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem”.
If you don’t want to be part of the solution then please stop wasting our time and let those who DO have some space to participate.
Respectfully,
Zana
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zana – the point of me quoting your expletives was simply to counter the post by eredwen saying that people who back the bill are are much nicer than those who opose it.
The whole “I know what;s best for you”, “I’m a better person than you” attitude that comes across from many of those that support the bill is not at all attractive.
So if I’m a bit sarcastic at these people, who want to make me a criminal by next week, then it’s probably quite understandable that I’m a bit angry.
It’s not my fault if Sue says that someone who smacks thier child will quite likely end up in court, then a few days later say that she is not outawing smacking, or says one day the police have a culture of abuse and the next say they can be trusted to make sound judgements.
Then you tell me to be civil, and to quote “F%@# OFF with the character assassinations and go spew your vomit somewhere else where the members enjoy revelling in such excrement.” all in the same sentence….the same sentence!!!.
If you are going to throw expletives at someone, don’t be surprised if they get quoted back to you.
back to the debate…….. there’s only a week left before I’m a criminal.
Oh, and thanks for calling me a “mouthpiece for the right-wing echo chamber”, and a ” right-wing echo chamber” (was that an echo?). Friends give me a hard time for being left wing, so you make me feel much more balanced.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes Eredwen but now it is you who are generalizing and insulting… and did you count Phil’s posts? Mine? Perhaps I should work up my own statistics on post content and veracity… I don’t doubt that both sides have gone a bit over the top in the past 137 posts and I am sure my results would be at variance to yours.
It seems however, that some of us who think that this is a bad use of Green influence and a poorly written law RESENT the hell out of the insinuations that we beat and hit and thrash and damage our children that are contained in at least half of the responses of the supporters of Sue’s bill as written. Can you imagine that? We are doing and supporting NOTHING of the sort so we resent the way that part of your argument is framed.
Zana had a point because someone who was not BB slammed Sue in a manner that even I found insulting. I understand the frustration however… and Sue is a politician and is not present and we have precedents with respect to John Howard and the Smirking Chimp and the difference (that this is in fact a Blog supported by the Green Party and that most of US respect Sue even when we disagree) was forgotten. Zana also went over the top then.
We’ve done pretty well overall, we got some agreement on alternatives to the wording that might make the bill acceptable and even passably decent law.
That’s the goal here Eredwen… not denigrating one side or the other. The goal is to get some suggestion of how it COULD be done and done as well as we can do it. Not in Sweden… HERE, and to find some suggestions for Greens for a fallback position, though I have failed to find any hope in that effort. If Labour votes as a block and nothing slips, it may go through as written. If so we will be lucky to poll over 4.5% in the next election and National will beat Labour quite soundly. If labour splinters and the bill fails our heads are still in that noose, but there’s a better chance that people will forget. The problem with THAT outcome however, is that s59 would STILL STAND IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM and that is not something that anyone here wants.
I suggest that this is a VERY bad outcome, particularly as it is also likely that such law as we pass now will be altered in any case once that happens. We will have no control over it at all.
The only way to pull this together is to alter the proposal YET AGAIN, to make it more clear.
I am hoping that Frog or Russ occasionally points this stuff (the highlights of this online debate) out to Sue’s staffers (leaving out the lows would be wise). That someone else is taking notice. I will probably e-mail Sue’s office myself shortly to ensure that there is something, but I do not doubt that her staff is buried in such communications. I do what I can.
I also resent being called impolite and arrogant. I have done little to deserve this. I pointed out weaknesses in the law Sue proposed and questioned a strategy that could only lead to pyrrhic victory or defeat… the law society has backed my assessment of the weaknesses and the results do appear to be heading for one or the other of my two possible selections.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj:
You are very quick to leap into attack mode here.
“Generalising and insulting?”
Tell me where and how.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
nice post Zana, it is a shame that the constructive debate has been spoiled by the people who just say “lies, lies, lies”.
Meanwhile, heres a question: How representative of the overall Law Society are the Family Law Section of the Law Society?
Meanwhile the truth in referencing sub-committee of the peoples liberation front of Judea would like to point out that JH was mistaken when he said “what does the law society think at this point?” because it was the Family Law Section and it was July 2006.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
P.S. SouthernDave, I got the impression that Zanas rant was directed at BB not you.
P.P.S. OnceBitten said “now the law society is on board [the bill is dead]“. It is not now, they expresed their disagreement in July 2006 and again in Dec 2006. So there has been no sudden killer blow and thus reports of the bills demise are mistaken. Also it is only the Family Law Section of the Law Society, but I dont know how significant that is. It may just be pedantic to point that out, it may be an important point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen said
I’ve just completed a preliminary check on the above posts (both threads) for indications of:
thoughtfulness,
politeness,
inclusiveness/encouraging two way communication,
consideration for the feelings of others,
arrogance,
rudeness,
put downs/discouraging two way communication,
disrespect for, or ignoring the feelings of, others,
There are noticeable differences between the “pro� and “anti� groups.
(Whether these differences also relate to the way in which the members of each group were brought up themselves would be interesting to find out.)
If you do not see how this is offensive to me, considering the amount of inoffensive debate here, then there can be no value in your assessment of my posts as being offensive.
How I was brought up?!??
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen, could you clarify? If you mean to imply that those who were smacked have been raised poorly, then I would find that pretty offensive. Perhaps you’d like to repeat that to my parents.
I find it highly offensive that a minority of zealots wish to criminalise me from next week on. They also wish to criminalise my wife, many of my friends, and a high percentage of the population. How is this example of MMP being more representative of peoples views? From what I can see, it tends to result in quid-pro-quo arrangements which inflict the views of minorities on to the masses.
BTW: Both sides of the debate are heated, but from what I can see, abusive posters have been from the anti-smacking side (zANavAShi, phil u)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Children you promised to play nice. But in my absence, you all seem to have been engaged in name calling, picking on each other and throwing your toys. So if you can’t behave like adults I will have no choice but put you in time-out (unless you have read this next week).
Now for some rebuttal of the valid points.
“What concerns me the most about this current thread is how silent our regular peace-loving Greens supporters and blog members have become here and how disproportionally the conversion is being dominated by a small and loud group of newcomers who came from god-knows-where for the apparent purpose of rail-roading this blog.”
It should concern you that this issue has stirred up previous just-happy-to-vote types enough to come out of their comfort zones.
“How representative of the overall Law Society are the Family Law Section of the Law Society?”
About as representative of the overall government as the green MP’s, but that doesn’t mean their view doesn’t count and they ARE the ones specialising in Family Law.
“and it was July 2006″ it wouldn’t matter if it was yesterday their point is still valid but infact it was Thursday, 21 December 2006, 9:55 am
“So there has been no sudden killer blow and thus reports of the bills demise are mistaken.” tell me that again after the unprecedented rushed vote (hopefully) or after the next election (hopefully not for the greens sake).
What I am saying that this vital cog in sensible decision making seems to be have overlooked in all the emotive rantings and name-calling (labeling.)
So by using this professional opinion to give back arguments I’ve been dealt from pro-bill supporters. Call it karma.
So Why do you OPPONENTS of this bill think it’s ok to bash, thrash, beat or horse whip our kids?
now becomes Why do you SUPPORTERS of this bill think it’s ok to bash, thrash, beat or horse whip our kids?
Logical based rebuttal to this please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In case you are confused about what you are supposed to be arguing against I will spell it out below highlighting the main points you may wish to refute.
Simon Maude, the Chair of the Family Law Section of the New Zealand Law Society, says the Section does not endorse the Select Committee’s amendments to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. The Family Law Section’s view is that the proposed amendment is inadequate and it strongly urges that careful consideration be given to what is appropriate by way of use of force when disciplining a child, so that a clear message can be sent to the public that violence against children is not acceptable, and so that there can be consistency and certainty in the outcomes of criminal prosecutions.
The Section consulted the Society’s Criminal Law Committee, which agrees that the proposed amendment is unwieldy and would create significant problems for police in prosecutions involving violence against children.
The Family Law Section made submissions to the Select Committee that the existing defence to an assault on a child, if reasonable force was used for the purposes of correction, should be amended to clearly define what force could be used. The resultant Bill, that has now been put before the House for a second reading, appears to be a hasty political compromise and astounds the Section because it justifies the use of force against a child if it is for the purpose of, among other things, “performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting�. This appears to be a prescription that widens rather than narrows what is permissible and certainly does nothing to create certainty.
The proposed amendment does nothing to assist the police or the Courts in defining what level of force, if any, is appropriate and the Section’s view is that it will only increase legal uncertainty as to outcome when prosecutions are brought. Furthermore it will enable a more indiscriminate use of force than had otherwise been justified under the old legislation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The majority of Kiwi parents use an occasional light smack to set boundaries for their children and to help keep them safe.
The renowned Otago Uni study says these children will overall have the best outcome of any group – they will be less traumatised, less violent as adults, and be in less trouble with police, compared to all other groups of children including those who received no physical punishment.
So when the parents who overall have the best outcomes for their children, are told that the way they bring their children up is so evil that they should be criminals – nay they WILL be criminals, then it’s only natural that they may become just a little offended.
Particularly when the people telling them this are mainly from a group who produce children who have slightly lower outcomes overall.
I think the position of criminalising that majority of Kiwi parents who are doing the best job of all at raising their children, is extremist.
Not only is this an extreme thing to do. It is counter productive. A question to Sue Bradford was do you think you bill will stop some mongrel beating his kid up? Answer from Sue “NO, NOT AT ALL, NOR WAS IT NEVER INTENDED TO”
Sue says the most important thing for that 50+% of the population who oppose her bill, is the right to beat, hit and assault their children.
How offensive is that?
This is not about stopping mongrels beating up their kids (as Sue said).
It has far more in common with a witch hunt against the majority of New Zealand’s parents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj (et al?):
What a storm in a teacup!
Are you unable to read, or is there a whole lot of other stuff going on in that head of yours?
Thus far I have done a preliminary analysis of the content of each post on the two threads using a technique commonly used in Social Science. I’ve ended up with a whole bunch of talleys in little boxes under the different categories that I itemised (plus a few more).
Nowhere have I said which group was which in my preliminary findings!
What is the matter? Feeling a bit vulnerable ?
(For your information, males are much more likely to react as you have done when a female is seen to be “calling the shots” … something about perceived power and control.)
In other words you are behaving in a predictable manner !!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen – what’s your point? (of “preliminary analysis of the content of each post on the two threads using a technique commonly used in Social Science”).
Are you trying to prove females are superior to males, that anti-smackers are superior to smackers?
Your posts add weight to the theory that this is all a witch hunt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes Eredwen
I am predictable, honest and also very straight, as I pointed out to Phil. You didn’t say anything, your position has always been to imply and I noted the absence of identification – your words were
“There are noticeable differences between the “proâ€? and “antiâ€? groups.
(Whether these differences also relate to the way in which the members of each group were brought up themselves would be interesting to find out.)”
and my response was
“Yes Eredwen but now it is you who are generalizing and insulting… and did you count Phil’s posts? Mine? Perhaps I should work up my own statistics on post content and veracity… I don’t doubt that both sides have gone a bit over the top in the past 137 posts and I am sure my results would be at variance to yours.”
…although I went on to make a lot more general argument on unrelated things… I also provided this
“We’ve done pretty well overall, we got some agreement on alternatives to the wording that might make the bill acceptable and even passably decent law.
That’s the goal here Eredwen… not denigrating one side or the other. ”
I don’t feel vulnerable Eredwen. I have a reputation in my work for not providing incomplete answers or antagonizing people. I can talk with Zana and I can talk with BB and Alistair and Toad and even Mouldwarp and in general I can do so without turning it into a slanging match.
I bring a lot of that here.
I did not try to work out who was slanging at whom… the very effort is known to me to be unproductive in terms of keeping even tempers and civil discourse. I see no value in then attributing the nature of the discourse to our upbringing… (although it clearly IS going to bear a relationship), because it can do nothing to improve things.
So maybe you need to consider what you’ve brought to the table before you start on my “vulnerabilities”.
I’ve written my mail to Sue. It’s sent.
I’m sorry about how this business is going, disappointed by what I perceive as the future prospects of the party, but I cannot unscramble this egg. I am regretful that we’ve had to have differences over this as well, but there is no help for it.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Better that the Green party sticks to green and develops a broad base. That gives the public a choice. Let the far left join Alliance (or something). Failing that define the Green Party differently. The name is missleading.
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see there is still no valid arguements against what I high-lighted in my last post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Southern Dave says:
“Your posts add weight to the theory that this is all a witch hunt.”
Whose “theory” is that Southern Dave? (I haven’t heard that one.)
NO, I am not trying to “prove” that females are superior to males.
NOR am I trying to “prove” that anti-smackers are superior to smackers.
(There is, however, some evidence that the pro-smackers as a group have different characteristics to the non-smackers as a group.)
One thing that should NOT be overlooked that we are on a thread on which the participants are almost all male, whereas most of the child rearing in Aotearoa/NZ is done by females.
The proposed change in the legislation is aimed at giving the most vulnerable children in our society more protection, NOT at removing parents/caregivers “rights”.
From what I have experienced over the last few weeks I realise that we as a country have an urgent need to give our parents and caregivers easy access to information about alternative ways of relating to their children.
Times change, our knowledge increases, and yet our childrearing practices
seem, all to often, to be handed on from one generation to another without question (and thus the benefit of new knowledge.)
None of this is about YOU!
e
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj
I have already grasped all of that ! Much of it is repetition …
Some of it is your assessment of yourself (a person whom you know from the inside whereas othes can only judge from the outside … in my case from your writings on this blog and my observations of your interchanges with other writers here).
I don’t visit frogblog to get caught up in your agenda!
Some of the time I’d rather not. (On this occasion: I’d MUCH rather not!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen “NO, I am not trying to “proveâ€? that females are superior to males.
NOR am I trying to “proveâ€? that anti-smackers are superior to smackers. (There is, however, some evidence that the …….”
yeah, right.
Sue says iher bill won’t stop children being beaten up and it was never intended to.
This bill is aimed squarely at middle New Zealand – not those who beat their children up.
And currently there is evidence that middle New Zealand, who use an occasional light smack, are doing a better job at bringing up their kids than those who never use physical punishment.
If we were honestly interested in stopping violence against children, the bill would address those mongrels who beat up their kids (you know, the sort of situation Sue said the bill is NOT intended for).
There is plenty of evidence that kids who are beaten up perform poorly in all sorts of aspects of their lives.
But the law isn’t being made about kids who are beaten up – there are plenty of current laws addressing that already.
This is going to criminilise hundreds of thousands of parents, yet I haven’t seen a single peice of evidence from a supporter that shows an occasional light smack will damage a child in any way.
The only evidence available is to the contrary.
So here we are, days from criminalising masses of people, with no evidence to back it up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wonder what my Mother-In-Law would say, or my Mother… I already know what my wife thinks. I represent them here and they are not happy about this bill at all. Women are not well represented on blogs in general, nor do they engage often in a number of things that we males seem to enjoy. It is not IMHO, a noteworthy issue to raise.
Again, the argument is about law and clarity and unintended consequences. Improving on what has been presented to the point of being able to get at least half the population to accept it. Keeping good parents out of the courts and confusion from the minds of the police.
It is entirely possible the move for urgency will fail. That was the indication I last read in the paper… and it is important to remember that even if passed in current form it may not stand long as a law despite precedent to the contrary. There are a LOT of upset people (some far more upset than the bill justifies), and government here does change hands on occasion.
I do not regard this as a good thing. I AM a Green, and I wish to get many many things done that have to do with the environment and public services and promoting peace. This may turn out to be one damned expensive windmill.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen “One thing that should NOT be overlooked that we are on a thread on which the participants are almost all male, whereas most of the child rearing in Aotearoa/NZ is done by females.”
And Helen is clearly pushing for the child rearing to be done by people other than the mother. SO yes, the primary carers of the nation’s children (soon to be mainly daycare centres) are manned (excuse the pun) mainly by women.
This brings up the issue of so many kids not having male role models in their lives – known to be quite a problem.
There used to be far more male teachers and even preschool teachers, until there was (a bit of a coincidence here) a witch hunt against male preschool teachers.
The same sort of fear campaign is now bing run against New Zealand’s parents – they are being labeled abusive, and threatened with becoming criminals.
And Sue Bradford says the “most important thing” for those 50+% of people (more like 80%) who oppose her bill is their right to beat, hit and assault their children.
Anybody who dares to oppose to the bill, is clearly labeled by Sue as an abuser.
It is another witch hunt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is it all worth the gamble for the Green Party ?
The best stats I’ve found are that out of thousands of assaults on children over the last fourteen years, section59 was virtually never used – only on 17 occasions was it used as a defense.
On the majority of those it failed. Out of all those cases, juries and judges accepted s59 reasonable force it on just 6 cases.
Repealing section 59 will only remove the defense of resonable force (and nothing else) some proponents argue.
If this is true, then between now and the year 2021, out of thosuands of assault on children cases (with half getting off) we can expect to see about one less s59 aquital every couple of years or so – around six less in total by 2021.
Why put in so much effort for so little gain, when the same effort could have infintiely more positive results elsewhere?
If police will not be going around arresting people for smacking (one of Sue’s claims, though it has been contradicted) then the whole thing is virtually pointless.
And the Greens are staking their political life on that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My wife, mother, mother in law, friends wives (bar two), sister in law….are all against this bill.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good summation Southern Dave and one I totally agree with. As BJ can see this is going to hurt the Green party for totally no gain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The more this debate rages the less it becomes about child welfare, despite the proponents of the bill being shown clear evidence that smacking does not lead to child abuse and in the face of overwhelming public opinion they continue to hide behind their arrogant “we know what is best for you” stance, sadly it has simply comes down to a battle of political wills.
The Greens see this (wrongly) as the first and only chance they have had in their parliamentary lives to achieve something, the issue of child welfare is long forgotten as the left dig their heels in, they see this piece of legislation as being central to their very existence and something that they can hang their hats on at the next election as way of saying “see we did do something in the last three years”
This is evidenced by Eredwens posts on this site, now while we agree on very little I have always admired Erdwens ability to rationally argue her point however on this subject she has gone completely off the deep end, her desperation for this bill to go through only highlights that this is more about state control and Green party influence than it ever was about child welfare.
Make no mistake this is no longer about the kids, this is all about the Greens desire to impose something on the rest of us and the Greens desire to be able to say they have achieved something.
Somebody high up in the Green party needs to take a step back and look at the damage this bill is going to do to the LONG TERM future of the party, the Greens are taking a hammering on this bill, their very future and credibility may well depend on it.
Oh, and BTW, going on protest marches with the thoroughly corrupt Phillip Field is not going to help the image of the party one little bit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When you start to investigate the fanatacism behind this campaign, you start to find a lot of the claims fall to pieces.
Sweden is often used as the poster boy. Yet why not use those countries with a MUCH LOWER level of child abuse than Sweden – is it that 4 of 5 top countries allow smacking?
Sue quotes just 9 child deaths over more than two decades in Sweeden. But the figure is well over 200.
In some quoted research child deaths around the world are compared to children who have been disciplined to death in Sweden, but 95% of cases where children are beaten to death are not specifically counted as cases of “discipline” or abuse.(simply murder), but they are for all other countries. – totally misleading. (i.e. the Kahui twins would not be counted in Sweden’s abuse statistics as there is not proof the deaths were caused by excesive disciplining)
However Sweden does have appalling statistics for the number of children removed from their families, massive increases in assaults on children by children, and massive increases in assaults on children by adults
Supporters of the bill point to research that shows smacking has detrimental effects. But they point to reasearch where all physical punishment from a light smack to a life threatening beating (and even murder) are lumped together. This research has been discredited as unscientific and misleading by renowned universities.
I’ve only seen two studies in the whole of this debate that compare the results of smacking with non-physical punishment. The Otago Uni one has children who were disciplined with occasional smacks coming out top of the pack for lowest levels of drug abuse, violence, crime etc.
An eminient psycologist at Univertisty of California, Berkely made it very clear when questioned (and she is not a smacking proponent)……..
Were preschool children who never experienced physical punishment better adjusted than preschool children who occasionally did? Answer “No, in fact the reverse tended to be true”
Is physical punishment accociated with more detrimental child outcomes than verbal punishment? Answer “No”.
It was reported that Plunket complained of a case where a father used section59 against a charge of hitting his son with a piece of wood (but misleadingly, it wasn’t reported that the section59 defence didn’t work – he was convicted).
The word “smack” is almost always replaced by proponents with one of the following – bashing, beating, violence, brutalising, assault.
Proponents say a child was bashed with a 30cm piece of wood, when in fact what they were describing was a smack on the hand with a light wooden ruler.
The campaing is rife with exageration, misrepresentation, intimidation, and outright lies.
And how about this for a claim from anti-smacking proponents – the totally wacky claim that children have even less rights than animals (I think that even Sue may have said this).
This just shows what sort of bizarre lies some proponents are prepared to go to (unless it has suddenly become legal to cage, euthanize, hunt, kill and eat children).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wow!! SouthernDave and big bruv:
Now we are being treated to a very effective choir … with both of you singing from the same hymn book, taking alternate verses.
(big bruv, this is obviously one of your “fully literate” moments that we notice you lapse into from time to time … Truly the stuff of “wonder”!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen – do you have nothing to contribute about s59?
All we get for post after post are petty little put downs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen Says:”we are on a thread on which the participants are almost all male, whereas most of the child rearing in Aotearoa/NZ is done by females.”
I am glad you said most of the child rearing is done by females, as you would be surprised as to the growing number of men like me, now in this role.
And they generally work harder in their new jobs as they have to compete in this female dominated world.
“The proposed change in the legislation is aimed at giving the most vulnerable children in our society more protection”
Good aim but it has missed the target.
The proposed amendment does nothing to assist the police or the Courts in defining what level of force, if any, is appropriate and the Section’s view is that it will only increase legal uncertainty as to outcome when prosecutions are brought. Furthermore it will enable a more indiscriminate use of force than had otherwise been justified under the old legislation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>petty little put downs.
I find it curious that the Green Party, and the far left in general, see themselves as rational, sensible, democratic, consultative people.
Yet, with section s59, they’ve clearly lost the argument (kids are better off with smacking, very few adults have ever successfully used an s59 defense), the population hasn’t been included, nor do they have politicians who represent their values and wishes.
I’m disapointed. It’s only “rational, sensible, democratic and consultative” if you happen to agree with Green policy.
Else you’re a child abuser.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Southern Dave I am not surprised that Plunket complained of a case where a parent hit his son with a ruler.
Having attended every service they offer it would be inappropriate in all of their parenting classes and most of their “well child” checkups due to the childs age. The exceptions would be the 2, 3 and 5 year checkups or older siblings, I would suspect this was done in anger as I would trust a plunket nurses qualified opinion as to appropriate discipline or any other child care matter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oncebitten – I’ll clarify – the point was Plunket gave the court case as an example to abolish s59, because s59 was used as a defence.
The deception was that it ommited to say the s59 defence actually failed and the man was convicted.
By ommiting to say that there was a conviction, it made it appear like s59 meant a child abuser got off.
The fact is s59 worked, and he didn’t get off.
It’s just one of many deceptions in the campaign.
Sue claims to have a “huge list of examples” of s59 protecting abusers.
If this is true (rather than just six cases over 14 years from several thousand assault on children cases), then she should show them.
s59 is used as a defence in LESS THAN 1% of asasault on children cases, and even then if fails in the majority.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve just reread some of this thread and have realised that the inappropriate, aggressive attacks and snide remarks that I have received over the last two days have come from people who seem to have misread my posts, (especially that of 23 March 10:10pm) and come (jumped?) to wrong conclusions.
Without checking if they have the correct information, these people have launched forth into insults and other negative behaviour.
This is frogblog. Here politeness, consideration for the feelings of others and two-way communication, from guests as well as from other Greens, is expected. These have not been apparent lately from some, and “ad hominem” attacks are not being checked.
I have to add that this incident has made my concern about “the moral high ground” behaviour of the “pro-smaking lobby” even greater than it was.
If these men treat an adult stranger (a woman … and an “elderly” one at that!) in the way they have treated me, what protection does a vulnerable child have from their unchecked assumptions of “guilt” and the consequences that may follow these assumptions?
Make no mistake. A lot of this is about “power”… and male power at that.
…………………………………………………………………………………
My post of 23 March 10:10pm :
“We hear a lot about the “rights” you expect from this society …
I’ve just completed a PRELIMINARY check on the above posts (both threads) for INDICATIONS of:
thoughtfulness,
politeness,
inclusiveness/encouraging two way communication,
consideration for the feelings of others,
arrogance,
rudeness,
put downs/discouraging two way communication,
disrespect for, or ignoring the feelings of, others,
There are noticeable differences between the “pro� and “anti� groups.
(Whether these differences also relate to the way in which the members of each group were brought up themselves would be interesting to find out.)
“As the twig is bent, so does the tree grow.�
Some enterprising Social Science student may wish to follow this up!
……………………………………………………………………………………
Explanation:
This is about the CATEGORIES that could/would be used for such a study.
They are listed in two groups (positive and negative) for ease of tallying.
I tried these out on the two frogblog threads to see if they would encapsualte responses, and how best to record the variations that I found.
In the process I noticed that there WERE differences between the “pro” and “anti” posts on the threads that I had tried them out on.
I reported these differences … introduced a potential question that led from these differences (“Whether these differences also relate to the way in which the members of each group were brought up themselves would be interesting to find out.”)
All of this is appropriate procedure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen – another post that adds nothing to the debate.
You ask for politeness and consideration for others, then come out with the totally offensive insinuation that out children are not safe with us.
With these sort of offensive and extreme insinuations about our children being unsafe, even though there is zero evidence, it’s easy to see why this bill is so dangerous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Make no mistake. A lot of this is about “power�… and male power at that.
Nonsense.
Perhaps we’re just not interested in your social experiment, and would rather argue the s59 issues being voted on very shortly?
I have no idea if you’re female or male, and couldn’t care less.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen
It is obvious to those of us who have been here for some time that you are a woman of conviction, and apart from the issue of section 59 I admire your ability to argue your point.
However of late you seem to have lost it, you claim that frogblog is a peaceful place free of abuse and insults then proceed to abuse and insult those who you disagree with in one of your next posts.
Perhaps a period of reflection might be in order as your latest rant is simply insulting, as I said at the beginning of this post you are a woman of conviction and that is a trait I admire (even in my political opponents)
All I would ask of you are two things, one is that you stop peddling the blatant lies of those who support Comrade Bradford’s bill and PLEASE drop the man hating feminist rant, you are far better than that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve just reread all of this thread and have realised that there appears no logical based argument for supporting the bill in its current form. Here are the likely outcomes for all concerned.
Children – LESS protection from abuse
Parents – possible costly defense for unlikely outcomes
Abusers – Better chance of getting away with it.
Supporters – Smug feeling until they realise that there is truth in our convictions
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On and on we go with the “MY right to hit MY kids” brigade …
How would you react if there were a Movement in our society for your child’s preschool teacher )
primary school teacher )
secondary schol teacher ) to reclaim that “RIGHT” to hit, strap, cane YOUR kids?
We have asked our schools and other institutions to learn that there are more effective ways of socialising children. Now it is the turn of our parents. (Our turn!)
If you don’t like my contributions to this blog you are not alone!
I would MUCH RATHER be part of a CONSTRUCTIVE “debate” (real meaning of the word) about Kiwi child rearing practices and their relationship to our Society both current and future.
I ENJOY watching fathers take a greater role, than previously, in the raising of their kids. My (now adult) children’s father was an excellent example of this in their early years. However I am saddened by the fact that “smacking”, “hitting”, “slapping”, “paddling”, etc are seen as such an essential part of that child raising, in the minds of parents (in this case fathers) who look to what was done to them, rather than learn about what is now considered, by experts, to be “best practice” from the evidence gathered. You may be missing so much! (You wouldn’t use an out-of-date instructuon manual for your car or other technical posession … so why do so for your kids??)
The reason that this Bill (a Private Member’s Bill) is currently under discussion, is because it happened to be the one that came up in the ballot from among a raft of differenet Private Members’ bills. It is Sue Bradford’s Bill and she has a great deal of support and advice for it from the experts in related fields. She is a conscientious, principled and highly intelligent person and she knows what she is doing. (She is also an experienced and very good parent!)
The reason why this bill is considered necessary, is to gain a legal way to protect the most vulnerable, at-risk children in our society (who are not lucky enough to have fathers who care in the way that some of you obviously do). Someone in argument on this thread said that “only six” (used Section59 as a defence) … what if your child was involved in one of those six cases?
My background (and knowledge) of the issue is deeper and wider than most:
My training: MA (Education), Dip Tchg.
I have taught at all levels, but spent most of my career in Tertiatry Education (UnivCanterbury and later ChCh Polytechnic)
At Polytech I pioneered and ran a “Carers Course” for all ages (including disabilities of all types). Among others, it was the precursor/blueprint of the current Child Care Training in this country. We worked closely with Karitane, Plunket, Public Health, ChildCare, IHC, Crippled Children, etc etc Professionals and with their clients.
(As an aside: Three of my original students later became the Directors of three of the big Educational ChildCare Centres in the Christchurch district: ChCh Polytech, Coll of Education, Lincoln Univ … and very fine parents themselves.)
… and NO! I’m not trying to say “I know it all” … it is just an in-context list of what my actual experience has been. (Unfortunately I have also had the experience of being an unsupported sole parent and know just how tough that can be.)
If those of you who won’t be convinced had seen the children who attended the South Island Green Party Policy Conference with their parents: such bright, active, cooperative, creative, confident and gentle children, you could not have ignored the fact that non violent child rearing really works!
Please, for the sake of your kids (present and future) and yourselves, STOP being so concerned, so adamant, and so agressive on this subject.
The sky is NOT going to fall in!
If we cannot produce a less aggressive and more inaginative and tolerant generation in this country, on this troubled planet, soon, our future is very bleak.
Please “spare the rod” and save the innocence and confidence of our children and mokopuna.
If anyone choses to reply to this please practise acting as a good role model for your children (present or future).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen Says:
March 25th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
I am saddened by the fact that “smacking�, “hitting�, “slapping�, “paddling�, etc are seen as such an essential part of that child raising, in the minds of parents (in this case fathers) who look to what was done to them, rather than learn about what is now considered, by experts, to be “best practice� from the evidence gathered.
—————————————————
I gleaned this off Zanas links:
Yet the mildest forms of spanking have not been proved harmful. “A family that hits once in a while? The research is equivocal about that,� Kazdin says.
What the research does show is that spanking is generally no more effective than nonphysical disciplinary techniques in instilling acceptable behavior, that its effects vary from culture to culture and that a greater frequency of spanking increases the risk of negative consequences.
http://www.nospank.net/n-q64r.htm
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Swedish Child Missbehaving in Supermarket:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=R4h7PgrCPWQ
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen – great post.
However I am not part of any “MY right to hit MY kids� brigade, nor do I know anyone who is.
I am part of the “My child has a right to be kept safe and have boundaries set” brigade though.
I do not want to smack my kids.
I do not like to smack my kids.
And I very rarely do smack my kids – my six year old was last smacked sometime in 2005. She has great self discipline over major things, and has only had a single time out in the last six months. As such, she’s a very happy confident outgoing kid who’s breezing thorugh life very happily, as she’s almost never punished at all, and only very rarely told off.
Conversely we sometimes look after children from non-smacking families. A number of these kids have really appalling behaviour – no self discipline whatsoever. It can be quite shocking – yelling at adults “you’re not my boss, you can’y tell me what to do” simply for asking them to get into the car to go home.
Our kindy has a similar problem with a couple of kids from non-smacking families who think they can do what they like. It’s a real concern for the teachers.
Of course this is all anecdotal. But a couple of things are clear. Your so called “Best practice” methods are showing up with a few problems. Already this year we have separately had police and judges coming out saying there is growing concern about a generation of children with no self discipline, AND with the knowledge that nothing can be done about them.
Secondly, if smacking was so bad, then kids in the non-smacking camp would be outperforming others in areas like non-violence, drug taking, trouble with the law etc – but they are not.
Why are your methods producing kids (and subsequently adults) who are performing below those who get the occasional light smack?
You are wrong to say that smacking (hitting etc etc) is seen as an essential part of child rearing. It is not essential, and for many kids not even necessary at all. It is just one option that may work best in some situations with some kids. A single light smack can stop a behaviour that “best practice” methods either fail to do, or have to be repeated on an ongoing basis perhaps for weeks before they work – often making for an ongoing unhappy household, and ongoing risk.
On rare occasions when I’ve used a smack, it has worked like magic. The child has realised there is a line that should never be crossed. I can’t recall ever having smacked for the same thing twice. It has instantly and forever stopped behaviour like going onto the road, and pulling out heater plugs. What I feel guilty about is that I tried other methods first, thereby risking my childs life when they didn’t work.
How long should I keep risking a life to save a solitary smack?
There is perhaps a one in twenty chance that a small child running onto a road will get killed. One light smack prevented this…. forever.
Yet many people who are against this quite happily give their child a vaccination, far more painful, and the pain lasts longer, for a chance of saving a life than nothing like 1 in 20, more like 1 in 200,000.
Finally the bill as it is is virtually pointless. 199 out of 200 assault on child cases do not use section 59 as a defence. On the 1 out of 200 that do, the majority of the time they still get convicted.
Of the other 200 (who don’t use section59 as a defence) over half get off. So changing s59 will do nothing about this.
It will just criminilise most good kiwi parents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>If we cannot produce a less aggressive and more inaginative and tolerant >>generation in this country, on this troubled planet, soon, our future is very >>bleak.
Now who’s suggesting the sky is falling in?
I don’t think our future is bleak. I think most New Zealand kids are just fine. Unfortunately, this bill won’t free one child from child abuse. It will likely let more people off the hook, and put more parents through the mill.
It will make some people feel better about themselves. That’s all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Child Abuse in Sweden increases –
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00378.htm
Increase in violent children after smacking ban
http://faculty.biola.edu/paulp/sweden2.html
“The rate of child homicide & in Sweden is something like one every 4 yearsâ€? – Sue Bradford on TVNZ’s Close Up 19 July 2006
“Dr Kiro says people need to realise since Sweden banned physical punishment in 1976, only four children died in the following 20 years�
Children’s Commissioner speaks out against culture of violence – Press Release – Dr Cindy Kiro – 03/11/2004
The Childrens Commissioner uses false information – she somehow forgets about the other 200 dead children. Ditto with Sue.
But what do you expect on a campaign of misinformation.
Numerous studies show non-smacking has more detrimental outcomes
http://faculty.biola.edu/paulp/sweden.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen Says”The reason why this bill is considered necessary, is to gain a legal way to protect the most vulnerable, at-risk children in our society”
Good aim pity it misses the target, Furthermore it will enable a more indiscriminate use of force than had otherwise been justified under the old legislation.
“If those of you who won’t be convinced had seen the children who attended the South Island Green Party Policy Conference with their parents: such bright, active, cooperative, creative, confident and gentle children, you could not have ignored the fact that non violent child rearing really works!”
If you could see my son such a bright, active, cooperative, creative, confident and gentle child you would see that biting him back or a smack did no harm, infact he is more confident and social than most kids his age. But don’t take my word for it, Plunket wrote in his Well Child Tamariki Ora Health book at his last visit “Happy social little boy, excellent progress”
He is also the “star” of his lovebugs music class, dancing with the teacher as soon as the music starts. He has been doing this from 18months, where most of his peers cling or seek reassurance from their parents at that age.
Most people who meet him are surprised he will approach them and bigger kids with no shyness even in strange environments. I wish you could meet him to see for yourself but a picture tells 1000 words so email me and I’ll send one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is from The Families Commision:
43. The experience of other countries that have undertaken to distinguish between the correction of children and excessive violence provides useful information for the path New Zealand may wish to take on this issue. England and Wales27, Scotland28, New South Wales29 (Australia), and Canada30 have all, in various ways, clarified the limits of their particular reasonable chastisement defence by clarifying the bodily locations, ages and means by which a child can or cannot be physically punished.
44. In New South Wales, under the Crimes Amendment (Child Protection – Physical Maltreatment) Act (2001)31, physical punishment by a parent or caregiver is considered unreasonable if the force is applied to a child’s head or neck, or the force is applied to any part of the body in such a way as to cause, or threaten to cause, harm to the child which lasts more than a short period, and in such cases the defence of “lawful correction� does not apply.
45. In Canada, Section 43 of the Criminal Code (“Protection of Persons in Authority�) states: “Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.�
46. A Supreme Court ruling on 30 January 2004 stated that this section justifies only “minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature� and that it rules out corporal punishment of children under the age of two years or over the age of 12 years, as well as degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct, discipline using objects such as rulers or belts and blows or slaps to the head.32
47. In England and Wales, Section 58 of the Children Act (2004, in force 2005) enables parents to justify common assault of their children as ‘reasonable punishment’, but prevents the defence being used in relation to more serious assault charges. This allows parents to use ‘mild’ smacking, but bans smacking which causes bruises, scratches, reddening of the skin or mental harm. The use of implements to strike children is also prohibited.
48. Section 51 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act (2003) introduces the concept of ‘justifiable assault’ of children. Section 51 defines blows to the head, shaking and the use of implements as unjustifiable.
49. The Families Commission believes that amendments to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 would compromise a commitment to becoming a violence-free society. Amendment provides a statement that some degree of violence towards children is acceptable.
http://www.familiescommission.govt.nz/download/submission.pdf
From Unicef
Article 43
1. For the purpose of examining the progress made by States Parties in achieving the realization of the obligations undertaken in the present Convention, there shall be established a Committee on the
Rights of the Child, which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided.
2. The Committee shall consist of ten experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field covered by this Convention. The members of the Committee shall be elected by States Parties
from among their nationals and shall serve in their personal capacity, consideration being given to
equitable geographical distribution, as well as to the principal legal systems.
3. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by
States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals.
Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires States to protect children from “all forms of physical or mental violence� while in the care of parents and others. During the first decade of the Convention, its Treaty Body, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, has stated consistently that corporal punishment is incompatible with the Convention. The Committee has recommended to over 120 States in all continents that they should abolish all corporal punishment, including in the home, and develop public education campaigns to promote positive, non-violent discipline in the family, schools and other institutions.
http://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/arabic/pdf/Hitting-wrong.pdf
I think the International Obligations argument is shaky in the sense that while we elect a Labour government (ie they scrape in), officials then go ahead doing all sorts of things on “our” behalf. They should acknowledge that they may be out of kilter with the plebs at time. Whats more these positions seem to suffer from the Wally Factor.
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great links Southern Dave.
While in the past it may have been easier for the likes of Air-Brushed Helen and Co to calmly deposit carefully crafted pacifying statements on the population, (thereby, spreading doubt and muddying the waters), this is the information agewhere we have a library at our fingertips and can instantly create stinkbombs of Inconvientient Truths. The repeal campaign have always suffered from a wrinkle (ie)>> light occasional smacking (where appropriate) is a useful child rearing tool.[ And I don't care what Auntie Eredwen says]
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Anti-smacking bill a legislative mess. http://www.stuff.co.nz/3998710a17196.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
John Keys is reinventing the national party to target The X & Y generation, parents, gays, home owners, Maori and the Enviromenally aware.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4005112a6160.html
Must be expecting a huge swing of voters from other parties. I wonder why?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The reason why this bill is considered necessary, is to gain a legal way to protect the most vulnerable, at-risk children in our society (who are not lucky enough to have fathers who care in the way that some of you obviously do).
Eredwen – We all want to do THIS, but we don’t want to do it the way this bill does it. .
The sky is NOT going to fall in!
This remains to be seen. The results of this bill and the election results are some months in the future. I never said that the police would be unable to ameliorate the failure of parliament to make a clear law. Just that this was a chancy way to make law and that there is a statistical certainty that good parents WILL wind up in court. There is also a statistical certainty that some cops will abuse their power (or do the headlines mean nothing?), and one should consider well before augmenting that power with the ability to define criminal behaviour.
If I am correct and Greens are sent howling into the wilderness and Labour is trounced heavily (as seems likely on current form), we’re going to be regretting this for a long time, CO2 emissions will be a long time getting fixed and the “sky-fell-in” argument might well be made by our children.
Please “spare the rod� and save the innocence and confidence of our children and mokopuna.
There is no evidence available to indicate that children who are given spankings for misbehaviour and have defined limits available to them from their parents are less innocent and confident.
Spanking vs non-spanking statistics are not the same as beating vs non-beating statistics and confusing the two issues creates a false position for us. It is pretty clear from the data that the occasional spanking is not a problem and has nothing to do with saving our mokopuna.
Despite your credentials and Sue’s, the wording of this amendment is not a matter of children but a matter of law, and I do not have high confidence in the way it is currently worded. Despite the insistence of Unicef’s committee, there is no evidence presented ANYWHERE that they have it right. As for the families commission, my difficulties with their blindly following and dictating to the families of NZ are large, but even so I have some respect for the process. Children do indeed have rights, not as many or as clear-cut as adults have, but they have rights and not being beaten is one of them.
I’d suggest, and I have pointed this one out before as well, that if Sue and others intend to pursue the issue in terms of making spankings illegal she should consider making beatings subject to an assault charge (the usual felony) and spankings a misdemeanor which attracts less of a problem in terms of employability etc.
The point here is also related to the Swedish law and enforcement thereof, which was NOT set up so as to make felons of parents who broke it.
In other words, we Kiwis can do better, and given that we are not leading but following others, we should be better able to learn from their experiences and their mistakes.
If I in my part time, find substantial flaws in the wording of the current amendment (and I did so at a very early stage), flaws in the strategy of the Green Party attempting to impose this on the country without the assent of the country, and flaws in the research on which the psycho-social policy underlying it, then the people who are promoting it need to consider the REAL consequences of their drive to impose it on the country and how to get where they want to go without antagonizing everyone.
Yeah… it might take a couple of generations to make the country ready for an actual complete ban on spankings (sorry I cannot bring myself to use the word smacking… American usage puts this invariably above the neck) … but in the meantime we’d have laid aside the farm implements and made ourselves a society more supportive of parents with better instruction for prospective parents (or has my repeated advocacy of college level courses in “proper” parenting been totally lost here).
Softly, softly catchee monkey.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wow BJ respect.
You do have to use our terminology though
Open handed strike to head in NZ is a slap
Open handed controlled strike to hand or bottom in NZ is a light smack
Spanking can mean repetitive hard smacking i.e. more than 6 blows in the same spot.
Spanking also can mean another repetitive action (Spanking the monkey doesn’t mean smacking George Bush)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OnceBitten:
I’m delighted to hear about your son and your obvious pride in him! I had already formed the impression that you are a caring parent. (I’ll check with frog about exchanging email addresses.)
My point was that children brought up in a totally non-violent way “can be” (from your perspective) well socialised, cooperative, confident, and on the way to being excellent citizens … who are more likely to be non violent. This result can be achieved without any “need” for “correction” in the form of physical punishment.
There was NO intended inference that you, and people like you, are not good and caring parents !
It is when the “occasional light smack” escalates, or is ritualised, or is used in anger, that I become concerned. There is a huge power difference between an adult (especially a male adult) and a child. We do our society no favours if we teach our kids (especially our sons) that “might is right”. Children do much of their learning by copying the behaviour that they see or experience. (Children who are smacked often smack their dolls/soft toys in play. Some of them smack other children …)
I agree that there is a good case for a bitten parent to gently and immediately “bite” the biter, to teach him/her not to do that again, because human teeth can be a seriously damaging weapon. (An immediate quick sharp (but gentle) slap on the face/mouth with a firm, frowning “NO” is an alternative which respects the human “no biting” taboo!)
Also, despite the deliberately whipped up “hysteria” of the so called “pro-smacking lobby” on this blog and elsewhere, our Courts and Jails are NOT going to be filled to standing room only with “evil smackers” (like yourself !!)
I hesitiate to enter into the so called “debate” on the topic here because I deem it pointless to join the whole argument with its seriously misinformed hysteria, beligerance and “instant experts”. From experience I have trust in Sue Bradford and her (high calibre) Team. Sue always “does her homework” well. Her legal advice will have been thorougly researched at the highest level. (In this case the very highest level!)
As I understand it, the intention is to remove a Section that is not working in the way it was originally intended, and as a result our most vulnerable children are placed at risk. Our laws are not static, as the outcome of each court case can set a precedent and these precedents can be used to change the way in which a law may be interpreted… in this case, away from its original meaning/intention.
The “he said/she said” and generally doubtful “information” that has been repeatedly “presented”, and above all the beligerence and the repetitive denegration of people like Sue, plus the various other “ad hominem” attacks DO NOT help the so called “debate”.
(My wise old father had a very apt saying: “There is no point in farting against thunder” … so on threads like this one I don’t bother to try!)
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen it is clear we agree on much but may have a different opinion on one point,
I think we agree that when an occasional light smack becomes regular, forceful and done in anger without regard to positive parenting techniques first it can adversely effect a child.
I think we may agree that a child can become happy social etc if a child is raised within either a violence free home or one that uses an occasional light smack when all else fails.
I personally think that a bite back just hard enough so it has the desired effect is more appropriate than any facial contact thus probably continuing the bite taboo into the next generation.
We probably disagree only on what the bill actually says rather than what it actually intended to say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen – you say non-smacking kids are “more likely to be non violent.”
However this is not true. The only study of it’s type in NZ – the Otago Uni study – shows that children who recieve an occasional smack are the least violent people.
The claim (often repeated) that a smack teaches children to be violent is nonsense. A beating does – but a light smack does not.
The problem is there is a lot of “reaearch” done whre the agenda has been set form the start – to prove smacking is bad. So instead of studying at least four groups like the Otago study (smacked, hit, non-physical, and beaten) the studies are lump smacking with severe beatings, and not surprisingly come out with results that are highly discredited as misleading by actual scentific studies (those studies that collect the facts to find the answer, rather than collecting facts to fit the preconcieved answer).
The so called hysteria has been whipped up by Sue and her supporters. It is she who is saying that the most important thing for the people (she says 50% of the population) who oppose her bill, is to be able to beat, hit and assault their children.
Already we have an accusation, with zero proof, that over half the population are child abusers. On this page we have totally unfounded insinuations that our children are not safe.
The hysteria is on the side of the witch hunters.
If proponents of the bill are prepared to make wild accusations of criminal behaviour, without even the slightest piece of evidence – then it would be insane for the public not to worry about these people.
On top of this we have the bills proponent using the Swedish fuigures, and understating them by a factor of 20.
The has been massive increases in assaults by children in Sweden.
Worryingly, there has also been a massive rise in assaults ON children after the smacking ban. On theory is children are now not disciplined – at least not until things things get really out of hand.
it’s a very feasible explaination why smacking bans can cause a RISE in child abuse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen here it is (for a different purpose)
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/03/19/let-the-s59-debate-continue/#comment-25088
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oh and eredwen I wont use it as a forum for even discussing this bill just to send you 2 photos of my boy, and my unique experience that qualifies me in parenting from 26weeks gestation with unheard of results.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wonder how many Greens remember these words.
17 Sep 1998 – “however one of the worst of old traditions still hanging on is abuse of urgency procedure.”
21 Dec 2001 – “Urgency should only be used for matters which are genuinely urgent, The only exception is that from time to time we have considered – and will continue to consider – approaches for extra sitting hours, and then only for one stage of a bill at a time.”
12 Jun 2002 – “We all know that urgency leads to bad legislation. It often leads to amendment bills to fix up mistakes that have happened because the original bill has been rushed through. We also know that Standing Orders exist for a reason–that is, to ensure considered passage of the law.”
20 July 2005 – “”The Greens have long stated that urgency should only be used where legislation is truly urgent.”
As I said in an earlier post on this topic it seems that the Greens will do anything to pass this bill.
The Greens were always seen as different but they were also seen by the pubic as a party of morals and honesty, well that has gone now, the Greens are now simply another hard left party that will do anything and say anything to stay in power.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What wrong with the acts wording
Section (1) justifies force for PREVENTING this and that meaning you can use reasonable force to prevent him going on the road
Section (2) you can’t use force for CORRECTION meaning as a punishment after the offence
You might try and argue that a light smack would be for prevention of biting, but a light smack for biting is done after the fact so is CORRECTION
Section (3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1). Means you can’t use anything in section (1) as a defence for a prosecution bought under section (2) of the act.
59 Parental control 5
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Give any lawyer the argument in my last blog and he will be able to sucessfully convict a mother for a light smack after being bitten.
Equally he will able to defend any injuries unwitnessed in real abuse cases “It was a rugby tackle to prevent them coming to greater harm on the road”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was wondering why National were so quiet on this issue. Apparently while generally voting against it, they are hoping it will go through.
If the opposing parties were about to commit political suicide, would you try to stop them?
The view of a lawyer (and mother) who prosecutes child abusers
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10430966
New Poll – Vast Majority Opposte Anti-smacking Bill
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=87&objectid=10430953
I thought the whole point of a democracy is to stop a small minority imposing their will on the majority.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I heard a comment on the radio re the poll> someone said something to the effect that “Well if so many people think violence against children is o.k. we really do need to fast track the legislation”
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What a pity, I really wanted the house to take urgency on this matter and ram this bill through.
“Peter Brown of NZ First has told NewstalkZB that Cullen has withdrawn the request for urgency”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yes BB, I agree with you that it would be hypocritical for the Greens to support urgency on this bill given our long standing position on urgency.
But do you have any evidence that the Greens supported urgency for this bill? I have seen none. Maybe that is why Labour have decided not to use it because we said no.
Nice quoting though BB, thats a step up from normal. Pity you didn’t reference where you quoted it from though:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00529.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey
That is stretching it a bit far, you well know that Bradford and many (not all) Greens will do anything to have this bill passed.
I am genuine when I say that I really want the Greens to take a step back on this, they MUST think of the long term future of the party, this bill will do you irreparable harm, the voters (as evidenced by the last TV one poll) are already turning against the govt on this and many other issues, it is not a good time to align yourself with this corrupt Labour govt.
To use a political term, Bradford is simply going to have to swallow a dead rat on this, the co leaders should be telling her to pull this bill immediately.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the only evidence (on the GP position on urgency) I have seen is:
“Ms Bradford said the Government had sought its support for an urgency motion which requires a majority.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10430510
which doesn’t say that we agreed to their request, merely that they made a request.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
your a bit schizophrenic about the Greens aren’t you BB? One minute you are saying “I hope the Greens back down on this so they stay in Parliament”, the next you are saying “I hope urgency is used to railroad this through parliament so that the maximum damage may be done to the Bills supporters.”
I’m sure there are other similar examples in your past posting record, that I can’t be bothered going to look for, where you say you want us to stay in Parliament, and then next week you say you can’t wait ’til we’re out.
It’s a bit good cop – bad cop isn’t it, this love-hate relationship?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey
OK, given that is there any truth in the rumour that this bill is actually the work of Helen Klark?, Labours desire to see this rammed through would suggest that they think it is a vital piece of legislation despite the PM saying just months ago that she would never support such a bill.
There is a growing sense that Comrade Bradford has been set up by Labour and the Greens have seized this bill as their one chance to actually get a piece of legislation on the statute books.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
er not true, we already have lots of legislation passed, there was Nandor’s clean slate bill and the Land Transport Strategy/Road Traffic Reduction laws (not that Transit actually follow the law).
and we do of course have 8(???) members bills going through the house at the moment, as well as Sue’s Section 59 Repeal Bill, we have Nandor’s Waste Minimisation Bill and Sue’s Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill (both of which also look like being passed into law).
See all our proposed bills
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey
Thats a fair question, I have been consistent on this, I despise Bradford and Locke as they are basically communists, I do however support the Greens on issue of Animal welfare and for that reason alone I do not want them to disappear from the house.
I have also stated that I would give my vote(s) to the Greens if they managed to do something about the shocking cruelty animals in NZ suffer, infact I would give them both of my votes for even trying.
I am sure as hell that neither Labour or the Nat’s will ever do anything about this issue, so yes my motives are selfish, I really do not care, this is the one issue I am absolutely passionate about, there are other issues that I care about but not to this extent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey “But do you have any evidence that the Greens supported urgency for this bill? ”
I heard Sue say on radio that they did support the urgency.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see it’s been reported that CFS and Plunket are threatening their staff so they don’t sign the s59 petition.
Is that legal?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Southern Dave
Before I worry about whether it is legal, I would worry about whether it is true. I don’t know either way but rumours needn’t be introduced in evidence here. They serve no purpose at all.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On the 6 O’clock News, Helen Clark refered to it as the “Bradford Bill“.
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As I see it the Bill supporters believe and have to believe the following.
People that don’t support the bill aren’t greens.
Good parents that practice modern parenting techniques don’t smack
Greens don’t smack and if they do it’s wrong
Groups like Plunket would never support smacking
I can provide evidence of my grandfather heavily involved in environmental issues from the 1950′s back before it was acceptable to do so. That’s where I came from!
Due to the extreme prematurely of my son I have been to more parenting classes etc than it’s natural for any normal parent to attend. Lots of this was developmental based to correct developmental problems.
Here is the crunch, most mothers smack or bite back why? Because when a baby bites while breast-feeding or even later on if they are bottle fed, they are still to young to reason to. You can remove them but if this doesn’t work the Plunket Nurse will tell you what they aren’t allowed to…smack or bite them back.
Bill supporters find out yourself, ask a Plunket nurse in your area, and as it is “force for correction” you too are criminal
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh,
Labour are back pedalling furiously on this bill. Putting distance between them and Sue Bradford and the Greens.
Back 20 yearsd ago in my surf life saving days we were taught to bring a hysterical patient (in the surf and close to drowning) to their senses by a open handed stinging slap across the face. (across the face because it being the only part of the body above water) This theory being that it focusses the patients mind back to what is happening around them.
A hysterical patient is a danger not just to themselves but also to the would be rescuer.
Only ever had to use this technique once and it worked.
I know wonder what techniques the surf life savers use today as that would technically be considered an assault.
I can see a similar reason for bringing a hysterical child back to being aware of their surrounding by using a smack.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Government abandons rushing anti-smacking law through
The Greens and the Progressive’s Jim Anderton supported the urgency motion
http://new.tv3.co.nz/News/PoliticalNews/tabid/188/articleID/24010/Default.aspx#top
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A hysterical child wouldn’t be in danger to themselves or the would be rescuer
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A slap across the face by a surf lifesaver would still be legal as it has nothing to do with correction just saving lives.
So even if a charge under Sues Bill was bought against a surf lifesaver for having to slap a child under a rescue situation, subsection (1) gives them a reasonable defence. See this earlier explaination.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/03/19/let-the-s59-debate-continue/#comment-25454
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Having seen a hystirical grandson run across a busy road, I wouldnt be too sure, Once Bitten. Would be ressuer, Grandma, also run onto the road to try and stop him, putting both at risk.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB
You are quite right that neither National nor Labour will do anything about animal welfare. Anderton even overturned a Regulations Review Committee recommendation that battery cages be phased out after the industry put him under a great deal of legal pressure. And after animal liberationist broke into a pig factory farm, measured the stalls and found they were breaking the law by having stalls under the legal minimum, MAF simply changed the law, after a cosy lunch provided by the NZ Pork Industry Board.
jh
I read abot your life saving experiences with great interest, but to me they actually provide support for the bill. Hitting or restraining an adult to save their life or someone elses is not assault, so restraining or even hitting a child for the same reason would not be. However, if your life savers, after they had dragged their victim from the water and made sure they were okay, then administered a spanking to teach them not to do it again, they would certainly have been guilty of assault.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What I am saying is just being hysterical isn’t a reason to smack.
If it leads to self-endangering or criminal behaviour then it is covered by subsection (1)
but there are valid reasons to smack for the purpose of correction, they will be illegal under Sues Bill but a better example would be to stop biting as almost all mothers have experienced this.
Lets give them one personally valid reason for force for the purpose of correction then they will be more open to accept others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A major problem is parenting has taken a quantum leap in the last generations, most grandparents grew up being unfairly physically pushished for control in shools, home, etc.
So when they became parents they fought to end this in schools because they were good parents they practised control at home too.
Todays parents grew up remembering the end of corporal punishment or never experienced it at all. Other parenting techniques have changed as well into this next generation, and Plunket covers them well with assistance of numerous great organisations.
But what todays parents have discovered that there are times when our over social and confident children will test their boundaries not all or them will but some will.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A smack is the oldest, crudest tool available for parental control.
It is not to be over-used or used with too much force.
Never to be used in anger or when other methods are available.
But it should be available when available when all else fails.
Why is it ok to smack to prevent something?
but not ok to smack when they keep doing it, you have tried everything else and you can’t anticipate when they are going to do it next time?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OnceBitten, I would disagree that it is the crudest control, it invokes a mechanism of learning that has evolved over millions of years and existing in almost every complex organism. Crude only if you do not consider the amount of refinement and effort nature has put into it. – respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ we agree that it is the oldest tool available for parental control being around millions of years and all.
A hammerstone is probably its equalivent in man tool-box, I am not saying that throw out your old crude hammer. It is still a useful tool.
I am saying also don’t throw out the oldest crudest tool that nature has given all parents including non-humans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You see this is our time to try to be better parents than our parents.
Just as our parents were better parents to us than their parents were to them.
Not only is our parenting evolving through concious change and education, our views on enviromental issues are as well.
Use this Bill to protect our children from abuse don’t use it to hamper good parenting.
Our time is naturally coming to the greens, let us not push it away
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oncebitten “Never to be used in anger or when other methods are available.”
It certainly shouldn’t be used regularly, but the Otago Uni survey showed that a higher percentage oc children became very upset with non-physiical punishments, than with a smack.(including Sues alternative methods of locking in a room and yelling)
The trouble is there is a bit of anti-smacking hysteria, and smacking is made out to me so much worse for a child than the alteratives – fact is that is is right in the middle of all the different methods – many of which are more traumatic for a larger percentage of children.
Unfortunately some people are so closed minded that they can’t see the whole piicture. We need something more advanced than …smacking bad – time out good.
Alternatively, we could focus on those kids who are being beaten badly, and try to do somehting about that.
The main factors are well known – drug abuse, alhohol abuse, poverty, young mothers, mental illness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You can equally raise a social, well adjusted child by either
1. No smacking if other non-physical and non-abusive methods work.
2. Light, occasional smacking when non-physical and non-abusive don’t work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The reason it shouldn’t be used in anger is because in those situations it is usually done with too much force.
You should try other methods first as if it is used as a solve all, it can become too regular.
Why is it ok to smack to prevent something?
But not ok to smack when they keep doing it, you have tried everything else first as a correction, and you can’t anticipate when they are going to do it,thus prevent it?
This is the real problem of the bill
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why is it ok to smack to prevent something
But not ok to smack when they will do it again but not immediately, you have tried everything else first as a correction, and you can’t anticipate when they are going to do it, thus prevent it?
This is the real problem of the bill
i.e. children saving the criminal behavior for when we are not looking, ceasing it before we can get to them and not responding to other non physical correction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Former crown prosecutor on Section 59
Michele WIlkinson-Smith writes on Section 59 in the NZ Herald. She is a lawyer who has prosecuted and defended child abuse cases. She knows what she is talking about. Some extracts:
I say the repeal of section 59 is unnecessary because in my experience it is just that – unnecessary. I never lost a case which I prosecuted on the basis of section 59.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/03/former_crown_prosecutor_on_sec.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Michele Wilkinson-Smith: Bradford’s own people will lose most in smacking law
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10430966
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why s59 is needed = CFS had a carer prosecuted for smacking three children – there was no claim that the smacking was excessive.
One child had spread faeces around the house, one had let a handbrake off nearly causing a serious accident, and one was lighting fires inside the house.
The court found that a smack on the hand, in the circumstances WAS reasonable, and ordered that the children continuede to live there.
Clearly CFS already prosecutes for smacking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Let us for arguments sake say s59 needed fixing.
Let us for arguments sake say Sues bill has good intentions.
It is obvious apon removing oneself from the emotions that
1. The bill has 3 distinct writing styles by 3 hands in the mix.
2. It is confusing because it’s written inside out.
3. The original objective appears still to be there but has been written out.
Lets look further into each of these points
1. Subsections 2 and 3 appear to be written by author X
Most of subsection 1 appears to be written by author Y
Some add-ins of subsection 1 appear to be an after thought
2. I will now turn the “inside out bill” the right way using the original numbering.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
3. So now the bill says
It is ok to smack to prevent criminal behaviour or stop it in real time.
But not ok to smack when they will do it again but not immediately, you have tried everything else first as a correction, and you can’t anticipate when they are going to do it, thus prevent it.
It also is wide open for abuse defences if the abuse was not done as a correction (punishment)
Who can’t see this?
The Aim was good, pity it missed the target.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Abuse that will now be legal under Sues Bill
In the space of an hour little one ripping up the newspaper SMACK, reaches for the heater SMACK, takes off with dads spanner SMACK, banging a toy SMACK, drawing in their new book SMACK, smacking the cat SMACK.
This highly repetitive abusive behaviour is defendable because it is using reasonable force preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in vandalism, self endangerment, theft, disruptive behaviour, vandalism and cruelty to animals.
A non abusive parent would take the objects off them telling not to do that because.., use a deeper or louder tone to warn the child first, remove them from the situation and talk, correct use of time out, removal of favourite toys etc and only smack preventing the child from engaging in conduct or continuing to engage in conduct when nothing else works.
Good Parenting that will be illegal under Sues Bill
A child waits until the parent is not looking then engages in criminal or disruptive behaviour and dis-continues the behaviour before or on discovery and will repeat this behaviour but not now that you are watching. A non abusive parent would take the objects off them telling not to do that because.., use a deeper or louder tone to warn the child first, remove them from the situation and talk, appropriate use of time out, removal of favorite toys etc and only smack to correct them doing it when nothing else works.
Who can’t see this?
The Aim was good, pity it missed the target
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
An open handed offer to Sue Bradford.
I pledge to travel to Wellington at my own expense to give freely of my time to assist you in tweaking this Bill.
My qualifications include Green Party supporter, loving caring Parent and part-time Bouncer used to operating under “reasonable force” to enforce Trespass Act, Sale of liquor Act etc.
I feel I have raised valid points in my last two blogs that haven’t been addressed in the media or parliament yet. So I believe my input may be of some use.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh: I also read the herald article by the lawyer, and I am now less convinced that the bill is a good idea. The point that impressed me the most is that it could be used as a weapon in custody cases, especially against fathers who are already marginalised in custody disputes. The Borrows amendment seems clumsy, but it is probably still an improvement that will protect children from the the worst cases of abuse while not giving vindictive parents more ammunition in custody disputes.
I also read that in the case that triggered the Bill, the Timaru woman who caned her son has had the son taken into care. So even though the law failed to protect her son from abuse, the system as a whole did work to stop it happening again.
It is a pity that the Crimes Act does not have recommended best practices like Codes of Welfare under the Animal Welfare Act do. If it did then discipline without smacking could be a recommended best practice, which would give it more legal force without going all the way to criminalising good parents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the bill is a good idea but needs some fine adjustments so it shoots straight. I don’t think the Borrows amendment is the complete answer.
Clear, understandable, non-conflicting guidlines need to be in place for good parents to follow and to protect the unprotected innocents.
The Aim was good, pity it missed the target
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oncebittn – the answer is very simple, and has been all along. All that needs to be done is a very simple ammendment to s59, to say that “”reasonable force” does not include a closed fist, using objects, cruel and degrading punnishments, or anything that results in an injury)
That’s it. Leave anything else to the courts.
This achieves two things the current proposal doesn’t – 1/ it lets parents know what is and isn’t allowed, 2/ it targets the abusers, not mainstream parents.
In 199 out of 200 cases s59 is not used as a defence anyway. In one out of 200 cases, the s59 defence fails MOST of the time.
Tyring to legislate for every possible circumstance is doomed to failure. The courts are the best place to decide.
Just like the Timaru case, very often misrepresented by the bills supporters. Rather than a horse whip, is was a small ridding crop (about half the size of the old school canes that were regululary used in the past).
Secondly, the jury found it’s use was resonable in the circumstances, because it stopped the child stoving his fathers skull in with a baseball bat.
Thirdly, and here the irony, the reason the case came to court in the first place was because the school noticed a dramatic improvement in the childs behaviour.
Fourthly (irony 2), when CYFS took the child away, used their “non-physical” methods on him, including drugging him with ritolin, his behaviour became so bad he was expelled.
So the often quoted “horse whip” case, rather than misleadingly being portrayed as a failure of s59, is probably an example of how it worked.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Southern Dave it is pointless arguing what the answer is. It is more productive to point out this bill in its current form is flawed because it gives good defenses for child abuse, and criminalises good parents. Like wise it is also counter productive to argue individual cases as it distracts from the real argument of this bill in its current form is flawed because it gives good defenses for child abuse, and criminalises good parents. I would like to point out hitting an adult with an object is assault with a weapon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But also you are entitled to self defence using reasonable force, and Sues bill reinforces this fact in section(1) and does nothing to effect this in common law either. I have to use resonable force and self defence (of oneself, others and property) in the normal coarse of performing my job as a bouncer. These existing laws work well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OnceBitten, I whole-heartedly agree with your last comment. It took a long time for you to get from there to here and I did enjoy your personal stories of parenting, but I especially appreciated the way you just summed this up short sweet and to the point. I would also be happy to join you on your trip to go visit Sue.
Kiore, very good points also and which reinforce my consistent opposition to this bill in it’s current wording. I feel very strongly that the issue of “raising children” needs to be kept entirely separate from the Crimes Act and that the Crimes Act should focus narrowly on what is considered to be “assault” on children if and when it goes beyond the realms of “effective parenting”.
SouthernDave, I am just flicking past your replies to this topic now because you’re just repeating the same old same old arguments over and over again and many of the associations you make with research have been inaccurately quoted – which I really can’t be bothered pulling you up on anymore because of your railroading style of debate in these two S59 threads.
Cheers,
Zana
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oncebitten “I would like to point out hitting an adult with an object is assault with a weapon.”
It’a also illegal to
-lock them in a room
-force them into a car
-force them to take drugs like ritolin, or medicine, or to get vaccinations.
-take them to their room to make them go to bed early
-force them to go to the dentist.
With overwhelming public opposition it’s inevitable that the Bradford Bill will die. The only question is will it take Labour down with it (quite likely if they keep riding this bill over the top of the cliff) and will it damage the Greens. (that is far less clear, though it is a very big gamble the Greens are taking).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sothern dave hitting anyone especially a child with anything is wrong because it doesnt give tactile feedback. You can use reasonable force in self denfense of oneself, others or property this is in common law. And Sues bill reinforces this and doesnt conflict with it.
Section(1)(d) covers all your other examples.
It is pointless arguing what the answer is. It is more productive to point out this bill in its current form is flawed because it gives good defenses for child abuse, and criminalises good parents
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
zANavAShi I was trying to say the same thing all along, it just took me a while how to convey that in this medium. I found though its better not to making snide, sarcastic or inflamatory remarks and answer valid questions weather they were pro or anti. Find the common ground which is altimately our children, their good care and disapline. And pick out the core concerns of both camps. I would be humbled for you to join me on our trip to go visit Sue. Maybe you would be more able to organise a appointment than I would. ps my email address is up there somewhere if you would like to see a photo of my boy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Personally I think forcing Ritalin on a child (or adult) should be assault. It is just forcing humans to fit with rigid systems, instead of getting the systems to fit the humans. And the school dental nurses in the 70s when I was forced to visit them were no better than vivisectors, as subsequent investigations have shown. I am also fairly sure that where there is a genuine mental health issue then adults can be forced to take medication under the Mental Health Act, though others may know more than me.
The other examples given by SouthernDave are covered under reasonable force as OnceBitten has pointed out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore1 adults have the right to refuse treatment if they are of sound mind.
adults have the right to accept or refuse treatment for their kids. Sues bill section1d means a parent has the right of reasonable force to administer it.
Although this bill in its current form is flawed because it gives good defenses for child abuse, and criminalises good parents
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They can be forced to take medication under the act, this I know of a certainty, if they are adjudged to be a danger to themselves or others. More than this I will not say but my experience with this is extensive and it is New Zealand experience, not US experience.
As for the Ritalin however, I would not want it even though my daughter spends half her time on the ceiling. I want her to grow up as her, not as some drugged shadow of me. I envy her energy to be sure… but she has to LEARN the self-control to channel it – not take away both the learning and the energy with a pill.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I will explain what reasonable force is in the context of bouncing.
To remove a patron when they are intoxicated.
Approach the patron and using only your physical presence ask him nicely to leave. If they ask why? say “we can discuss this outside.”
If they are reluctant, using a sterner voice say “sorry you have to leave”
If at any stage they say “can I just tell my friend, finish my drink first, etc” take the easy out.
If they are still reluctant then draw up to your full height and say “This is your third and final warning, please leave the bar.”
If they are reluctant, inform them they are now trespassing, and I can now call the police to remove you or remove you myself using reasonable force.
If they still are reluctant remove them by gentle pushing if met by passive resistance, and the minimal amount of force required to restrain and remove them otherwise.(like for like)
If a assaulted or attempted in the process or are threatened with a weapon you can defend yourself.
This process is recorded by CCTV and stands up to police scrutiny without false arrests on a regular basis.
Parenting is good training for bouncers and visa versa.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oncebitten – I think you miss my point.
The point was that it would be reduiculous if laws for interacting with other grown adults and laws for raising children were exactly the same, gave the same rights etc.
I was not endorsing hitting with an object – in fact just the opposite. My earleir post read ” that the ammendment should be â€?reasonable forceâ€? does not include a closed fist, using objects, cruel and degrading punishments, or anything that results in an injury.
I disagree that it’s pointless to talk about possible solutions. The current ammendment is a dog- everyone knows that. But Labour and the Greens have got themselves into a pickle by fanatically supporting this as it stands.
The way forward is to make some ammendments – something between the Bradford and Borrows versions. Maybe you’d then get 85% support from the public instead of 85% against.
That way we could ALL concentrate on the actual abusers instead of criminilising middle New Zealand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Southern Dave I don’t disagree. Something between the Bradford and Borrows versions, would satisfy 99% of us. Did you read my desription of how reasonable force works? This bill in its current form is flawed because it gives good defenses for child abuse, and criminalises good parents
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oncebitten – I think a point we might all be missing is that “reasonable force” is something that changes with circumstances.
Like your example, it is reasonable to throw someone out of a club, AFTER your previous escalating warnings, but throwing themout without warning would not be reasonable.
Similarly it would almost never be reasonable to cane with a riding crop, but it the child was trying to stove in his fathers skull, then there is an arguement that it wcould be reasonable – in this particular case the jury thought it was.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As I have forwarded my suggestion to Sue via e-mail (and received a polite response), so do I suggest that you do the same. Coming to Wellington is not required… (and no, there is not agreement yet)
Whether she accepts any part of any of any suggested changes is up to her. I only know that it isn’t a matter of challenging her on this blog, but of addressing her, with respect for her intentions and position, and giving her those suggestions… though it appears that she is at least passing familiar with what goes on here.
In other words, don’t fix the blame, try to fix the problem. Offer your solutions… not to ME or to Eredwen or to whoever, but to the one person who really has her hands full with this one. She has the right to go ahead as she will, but I am pretty confident that she will hear out the suggestions.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SouthernDave Reasonable force in law is reasonable in the circumstance.
I can tackle, restrain and remove straight away if a patron is fighting.
And if he comes at me with intent after I have removed him I can preempt self defense using reasonable force. Hope this helps.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OnceBitten “Reasonable force in law is reasonable in the circumstance.
I can tackle, restrain and remove straight away if a patron is fighting.”
Exactly.
And polititians atre trying to tell us that resonable force is never….er…. reasonable….if it is used as a deterant or correction.
News form the far left – even Chris Trotter is saying the bill must be withdrawn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ what was your suggestion to Sue?
It would be good to use this forum to refine any suggested changes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Southern Dave you almost got it, the bill needs to say that resonable force used as a deterant or correction, now just the bit to stop abuse.
The solution is so simple its stupid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here is the challenge guys. Read all I have said today, the answer is there, remembering what I have explained about reasonable force.
It is not rocket science and if a dumb bouncer can work it out so can you.
I will read your posts tomorrow morning, bye for now.
ps I also used to have another day job before I became a parent and could only work Friday and Saturday nights.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oncebitten – the problem is, that even if s59 ends up “perfect” it won’t actually make any difference, as it is almost never used in court.
Around 199 in 200 cases of assault on a child do not use s59.
Yet 50% still get off on other factors.
If doesn’t matter what you do with s59. It’s not used in these cases so it will make no difference.
All this effort, when we could actually be addressing child abuse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sue giving the bill to Labour to stick on the Government’s agenda – is this dangerous? Sue has repeatedly threated to withdraw the bill if it gets “ammended” – if Labour are in control will that option be gone…? I dont see some compromise as being beyond the realms of possibility.
(Absolutely brilliant to have post preview at last)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Southern Dave
The problem with this corrupt and PC govt is that they are not brave enough to deal with the REAL problem area when it comes to violence/abuse against children.
It is far easier to tar all parents with the same brush instead of going after the real abusers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bruv – I agree – totally.
This does NOTHING against those child abusers who seriously assault and even kill their kids (even Sue Bradford admists this)
This does NOTHING against those who assault their kids (199 of 200 do not use s59 defence, and the 1 that does mostly get convicted).
This does NOTHING for those who hit their kids with an object – it simply allows them to say that it was to prevent rather than deter their child – it actually protects them (the point OnceBitten has been making).
This bill DOES criminailise middle New Zealand who mainly use non-physical punishment, but occasionaly use a smack to set a boundary.
So why do polititians like Sue Bradford FAIL, and Helen Clark FAIL, to address the abusers, and instead try to criminalise middle New Zealand ?
They label most New Zealand parents (anyone who opposes their bill) as abusers, to support a bill that tiotally fails to adress the real abusers.
If this is their total sum of skill as polititians, lawmakers, and representatives, then they should not be in their current jobs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I sent her this, which you may recollect from the top of the thread.
Nobody flagged it as particularly troublesome and as a result I simply sent it as is. NOW you want to argue about it? Geez…. timing is everything guys..
59 Parental control 5
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of retaliation.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) justifies (a) striking a child with any implement other than an open hand (b)striking a child above the neck or (c)striking, shaking or handling a child roughly enough to cause lasting bruises and/or internal injuries. An exception to (c) exists where no other action is possible to save the child from worse injury or death.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) prevail over subsection (1).
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ – your pragmatism deserves a medal. With that attitude I think you’ll always get afr closer to your goal than a hard nose approach.
The meaning of what you have ias exactly the common sense approach needed.
Now, can it be be explained clearly to the public in a single sentence?
It is can, then it’s probably a good law
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Unfortunatel there’s Our International Obligations. Helen Clark would overide all of us to please the “UN”.
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Prime Minister Helen Clark yesterday said some bill opponents were “demanding the right to be able to thrash and beat children”, and Dr Cullen said hysteria would pass once people understood the bill properly.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10431255
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JH – It is POSSIBLE that some of the bill opponents are indeed. I wandered into the Wellington march and demonstration… there are some hard core religiously intense nut cases out there. She isn’t lying but the spin is fierce.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj – what about nutcases on who say the “most important thing” for the peopole who opose the bill is to beat, hit and assault their children.
From tonight we hear about the “sad little people” who oppose the bill.
And this is not some looney fringe (well perhaps it is) but our own so called “representatives”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Southern Dave – I am not pointing out the nutcases, I don’t have enough fingers. The SPIN is in the fact that the literal truth can be used to mislead if the listener isn’t attentive.
So MANY people say Clinton lied about “I never had sexual relations with that woman..” but he didn’t. He used a specific term that means a VERY specific thing in legal terms and as soon as I HEARD it it was clear to me that other forms of hanky-panky had happened.
So don’t get too excited, just remember that “some” isn’t a quantity… or relatively “most” (which is the spin she was putting on it though she’d deny that to her dying day) it’s at least 2 and “people who oppose the bill” isn’t people in front of my parliament but all the 80+% of NZ who oppose the bill. Which means it takes 2 in 3 million to make what she said “true” – 0.000067% , and some of those religious nutcases likely do expect to have to exorcise demons.
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj – I earlier forecasted that Sue’s Bill would make a great case study of what makes a bad law.
I’ve just heard that a top Auckland Law professor says that it has all the factors that make really bad law.
It sounds like the Swedish experiment is not going so well – youth violence has reached such high levels that whole schools are being shut down. the first was last year, but there was another in February, and another this month.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Referring to this?
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=3618
Not clear what the “cause” of this is. It may well have happened anyway given the changes in population and problems in administering schools. Unruly teens are not an uncommon issue in most of the nations on the planet these days, spanking or no.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wouldn’t tell you how to raise your kids, only you know what’s best for them. I can’t tell you how to be a good parent to your kids, only you know what is best for them. I wouldn’t attempt to rewrite Sues Bill, only Sue knows what is best for her bill.
What I can tell you is how to be a good bouncer and forward to you all a bill that will let me carry out my job as a bouncer.
That does let me carry out my job efficiently as a good bouncer. But doesn’t allow abuse of my bouncer position, my patrons will be happy and I will be happy. The hardest patron to remove from a pub is a lawyer, they think they know the law and threaten me with assault, they find they are wrong the hard way. If I have followed the correct procedure I might have to make a statement to police and nothing more.
This proposed bouncer bill will allow a good bouncer to do his job unhindered, protect patrons from abuse or assault, and allow lawyers to be easily dealt to. Its Beauty is in its Simplicity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
59 Publican control 5
(1) Every publican of a patron and every person in the place of a publican of the patron is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the patron or another person; or
(b) preventing the patron from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the patron from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and publicaning.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
This bill in its current form is perfect because it gives no defenses for Patron abuse, and doesn’t criminalises good bouncers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is more to being a good bouncer that throwing out patrons.
It is not in your interest of the bars interest to throw out 200+ patrons.
You can’t keep an eye on them all, all the time having to check IDs and check for intoxication at the door etc.
The best way for me is to greet each patron saying hello and asking how their night is going. Making eye contact is essential, open the door for them and welcome them in. This empowers them to feel safe and secure in their second home, and makes them more likely to report disruptive behaviour rather than take it into their own hands. When they leave I say thank you and open the door for them. This reinforces that their second home is a nice place to be.
The ones I throw out I even say you are welcome back just not tonight.
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So how does this publican control act stop bouncers abusing patrons?
Section (2) and common law does this.
How does it allow me interact and “throw out” with my 200+ patrons?
Section (1) and common law does this.
Can I “throw out a patron for repetitive, disruptive behaviour even though I can’t catch him in the act?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If a patron is engaging in disruptive behaviour it is important to deal with it quickly. Otherwise it can escalate quickly to other patrons or become repetitive. I find the best way to deal with this is to tell them immediately that their behaviour is inappropriate, a smack on my own hand lets them know they now have been punished for their indiscretion and allows them to continue with their fun. If they repeat this behaviour or other disruptive behaviour. Then it is necessary to warn them immediately with a angry face and a stern tone, pointing out I warned you the first time holding up 1 finger, I am warning you now a second time holding up 2 fingers. I then ask them if the know the rules for softball? When they reply 3 strikes and you are out. I smile and tell them in a nice manner that’s correct and walk away.
If their indiscretion is highly inappropriate such as non consensual groping or aggression. It is appropriate to tell them to leave immediately
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
59 Publican control 5
(1) Every publican of a patron and every person in the place of a publican of the patron is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the patron or another person; or
(b) preventing the patron from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the patron from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and publicaning.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
This bill in its current form is perfect because its simplicity.
Gives no defenses for Patron abuse, doesn’t criminalises good bouncers and allows me to throw a lawyer out of my bar if the procedure is sound and reasonable in the circumstances.
The best place to study law is at the bar.
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It occurs to me to wonder, does Sue’s bill override the no-smacking-in-schools rules? Where is THAT based?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good question fellow good parent
Correct removal of a patron i have described is Correct removal to timeout they are welcome back after the appropriate time period.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hey..!..once-bitten..!..
shut the feck up for a while eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Remember this is a Publican control bill not a anti bouncer striking bill
Does this answer your question?
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am sorry phil you are going to have to leave my bar.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Steve Maharey claims that the bill will remove the defence of “excessive force” and David Benson-Pope says it will removed a defence for “excessive violence”.
This is clearly misleadieng as it removes a defence for “reasonable force”.
As s59 is almost never used in court, this bill will mainly have an effect on separated parents and custody battles, to stop fathers from ever seeing their children (and children from ever seeing their fathers).
And that’s far more abusive and permanently damaging to children than an occasional light smack.
Already this happens far too much – just on one persons word – no evidence is needed, no court case is needed. Astonishingly, it happens without many fathers even getting so much as an interview.
Effectively, we already have cases of state condoned kidnapping without the need of evidence, court cases, or even interviews.
When reasonable force for correction is no longer reasonable or legal, family disputes is where the law will have by far it’s greatest effect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the defence for resonable force is in section 1
section 2 and 3 remove the defence for unreasonable correction
is a bouncer allowed to strike a patron? yes but only if . . . ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Guidelines for supporters of s59 repeal on how to say child abuse in Sweden has reduced (when statistics show massive increases).
(including –
- increase in serious assaults on children.
- huge increase in assault and minor assault.)
1/ For (increase in) serious assaults, say the PROPORTION of serious assaults has decreased compared to all assaults on children.
2/ For (massive increase in) assaults and minor assaults, say far more children are being picked up before it gets to the serious stage
3/ Conclude that (despite a 4-500% increase) that “Child Abuse in Sweden has decreased”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
in sweden its a different law
is a bouncer allowed to strike a patron? yes but only if . . . ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In Sweden plenty of children are removed from families simply because a parent smacked (this has happened previously in NZ as well, although because s59 “reasonable force” was allowed, the court ordered CYFS to give the children back).
Sweden now has 400% more children per capita removed from their homes than NZ.
Stats – Sweeden
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sweeden there, NZ here
Our law allowing smacking for abuse banned
Our law allowing smacking for smacking for disapline?
Allowed but only if . . . ?
Reasonable force used for preventing repetitive behaviour and all other available avenues have been exhausted.
Fellow concerned good parent
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oncebitten – preventing repetitive behaviour is not prevention, but detering. Detering will be criminal inder Sue’s law , prevention will not.
(case law says that detering is counted as “correction”).
In Sweden a teacher if LEGALLY REQUIRED to report to authorities if they hear a child has been smacked.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SouthernDave you are clearly not a researcher or a statistician so please do us all a favour and stop trying to pretend like you a one and stop spamming this topic with that same old same old cherry-picked statistics that you provide no external references for and are frequently misquoted and making false connections with other purported research and/or public opinion polls that you have either cherry-picked, misquoted or invented from thin-air. You have well and truly flogged that horse to death and it is time to MOVE ON for crying out loud!!!
The topic of this debate is an amendment to the “Crimes Act” and as such we should all be narrowly focussed on implementing this Section 59 amendment so that it clearly defines the boundary of what is legally considerd to be “assault on a child” under the “The Crimes Act”. I do not think it serves this debate any more for us to be haggling about the issues of “smacking versus not-smacking” and “good parents versus bad parents”. I think you’ve all well and truly said your piece on those two side issues over and over and over again so please MOVE ON!
So, in the spirit of moving along….. The bill in it’s current form is only being voted on to take it to it’s third reading, which means there is nothing set in stone yet and it there is still time to influence it’s final stucture as it will voted on in a few months time. I propose that we use this time constructively, stop pissing around in circular debate and start being part of the SOLUTION!
bjchip Says: It occurs to me to wonder, does Sue’s bill override the no-smacking-in-schools rules? Where is THAT based?
I agree BJ, and this is something I have been pondering on since I took a look at the suggested Burrows amendment, where he adds “(4) Nothing in this section justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.” This alerted me to the possibility that “every person in the place of a parent of the child” might leave a loophole to include childcare workers and teachers and I think we very urgently need to examine this. I personally would like to see such a clause included in Sue’s amendment too.
The term “reasonable” in regard to physical force irks me immensely because it is such a relative thing to so many people – and especially to those among us who are have an “unreasonable” world-view (eg, extreme religious nutters and thuggish social deviants, who unfortunately still have children and are expected to practice parenting on them). So I also agree that there needs to be very clear wording to define the global boundary where this etheral “reasonable” should end.
As suggested in the Burrows amendment, (just not worded in a way that seems promotional of physical discipline before alternative methods) the obvious solution is to define levels of physical force that are tangible and measureable – both for a parent/caregiver AND also for the Police who will be expected to make judgement calls about this. I for one want to leave as little room as possible for authorities to make such judgement calls, and I sense that most of you here fully agree.
I have decided to follow BJ’s example and draft my own letter to Sue. If anybody would like to jump on board with me here and work cooperatively and constructively towards sharpening this thing up then feel free to toss in your ideas. The question is not “do we need this amendment” the question is “how can we make it serve it’s intended purpose” which is CLOSING a loophole.
To the particpiants here who are making this discussion unproductive by dominating the floor with repetitive circular arguments, I invite you all to put your broken records away and LET’S MOVE ON!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
section one actually says use reasonable force etc.
section two actually says you can’t smack soley for punishments sake
read the bill again
if i could use it to control 200+ patrons behaving like children
section 2+3 dont conflict with section 1 it re-inforces it
nor does section 2+3 take anything away from self defence or other common law
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OnceBitten and SouthernDave I think the pair of you have dominated this particular topic enough already, so if you can’t MOVE ON please go sign up for your own personal blog on http://www.blogger.com and continue your private circular debate on your own dime.
I for one would like to see some space here for others to participate equally without being perpetually drawn back into what has become an extremely BORING repetitive discussion between just two members.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yeah..you are a pair of feckin’ trolls..
just feck off..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
what I am just trying to convey is that there are no flaws in sues bill for either sides
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I do not want them to “feck off” Phil, I just want them to participate constructively, try to stay on topic, state their opinions concisely and clearly, then step back to give others space to voice their opinions too.
OnceBitten, I do not think you are a troll and I understand that it takes a bit of getting used to the way online conversations happen in internet forums and one of the skills we inevitably need to learn is to not buy into the troll-bait laid by others – such as the posts made by SouthernDave which you most frequently get swept up in responding to.
I will share one thing that I have learned about group discussion tho, which is…. that when I notice myself feeling compelled to instantly respond to every small point that another participant makes, then it tells me that I am being overly emotional about the topic at hand and need to find ways to step back and look at the big picture, take more care to leave others the space to speak and try not to take things as if they are personally directed to me.
It is clear that this is a very emotional topic for most parents, just as it is a very emotional topic for me personally, because I was not lucky enough to be born to parents who are as humane at disciplining their kids as many of you here appear to be – and that is something I still carry the scars of to this day. But I have chosen to keep my own personal emotions out of this because I don’t think that it serves the overall debate to be loosing site of the task at hand. This has meant there are some days where I have chosen to not check-in to this thread because I was feeling too raw about the topic, and I only come an say my piece on the days when I feel I can contribute rationally (the day I had my hissy-fit was obviously not one of those days LOL).
I believe every debate must have space for those who are personally sensitive about the issue to express the source of their sensitivity, which in your case is to not be seen as a “bad parent” and in my case is to “never want to see any child have to go through what I did at the hands of a cruel angry mother”. I think there has been plenty of space in this debate for the sensitivity of concerned parents to have their feelings heard and acknowledged respectfully, but it’s time to move on from that now and focus on the needs of the kids.
Respectfully,
Zana
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil “yeah..you are a pair of feckin’ trolls..
just feck off..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)”
Phil, I have to laugh – are your repeated “f.ck off” the most intelligent thing you can add to this debate?
Znavashi – interesting that your take on the Borrows (not Burrows) is almost exactly what I said earlier when proposing a good solution to the problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zana – well put.
You say “which in your case is to not be seen as a “bad parentâ€? . I think this is a very important point you make. Our side of the debate is has been labelled by as either abusers or desperate about the “right to beat their kids” by some polititians.
But I think what is really getting at the population is they ARE being labelled “bad parents” – but it’s much worse than that. We’re supposedly SO bad that were criminal.
Imagine this – you are putting in a great effort, and doing a fantastic job of bringing up your kids, and they are turning out really well – happy, outgoing, confident and well behaved. But because a small minority of people have a different way of bringing up their children, you will be labeled a criminal, and are put at risk that if you get “caught” you may be prosecuted and have your children taken away.
The chance is small, but it’s always there, and it HAS happened already (the only reasons the prosecution failed and children were returned was the “reasonable force” clause).
And then we get patronising comment from polititians that people shouldn’t worry because only SOME parents will be prosecuted.
It is very disturbing right to the core when your own government labels your parenting not just bad, but so bad that you must be crimimalised under law.
If you were labeled that way, how would it make you feel?
(genuine question)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SouthernDave, I think your concerns about this have already been respectfully and sensitively addressed here by many supporters of this bill and you need to re-read some of the comments that have been made here (and on other threads about the section 59 repeal here) if you missed that.
I suggest that you take my advice to OnceBitten in my previous reply and stop taking this as a personal issue to your own good standing as a parent, and move on from this argument of yours, which you seem to believe that by restating and restating will somehow get through to us – when in actual fact we have already acknowledged you for those concerns and support them. Why is it so hard for you to see that we are all on the same page in this regard?
When you continue to bombard us with this same old stuff over and over again it is giving the impression that you are totally entrenched in selfish concerns and that you regard the rights of parents as more important than the physical safety of our kids. I am not saying this is what you DO think, I am just saying that this is an impression you might be creating in the minds of many here, such that they no longer take the time to read your posts properly because they are expecting to hear only more of the same.
You have set yourself up in a negative cycle in this regard by employing such an ineffective style of debate, which has become circular and is further entrenching the misconception in your mind that we are not actually listening to you. It does not serve us and it most certainly does not serve you. So the best thing you can do for the sake of your own credibility at this point is to find a more effective and less repetitive method to get across any NEW points that you might have to add. And I should sincerely hope that anything new you have to contribute will be solution-focused.
And the fact of the matter is SouthernDave, that there truly ARE parents out there who are adamant about their “right to beat their kids” and my own MOTHER – a sunday school teacher, an accomplished business woman and a fine upstanding member of the community – is ONE of them! THESE are the kinds of parents that I want to see criminalised by this bill – NOT parents such as yourself, BJ and OnceBitten – and I will make my voice heard in any way I feel will effectively implement that objective.
I want to see some signs from you that we are on the same side here when it comes to criminalising those kinds of parents too – and in order to do that you are going to have to step outside of your own sense of “I am a good parent being victimised” into a more personally empowering mindset, such as “I resent these bad parents that are making the rest of us look bad and I want this bill to effectively stop them”.
So do you think we can use that as a place to be “moving on” with this topic? Do you? Could you? Would you? PLEASE?
Respectfully,
Zana
PS: And just for the record…. you better believe that I would trade my own mother for Sue in heartbeat!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
zANavAShi Says:
March 29th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
SouthernDave, I think your concerns about this have already been respectfully and sensitively addressed here by many supporters of this bill and you need to re-read some of the comments that have been made here (and on other threads about the section 59 repeal here) if you missed that.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
As far as I can see Southern Dave is right in the studies he quotes.
I have read the arguments countless times, during the evening then during the day I read and hear argument #5 or #7 in a a new coat.
One way to get around the confusion created by never having any solid ground is an FAQ where arguments and counter arguments are presented clearly with the best evidence. I believe it will conclude
1. Moderate smacking is harmless (at worst)
2. Repealing Section 59 criminalises good parents
3. The intention of the reapeal is to ban smacking.
4. It wont have any effect on abuse.
5. there are other factors behind abuse such as single parent, (unmarried mother) – no commitment.
etc
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zana – more good points. I have actually tried to bring up different angles on this, but nothing’s gained traction. Instead I show my anger at being label an abuser, a criminal etc
Here’s where I think the problem is – take the amazing piece of research like the Otago Uni study.
Forget about who is slightly ahead, and basically you have two groups who consistantly produce children who turn into exactly the sort of adults we want in our society. These two groups are the parents who don’t use physical punishment, and parents who also don’t use physical punishments except for the occasional smack when a child is seriously out of line or in danger.
Effectively what has happened is instead of these two groups combining against those who seriously abuse their kids, and to educate those who correction is arguably are too harsh, something completely different has resulted –
- these two groups who are the best parents in the country, have been pitted against each other by a poorly written, poorly marketed piece of legislation.
We are fighting each other instead of fighting child abuse. As in poll after poll 85% of the whole country is against this bill.
Surely we need a bill that 85% of the country supports – not one that 85% of the country is against.
We need to join the two groups that produce the top kids, to educacte those who use harsh punishments, and prosecute those who beat kids.
The sledgehammer approach of criminalising us and telling us that we are all abusers has the opposite effect of what’s intended.
As you can see, the general population rallies AGAINST such extreme rhetoric.
Wouldn’t we be better looking for legislation that allies the best parents against those who abuse????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
zANavAShi:
A BIG HUG
from eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If you have ever wondered how many cases of child abuse or neglect come out of beneficiary homes here is some indication. Researchers matched caregivers of children who were the subject of a care and protection notification (or youth justice referral) with Social Welfare’s computer system (SWN = social welfare number);
/ /
Which brings me back to Bradford’s bill. If she is really so hellbent on stopping child abuse why isn’t she focusing on the known culprits? I think we all know the answer to that. Beneficiaries are her constituency. She can’t say beneficiary parents are mainly to blame so she has to say all parents are to blame. (I should break here to wash my mouth out with soap for use of that blasphemous word ‘blame’).
http://www.lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am so over this bill, please just let the pinkos pass the thing and lets move on, if the Greens are happy to commit political suicide then so be it.
The sooner they pass this the sooner we will have an election and the sooner we get rid of Helen (not before she has paid back the money she stole)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
…and the sooner pigs might fly!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – talking of studies and statistics, it is interesting to look at the UN report which according to some, paints us as the worst in the world.
CYFS reports that on the 5 years to 2003 38 children were mudered. With 1.05 million children, this works out at just over 7 per million per year. This is nearly half the figure used for New Zealand in the UN report (12 per million) as the figures used for the UN were taken mainly from the 90s.
Similarly the overall child deaths – 230 per million is also up to ten years old – with the newest stats used from 1999 – 8 years old.
This study has been used by some to say we are the worst in the world for child abuse, yet 97% of these deaths were not actually from abuse. And if all the world’s countries are used, suddenly we are no longer the “world’s worst” but we rise to the top 10%.
A couple of points -
- the 2007 UN stats are not particularly reliable because they are so old, on top of which some poeple are misreporting what the studies actually say.
- even with more up to date data, we still need to (and can) do much better than we are.
- should we not also be looking desperately at what is killing around 200+ children per year on top of the 7 from abuse?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen
Get ready for flying bacon!
Normally I a good winner, not for me the trashy “in your face” approach of the likes of Comrade Bradford and (ironically) the Yanks.
But I have to say that in your case Eredwen I will quite enjoy rubbing in the National party victory at the next election.
It will be a pity for the house to lose people like the co leader and Kedgley but I will dance (not a pretty sight i can tell you) with joy at the demise of Comrade Bradford and Locke.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dream on big bruv..
the greens are on track to crack 10%..(check the polling record..)
and a lab/grn/m.p. would be a reasonable sort of bet..
(and that’d be national and who..?..)
so.. instead of getting over-excited..and ‘believing-in’ the spin around keys’ honeymoon period..
why don’t you focus on the fact of life that national have no dancing partners…?
..and no prospect of any dancing partners..
so won’t be able to do that star-turn at the ball..eh..?
dream over b.b..!..wake-up..!..reality-check-time..!
(heh-heh..!.)
.you’ve got a serious case of denial/illusion going on there..eh b.b..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil
ha ha ha ha..that is genuinely funny.
Is comrade klark planning to outlaw the Nat’s?..that is the only way they will not be the next gov’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
stop the bullshit bb..
just answer the simple question…
who is nationals’ coalition partner..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
cut the billsh*t b.b..
just answer the simple question..
who will be nationals’ coalition partner..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil – 4% more and they won’t need one.
Otherwise it’s Act, United, NZ 1st.
With the left currently commiting political suicide even Chris Trotter is predicting a big swing to the right (and a right wing govenment) if this bill goes through.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil
You must be seriously worried, when ever the left drop the arrogant approach and start abusing people it means that they can read the writing on the wall.
What was it that Cullen once said “we won, you lost, tough luck” I look forward to repeating his words.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sth dave..
yeah..act/united/nz first are really pumping at the polls..eh..?
(dream on dreamer.!..)
and as for the predictive abilities/record of the chris trotter..?
gimmee a break here..!..eh..?
as part of my university studies..over one election i did a post-election audit of the predictions of the various commentators etc..
trotter was most ‘off the mark’..
by gobsmacking margins..
he got absolutely everything wrong..!
(my jaw dropped!….i tell ya..!..you’d think he’d fluke one ..eh..?..)
so..since then i’ve regarded any predictions from the trotter with an (understandably?) chary eye..
eh..?
and in fact..trotter is far more right/reactionary than many/(he?) think(s)…
the right component is his ‘acceptance’ of rogernomics..
and his ongoing ignoring/non-advocacy of the plight of the poorest…
(the unseen…those labour has ignored..)
so to find he is a reactionary ‘smacker’..surprises me not a jot..
and as another benchmark of just how ‘progressive’ trotter is..
ask him how he feels about animal welfare..etc..
(then stand well back..eh..?..)
and b.b..
still can’t answer that question..eh..?
anything else you say is rendered meaningless bullsh*t by that failure to answer that simple question..
eh b.b..?
go and stand over there in the corner..with trotter..
(you have much more in common than you realise..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil – if Greens and Labour push through this bill against the wishes of 85% of the population, what effect do you think it will have?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
six months from now everybody will be going..
“..what the feck was that all about..?..”
(c.f..periods just prior to passages of homosexual law reform..civil union..ending of caning in schools..etc..etc..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Faulty logic and a good paradox
Public hate politicians so Sue needs to tell them shes a good mother firstly.
I didn’t need to smack my kids taken as you don’t need to either.
Some lawyers assume that all paradox’s are conflicting.
Media mistakes “anti-abuse by smacking” as “anti-smacking”.
Good parents need think they need to justify smacking as a punishment, so they can retain the threat of a smack.
premises,
1)Houses contain water.
2)We have to stop damp houses
3)Water is damp.
(1) Every Homeowner or Occupier is justified in using water in their house.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) justifies having a damp house.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
Opposing logic gates with a qualifier?
You can still have water if it is used minimally to clean, contained or ice.
And the public display of petitio principii mirrors that of parliament and the media
If not explained soon it could back fire
What do you call the type of paradox that isn’t a contradiction? (genuine question)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil
I think you asked me a question but it is rather hard to decipher your post, no doubt it was more abuse.
You HOPE that the public will have forgotten this in six months (that just shows the arrogance of this socialist govt) but I can assure you that they will not.
By and large we are an apathetic lot, however your socialist pinko mates have gone too far this time, there is a growing level of (very deep)resentment toward Klark and sadly the Greens are going to get caught up in that.
In six months time the public will still be asking two questions, 1, “why did you not listen to our wishes Klark” and 2, “Where is our 880k”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil – I think you are quite wrong about this. All the other social reforms had very little effect on the majority of the population – they wouldn’t notice the difference.
This time, parents will be reminded of it all the time –
1/ every time their kids are naughty, they’ll be wondering if someone is watching.
2/ what if the neighbours see – specially those ones you have a big arguement with about noise last week.
3/ what if teachers start asking my kids what happens at home (like they do in Sweden)
4/ do you let your kids play with kids whose parents are fanatic anti-smackers. Will they be quizing them?
5/ the massive number of people living in split families will be highly stressed. All it take is one arguement and anything could happen.
6/ and every tiem your kids are naughty, they’ll be thinking that those ….in parliament think they are so evil that they’ve criminalised them and labeled them abusers.
When there is a referendum at the next election, everyone will be reminded that the Greens and Labour bashed this legislation through, despite it being against the wished of 85% of the population, abusing their power and democracy How could you ever trust a party that does that?
There’s some polititians so ignorant of human nature, that they honestly claim they can’t see what all the fuss is about – unbelievable.
And perhaps the most damaging will be the right wing election tv adverts, showing Helen, Sue and others saying things like
- if you opose this bill you are an abuser.
- if you oppose this bill the most important thing to you is to bash up your children.
- if you oppose this bill you are a religious nutter
- that only “silly little people” oppose this bill.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil – I would be really careful about projecting what the polls will show after this becomes law against most people’s wishes from what they show right now with the issue still somewhat in doubt.
I’ve not encountered anyone except on this forum, who did not have a bad word for the Greens and for Sue because of this business. The most favorable opinion expressed is that we’re all dain-bramaged nanny-state imbeciles… allowing that I AM a Green tends to get me strange looks.
I have to go with what I see and those reactions are NOT a good sign for the future.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
80% support for Greens at the election.
And to think I was thinking of giving up my right of not to vote over this?
Quite funny really if it wasn’t about our kids
Wonder if they will ever get the Joke? (its not a anti-smacking bill)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
simple question b.b…
you crow about a national victory..
and i ask you who nationals’ coalition partner will be..?
couldn’t be simpler..eh..?
but you have no answer..
we all know that..
carry/shine on..eh..?
and dave..if it stops parents from hitting their children..
i couldn’t really care less about the sensitivities of those hitting parents..
eh..?
cos’ y’know..there are many parents out there who don’t hit their children..
and speaking of your polls..
has anyone polled those who get hit..?
to see how they feel about it..?
about being hit/slapped/smacked..?
by those who purport to love them the most..
go feckin’ figure..!
and b.j….
can i reassure you with some figures/stats..?
even if 83% oppose…
far more than the current green polling of 7% support the bill..
where is your evidence for the desertion of thst core green support/vote..
yr just being a cassandra again..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil “and dave..if it stops parents from hitting their children..
i couldn’t really care less about the sensitivities of those hitting parents..”
Such a simplistic view often proves to be wrong –
In Sweden assaults in children have incresased 500%. The theory is that children do not get disciplined at such an early stage, so instead of their behaviour getting corrected with a light smack, they end up get a beating.
It’s a complete dream to think repealing s59 will have stop abuse. (considereing 99% of people who get off abuse charges don’t even use s59)
Phil “has anyone polled those who get hit..?
to see how they feel about it..?”
Yes they have. And they are less traumatised about it than non-physical punishment. Clearly you prefer to use non-physical punishments, even if it means traumatisising your child more
phil “about being hit/slapped/smacked..?”
yes, they were all inteviewed. No only were they less traumatised, but less violent,etc etc than all other groups including those who get non-physical punishment
http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/119-1228/1818/content.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil, I think the problem is that this whole debate isn’t about reducing child abuse.
If it was, then all the proponents of the bill would be onto all the factors that contribute to child abuse.
And the fact is that the majority of those are for the bill don’t seem to have any idea what those factors are – not a clue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sue bill is called a logical paradox its outcome is called reason
invented by Plato called Logos for logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_paradox
all the arguements around it are other types of paradox
not bad for a bouncer eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On Chambell Live (political reporter to John Chambell: …and Sue Bradford isn’t the right person to sell the anti-smacking bill .
(………… but I couldn’t possibly comment).
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil – We were in parliament … ARE in parliament… by a whisker. Less than a single percentage point of clearance in the last election. How many would have to desert us? You may be right, but I wouldn’t be pushing things with numbers like this. – respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil “far more than the current green polling of 7% support the bill..”
But the 15% or so who support it are divided up between Labour, Greens, and a smattering in the other parties.
So what are the Greens left with? (of course there are also plenty of people opposed to the bill who still support Greens and Labour – or at least have done in the past)
My guess is that this will decimate Labour far more than it will the Greens, however the greens are on more of a knife edge for their very existance in Parliament, so their risk is bigger.
I have little doubt this is the end of Labour. They have a very nasty arrogant look to them right now, just like National had in the late 90s – people hate it.
The name calling has started. Helen thinks the 85% opposed to the bill are religious nutters and abusers, and Cullen labels John Key as a “working class scab”.
Mind you, Labour have chained up a few hundred thousand extra people by using our tax money to tie people up to a benefit, even if they earn over $100,000 – an all too transparent attempt to buy those people right in the middle – the swing voters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Southern Dave – If the taxes are maintained as they are, relatively simple for most of us to figure out, then the complexity of preferentially treating some social endeavours (like raising families) is left to the benefits side. This is actually CORRECT. The tax man figures out how much you owe on the income you make. Hard enough job. The benefits handed out are not about taxes, they ARE preferential treatments by the society. The previous benefits drop off was abrupt enough to see the typical 2-kids-one-income family hit with a confiscatory 90% effective “tax” on each additional dollar between 50K and 80K… WFF is intended to relieve THAT… not “buy votes”. It is an incomplete solution and Cullen has a lot to answer for, but the underlying issue is not in any way related to your rant. respectfully BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Would it not have been better not to take the tax in the first place? Why take with one hand and feed back with the other. Only keeps unproductive state servants employed to tally the whole shamozzle up.
Completely disagree with your argument. Turning tax payers into beneficiaries at the one and the same time doesnt pass the DIMS (Does It Make Sense) test.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey, lets hijack this thread and discuss taxation for a change. The s59 debate has been disected to death so that there is nothing new to discuss there.
All in favour?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yep, got me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“the name calling has started” – no it hasnt – Helen has been name calling for some time now, e.g. calling the Foreshore & Seabead protestors “haters and wreckers”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey
On this we agree, Klark is extremely fond of this type of labeling.
Her latest example is highly insulting, I am against the repeal of s59 yet I am in no way religious, to label all those who against Comrade Bradford’s bill as religious nutters is quite pathetic really.
While I agree with her comments on the foreshore and seabed issue she does her cause no good by name calling in that manner.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit, BB – The blog is about to break again and you want to hijack THIS thread 8-\ ??? Funny you are.
This is most obvious to someone who’s experienced the nightmare of the US intenal revenue system.
The problem with doing what you wish to do is that if you try to selectively not take money, which was the approach taken in the USA, the ability of people to introduce weirdness and loopholes becomes in time, total.
The law in the US has special clauses like one exempting capital-gains for medical supplies companies formed in the State of Illinois between 27 and 29 July 1967 .. and more… and more … and more. To the point where NOBODY can realistically do their own taxes and gain the full benefit under the law … and tax compliance costs are something over 10% of corporate expenses. That and the IRS is charged with overseeing and enforcing ALL of it, and it can’t.
So if the state IS to provide aid to the poor, sustenance to the needy and assistance to families with kids, it really should do so separately from the tax collection. A benefit HAS to be targeted and that is part of the problem here, as not all benefits are, and the tax take has to be graduated more smoothly, and it isn’t either.
You’d think that it’d be better not to take the money in the first place, but that only works for UN-targeted benefits… but it is correct and essential for those.
I seriously expect the thead to break any moment. Choose any other if you wish to continue.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj
You say it is very simple to figure out our tax (for the average person), then you say it is a very hard job to work out our tax (for the experts). If anything, it would be the other way around. Anyway…
We have the bizarre situation of the IRD taking money off us, the govt has to administer it by setting up a completly new dept, costing millions, and then a portion of it comes back. If you ever want a case study of innefficiency, this is a good one.
We are at the bottom of the OECD in productivity stats, and with this type of thinking it easy to see why.
And why are parents on a couple of average wages bringing in say a household income of 70,000 per year, paying tax so someone on $110,000 can get a benefit? It’s a filthy vote buying system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And why are we sitting on a surplus?
It is not a surplus remember, if it is allocated to building and managing infastructure. So the 9 to 12 billion dollars sits there while we pay more taxes?
Surely that is over taxation?
Please explain this to me! Or are you going to say there is no surplus and it is all going to?
New Zealand balance of payment deficit is private debt that the government does not have to underwrite with public funds. So it is not for that. But what for?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit “And why are we sitting on a surplus? ”
Because this government has increases tax from when it came to power by MORE THAN 100%
Michael cullen has done this mainly by tax creep (is it ok to use “tax creep” and “Michael Cullen” in the same sentence).
By keeping tax brackets at the same levels as the 90s, virtually every worker in NZ is now being taxed at a higher overall tax rate.
Add massive power price increases that is mainly government owned, three increases in petrol tax, car registration increases, road tax increases, and about 20 other non-income tax increases.
It’s no wonder this govt takes more than TWICE the tax they used to from Kiwis.
You’d think with double the money to spend there might have been some vast improvements in fighting crime, education, health etc – insdtead of meddling along as usually just a little better or a littel worse than 1999.
They have double to work with compared to 1999 – what are they doing with it all?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmmmm….. this thread is eating responses already. I told you guys to hijack some OTHER thread.
In the USA the tax man is also the benefits man. One law governs ALL of it and the combined tax code does not fill books, it fills wings of the Congressional library. It is so complex that nobody knows all of it, nor can anyone keep track of it. More than 10% of business expenses are eaten up by lawyers doing tax compliance work. There are clauses that benefit medical corporations formed in the state of Illinois between midnight 27 July 1967 and 28 July 1967… laws specifically shaped to benefit individual corporations and others that open loopholes for the front-loaders to shovel money through.
That’s a complicated tax law. NZ law is by comparison, trivially simple.
NZ makes up for it on the benefits side. Benefits are separate from tax obligations, and because they ARE benefits separately granted they are far more visible than some clause buried on the 473rd page of 2300 pages of one book in the hundreds that make up US tax law…. or an amendment to that clause.
I know it looks odd to take with one hand and give with the other, but it makes sense to someone who has seen how the other way really works.
Also the IRS is charged with enforcing compliance with ALL of that mess, and is not funded well enough by half to even begin to catch the cheating at every level.
Maybe the blog won’t eat this one.
Could we PUHLEEZZE start this on another thread?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is NZL, BJ, Lets discuss the tax regime here, not what is the USA .
When I was in Canada not too long ago, they could not believe we did not have to fill out a tax return if you payd PAYE tax directlty through your employer.
The North Americans are a light year behind how NZL does the tax. So lets discuss tax in NZL.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
One more day to go, one more day before the final nail is hammered into the coffin of the corrupt Klark govt.
I hope that Comrade Bradford gets the numbers, her little performance on Close up tonight was a classic example of lies and deceit, by passing this bill you are guaranteeing the death of the socialist govt and that is a price I am more than happy to pay (the Nat’s will amend the bill anyway)
I did find it hilarious that the chap from the apartheid party (John Hawerewa) tried to blame the culture of Maori violence on the white man but then nobody really believes that anyway.
The Greens had the chance to take the nation along with them on this issue, if they had agreed with the Burrows amendment this issue would be dead and buried, you let your naked hatred of capitalism get in the way of better judgment, you also chose to ignore overwhelming public opinion.
The voting public will not forget this at election time, you have been used by Klark and you are the ones who are going to pay the price.
Pass the bill and it will be the last contribution you will make in our parliament for some time…and that is a pity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If there are electoral consequences, then so be it. It is supported by the democratic decision-making process of the Green Party, which all Green Party members are entitled to participate in. The Greens campaigned on it at the last election.
Would you want the Greens MPs to abandon their party’s policy and break their election promise?
Sometimes people just have to stick up for what they believe in and have publicly stated they stand for, and not cowtow to ill-informed populism, which in this case has been deliberately manipulated by a slick PR campaign by some very evil and oppressive forces within our society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
The answer to your question is yes, if I were a member of the Greens or any other party and we had a policy that was overwhelming against public opinion then I would want the party to stop.
I understand where you are coming from when you say that it was part of what you campaigned on, but I hardly need to remind you that the level of support the Greens achieved does not give you the mandate to implement this against the wishes of the majority.
This is not an economic or environmental issue, this is all about social engineering and the intrusion of the socialist state into the lounge rooms of our citizens
It is not ill informed populism, for you to suggest that is it just demonstrates the level of lies this debate has generated, the only evil PR campaign I have seen comes from certain individuals that branded men who smack their kids as pedophiles.
However, in no way do I want Comrade Bradford to change her ways, the more she treats the voting public in this fashion the more chance we have of kicking her and her communist ideas out of the house.
I only hope it does not mean that the good Green MP’s end up paying the same price.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)