Fly away, Gordon, fly away, Larry
Gordon Copeland has quit. He’s off to form a new Christian party with Larry Baldock.
Frog would like to know if they will be campaigning on planes again, and whether there will be complimentary parachutes?
On another note, the Third Reading speeches are well underway in the House - Sue’s is here.
Bookmark to:
May 16th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Appalling words from Sue, accusing another MP that the reason he is opposing her bill is he is figthing for the right to beat up children.
What offensive nonsense.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Utterly offensive. True colors, shining through again.
Meanwhile, nothing changes.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Here’s what Gordon Copeland actually said in his Second Reading speech on the Bill:
Indeed, the scriptures are quite clear on the matter. They say that parents who do not discipline their child do not actually love that child. They scriptures go on to say “that of course any punishment is most painful at the time and far from pleasant, but later it bears fruit in peace and goodness in those on whom it has been used.�
He is giving supposed scriptural justification not just to “light smacking” but to punishment that is “most painful”, so I think Sue’s is totally justified in saying he is “dedicated to fighting for the right to beat children”.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Nope Toad, any punishment is most painful - a smack, chastising your loved one, even imposing time out, because disciplining some-one you love and care for can be difficult. But it bears fruits.
Your interpretation is a bit of a beat up, and smacks of zealotry.
Being dedicated fighting for the right to apply physical discipline isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because I’ve seen some people inflict pretty serious mental abuse on people - and like beating children, both situations are often not about discipline, but other issues. From what I’ve seen, you lot just don’t want to recognise the huge difference.
Well, with the bill through now, we will just have to wait and see what CYFS get up to…and I truly hope they do not abuse their already considerable powers…
May 17th, 2007 at 7:56 am
I’m an agnostic, but I have some sympathy for the Christians; they seem to run their schools reasonably well (with the exception of the Catholic Church).
Under MMP those who are angry can give him their party vote, after all while the Greens half push the environment, they have shown complete ineptitude when it comes to any sort of agency for achieveing a concensus
(among the people). People will just note it and curse polticians and the system.
Frog also says:
Not to mention what it says about some of the people who are so, so desperate to retain their ‘right’ to hit their offspring….
[Section 59 Update
Wednesday February 21st, 2007. 7:09 pm by frog]
Zen Tiger is right about mental abuse; my father suffered from narcissitc personality disorder. There was a kind of twisted glass between us, a subtle but significant something.. he knew what I liked to eat. That is one of the reasons I loathe people like Sue Bradford trying to overide my view of the world> I have seen people smack/ been smacked and with my marbles intact, feel that was appropriate, in the circumstances (as do the great unwashed).
The Otago study, while like garlic to a vampire, (as far as our left-wing social engineers are concerned) will vindicate the 80+%, I believe.
jh
May 17th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Jeanette Fitzsimons
http://www.greens.org.nz/people/fitzsimons_j.asp
It’s interesting to consider, she points out, that the highest polling electorate for the Values Party for several elections was in Porirua (a more socially disadvanted electorate), and the second highest was in Remuera (an electorate with one of the highest per capita incomes). “The Values Party represented a different dimension in politics altogether - they were saying something very different from both the ‘right’ and the ‘left’.”
In fact, the Values Party were at the cutting edge of politics - a new political phenomenon. They have been internationally credited with inventing the word ’sustainability’, and even back then were tackling issues such as ecological tax reform, pricing of resources and auctioning of pollution rights. Could it be done? Should it be done? For Jeanette, her involvement with this new political party was “an incredibly formative experience”.
Then you lot took over
jh
May 17th, 2007 at 9:33 am
“punishment that is “most painfulâ€?”
That’s her world view. In my world view, she couldn’t be more wrong.
I received the cane at school. It stung. I was on the receiving end of mental abuse at the hands of a supposed switched on, left wing teacher. That really hurt.
““The refined punishments of the spiritual mode are usually much more indecent and dangerous than a good smack”
May 17th, 2007 at 11:54 am
thanks for the link..jh..
i then used it as the basis for a profile-piece/link..
on/to the world of jeanette….and..of course..’sparky’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Here is a 2005 excerpt from the British Journal of Social Work.
The available evidence suggests that Sweden has a low, though not uniquely low, incidence of child maltreatment deaths. Widely cited statistics suggesting that Sweden is in an entirely different league from other countries are, however, seriously misleading. Nor does the evidence really allow us to conclude that Sweden’s relative success in this area is attributable to the ban on corporal punishment. Other countries without a corporal punishment ban also have low or lower child maltreatment death rates; the figures that are commonly cited in any case pre-date Sweden’s corporal punishment ban and there are a number of other important variables, other than a ban on corporal punishment, that could account for international variations.
This is the last post I will do on the subject. The debate has been a glaring example of propaganda and misinformation and outright lies. And the majority of parliament bought it.
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/
May 17th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
you’ve lost jh..
(just suck it up..!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 17th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
phil u - the “we won, you lost” attitude has pervaded this whole debate. It seems to have been more important than a very small minority be able to stamp their views and FORCE the vast majority by law to conform to their narrow view.
However the cost is quite likely to be that the left has thrown away it’s governing power.
Everything else will be sacrificed for a bill that simply stamps an ideaology onto people who don’t want it - it hasn’t reduced child abuse in any other country - it’s totally naive to think it will have any effect here.
Though you can bet there will be number of negative effects.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
It seems to me one of the most extraordinary ironies that, after such an extensive campaign of vituperation by UF against the Greens, it was a Green bill that split them.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Is anyone seriously suggesting that the repeal of section 59 will increase mental abuse. If not, then why bring it up. It is a specious argument that can be summarised as
A is bad
B is worse than A
Therefore A is not bad.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Russel said: It seems to me one of the most extraordinary ironies that, after such an extensive campaign of vituperation by UF against the Greens, it was a Green bill that split them.
Yes, one of the unexpected bonuses for the Greens. UF now looking even shakier for the next election, and my bet is that Copeland’s Big Clucking Spankers Party won’t fly.
phil u said: you’ve lost jh.. (just suck it up..!..eh..?..)
Please try to be a bit more gracious in our victory, Phil. Anyway, you’re just stealing Michael Cullen’s line: “We won, you lost, eat that!” The real winners here aren’t us - they are children.
ZenTiger said: I’ve seen some people inflict pretty serious mental abuse on people - and like beating children, both situations are often not about discipline, but other issues.
Zen, the difference is that we don’t have a law that specifically provides a justification defence for mental abuse for the purpose of correction. We did have one that did that for physical abuse. You’re right though, when you say there are often other issues coming into play, and we need more resources put into parenting education, drug and alcohol education and addressing issues of problem gambling and income inadequacy. Repealing section 59 is just a small part of solving the puzzle of reducing New Zealand’s appalling level of child abuse.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
After watching Keys response on Cullens Fudget it won’t matter who else is in the house. He even stuck up for those who can’t afford to contribute to Kiwi-savour.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
i’m not gloating..
it’s an expression of impatience at yet more words..saying the same thing for the umpteenth time..
when ..’it is over’..
and i don’t think cullen can claim any coinage-currency for that particular encouragment/riposte..eh..?
’tis generic..
and anyway..’tis a hollow victory in many ways..
the original spirit/intent of this bill was knackered at the select committee stage..
(that was when sue bradford ‘blinked’..since then it has beenlittle but a collage of comprimises..)
and it is/became..as its’ critics have noted..a ‘camel-by-committee’ piece of legislation..
the benefit i see is not so much this particular piece of (flawed) legislation..
but that societal approval for the physical chastisment of children has been removed..
it is no longer viewed as..’the normal thing’..
(an on a green/historical note..i remember years ago bringing up at ak green party meetings the need for policies to end the slapping smacking of children..
and this idea receiving as much traction as early advocacies of not cooking/chewing on bits of dead animals at green party functions..
(namely..i was laughed at..)
so..i guess it’s good to see things have changed so dramatically since then..
that this legislation has got through..
and that the real winners are ..hopefully..children..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 17th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
toad Says:
May 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Please try to be a bit more gracious in our victory, Phil. Anyway, you’re just stealing Michael Cullen’s line: “We won, you lost, eat that!� The real winners here aren’t us - they are children.
=======
That’s youre opinion of course, the great majorities (parents of those children) opinion is “what a load of..”.
We can talk passed each other, but that is what the majority think.
Of course if that ground breaking Otago study is correct many of the underlying assumptions behind Sues bill are false..as Southern Dave has been pointing out, over and over.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
Anyway, what’s this “we won“..wasn’t it a compromise? or was John Key duped?
jh
May 17th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
jh said: May 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pm:
This is the last post I will do on the subject.
Yeah, right!
We all agree that the Otago study says their is little difference between the perceptions of those who were lightly smacked and those who received no physical discipline of the effect on them.
So why have a law that allows stressed or incompetent or angry or drug-crazed parents to escalate their perception of “smacking” into outright violence, which the Otago study says is harmful, and still get away with it -which is what has happened.
Isn’t it a better message for the law to say “Don’t hit your kids at all” and temper it with the statement that those who do, but without adverse consequences, will not be prosecuted? Which is exactly what the Amendment Act passed yesterday, with the full support of Labour, National and the Greens, who are likely to be the only parties that matter at the next election, does.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
kiore 1 wrote “Is anyone seriously suggesting that the repeal of section 59 will increase mental abuse.”
Are you saying it won’t?
The repeal will have a number of effects that no one really knows about yet.
It’s highly unlikely that parents will take any notice of the new law, but if they do then mental punishments will replace light smacks for hundreds of thousands of children. And there is evidence that non-physical punishments is as or more likely to cause problems later in life than a light smack.
In Sweden there has been a several hundred percent increase in assaults on children, since the smacking ban.
One theory is that children can get away with much more than they previously could, until eventually the parent will snap. So rather than keeping things on an even keel with the odd light smack, the ban means that things escalate and get out of hand.
There are a number of other negative impacts of the new bill as well, but there are some who think that unlike virtually every other law made, this one will have only positive outcomes.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
toad Says:
May 17th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
jh said: May 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pm:
This is the last post I will do on the subject.
Actually it was Lindsay Mitchell who said that- I was quoting.[ I’m not so much interested in the issue as the process]
But Professor David Fergusson, the director of the Christchurch Health and development Study which has followed 1000 people born in 1977 said:
the prospect of reducing child abuse by outlawing smacking was “vanishingly small….
[I heard Murray Decker(?) on afternoons with Jim Mora saying…we have to do something about these dreadful child abuse figures…repealing S59 is a good start”……]
May 18th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Frog
“Isn’t it a better message for the law to say “Don’t hit your kids at allâ€? and temper it with the statement that those who do, but without adverse consequences, will not be prosecuted?”
Chalmers Johnson had a good quote “In politics, as in medicine, a cure based on a false diagnosis is almost always worthless, often worsening the condition that is supposed to be healed”.
The smacking bill was empty posturing and will achieve nothing. A wasted opportunity to address child abuse. We all know the demographic within our community that is responsible for the high child abuse stats.
One wonders why politicians aren’t targeting that community directly?
May 18th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Um, like here Peter: Early Years Service Hubs, and here Whanau Violence Prevention, and here Pathway to Partnership: Strengthening the Child and Family Services Sector.
I don’t normally give the Government much credit, and I certainly don’t for much of what is (or is not) in the Budget, but I do think they are genuine about attempting to address family violence.
May 18th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I think everyone wants to stop family violence. I think the anti-smacking bill was motivated by nothing more than educated liberal distaste.
Deep in the regions, they don’t care about the sensitivities of urban liberals. Understand that, and you’ll understand why this bill will do nothing to prevent child abuse in this country.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
PeterExitsLeft - you hit the nail on the head - empty posturing that will achieve nothing.
In Europe polititians were advised that an anti-spanking bill would make it look like they have done something without actually having to do anything about the difficult issues that lead to abuse.
phil u wrote “societal approval for the physical chastisment of children has been removed..
it is no longer viewed as..’the normal thing’..”
Societal approval has not changed at all - it still backs physical discipline.
What mainstream society sees is a law they don’t agree with, forced on them against their will by a radical minority.
It is a law held in such contempt that even it’s sponsers have made it clear that by and large they don’t want it policed.
I can only think of one good thing about it - it will make a great case study for our countrys law schools on how NOT to make new laws.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
SouthernDave - I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. As a parent and cyfs caregiver I am appalled that the bill has been approved.
I am expecting a whole load of work will be coming my way from now on, as children are removed from many more families because their parents “physically abused” (smacked) their children. Each one of these children will arrive on my doorstep arrogant and self-righteous, until they actually see that its because of their own behaviour and the direct consequences that they no longer have a family. Parents aren’t perfect, but a light smack never hurt anyone, and is sometimes the only alternative to keep a ratbag in line.
If someone doesn’t know the difference between smacking and hitting, then they have no business being a parent. Conversely, if a politician has never had a cyfs kid living in their own home, how would they know the difference between what the people actually want and need, and what looks good on social policy paperwork?
May 19th, 2007 at 12:13 am
For the record, I used hotter language that “don’t care” - beginning with “f” - but my post appears to have been censored.
The anger is real, Green Party. My tone was deliberate, and my words carefully chosen.
Your signal plays well with urban, liberal left-wing elites, but it’s the wrong frequency for the majority.
Deep down, you know this to be true.
May 19th, 2007 at 12:58 am
What gets me is how you lot can on about mainstream this mainstream that when Labour and National voted for S59 repeal as well. Seems that the “mainstream” agrees with us and not with you.
May 19th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Stuey - 80% of New Zealand, in poll after poll, is pretty mainstream.
I presume you are making a joke, rather than a serious comment, that the 100 polititians perched high in offices in Wellington are “mainstream NZ”.
noskinnychicks - you deserve a medal for what you do - I presume it will be harder now that common sense has been outlawed.
May 19th, 2007 at 5:32 am
so ..noskinnychick..it’s failrly obvious you (used to?) smack/hit the fostered children you care for..
“..is sometimes the only alternative to keep a ratbag in line…”
so..what will you do now..?
will you get some training to learn the alternative means of discipline..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 19th, 2007 at 9:09 am
PeterExitsLeft said: I think the anti-smacking bill was motivated by nothing more than educated liberal distaste. Deep in the regions, they don’t care about the sensitivities of urban liberals.
Peter, the converse to “educated liberal distaste” is “uneducated rural bigotry”. I don’t think it is fair to put everyone who lives rurally in that camp - there are lots of rural Greens, and lots of people living rurally who are both educated and socially liberal. Muldoon played to uneducated rural bigotry over nukes and sporting contact with apartheid South Africa - and even won an election on it.
These days, I don’t think there are many people, even “deep in the regions” who support nuclear weapons or who bat an eyelid about the Government banning a cricket team representing the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe that is equally oppressive to apartheid South Africa, from touring New Zealand.
Times move on, as they have in much of Europe, where hitting kids as a diciplinary measure is not an option most people even consider now. In 20 years time it will be like that here. Repealing section 59 is just part of it, the programmes I refer to above are equally, if not more, important.
Politicians are elected to provide leadership towards a better society, not to pander to the reactionary rump that influences public opinion through misinformation campaigns on blogs, talkback radio, and nationwide full-page newspaper advertising campaigns.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Load of rubbish Stuey. Labour were going to block vote anyway, and the Maori party (despite what their constituency wanted).. That set the thing going….tai wagging dog …
jh
May 19th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
How does the Green Charter Principle level’ work with regard to the smacking debate:.. ‘decision-making at the appropriate level” ?
…..[except when the state knows?? best].
It will be interesting to compare the applicaion of the Green Charter when it comes to family size and population.
jh
May 19th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
jh said: How does the Green Charter Principle level’ work with regard to the smacking debate:.. ‘decision-making at the appropriate level� ?
Big person decides little person should be disciplined. Little person has no say in the matter. Big person gives little person the bash. Little person powerless to resist. No-one (the state) there to defend little person.
Doesn’t seem to be decision-making at the appropriate level to me, jh! A key role of the state is to defend the vulnerable against those who would exploit and oppress them.
May 19th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
jh says: “How does the Green Charter Principle level’ work with regard to the smacking debate:.. ‘decision-making at the appropriate levelâ€? ?
To add to toad’s answer, with regard to what you call “the smacking debate” the major appropriate Green Charter Principle is “non violent conflict resolution”.
May 19th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
80% of New Zealand, in poll after poll…
Yeah, like the one on the Family Integrity website that got pulled because too many parents were voting No.
Independent research conducted by plunket found that over 70% of parents said smacking was the least effective way of teaching children.
It’s interesting how the pro bashers overlook that little fact.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
phil u………..
“so ..noskinnychick..it’s failrly obvious you (used to?) smack/hit the fostered children you care for..”
Actually, much like many other academically “well-educated” people, you clearly have no concept of reality. Not only have you emotively assumed that I “smack/hit” the children I care for, but you are also wrong. The law has always been that state wards are exempt from any kind of punishment or consequences. I was simply pointing out that in my experience the behavioural problems these children and adolescents exhibit is simply a product of that.
I invite you (and anyone else who thinks the smacking bill is simply wonderful) to spend one week in my home with these children. You will be spat at, have your windows smashed, your precious belongings detroyed, your person abused and your self-esteem battered. Spend a week in this situation, then wait expectantly for the consequences that never come because of do-gooders like yourself who are convinced a vegetarian diet and group sessions holding hands will solve the world’s problems.
WAKE UP!
May 19th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
fastbike Says:
May 19th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
It’s interesting how the pro bashers overlook that little fact.
==
In 2001, the Ministry of Justice conducted a survey to ascertain public attitudes towards the physical punishment of children. This survey involved a stand-alone, nation-wide telephone survey of 1000 adults (18 years and over). The results showed that eighty percent of the public agreed that a person parenting a child should be allowed by law to smack the child with an open hand if they were naughty. The use of objects to smack a child and smacking them in the head and neck area drew an overwhelmingly negative response from the public, indicating that only using an open hand was acceptable to most people.
http://www.familiescommission.govt.nz/download/submission.pdf
jh
May 20th, 2007 at 12:18 am
toad Says:
May 19th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Big person decides little person should be disciplined. Little person has no say in the matter. Big person gives little person the bash. Little person powerless to resist. No-one (the state) there to defend little person.
=================
Size isn’t the issue Toad, it is children, growing up, learning, pushing boundaries, and needing (in some cases) an occasional smack.
Saying the state needs to step in assumes the state knows best. How does the state know best?> it has experts who rely on studies (presumably).. Cindy Kiro quoted a meta analysis. However the Otago Study seems to be the most extensive and state of the art (ground breaking), the first that asks about the occasional light smack. It concludes that (among other things):
“Study members in the ’smacking only’ category of punishment appeared to be particularly high-functioning and achieving members of society,” she said.
“I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids,” she said.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
This suggests that government policy is ideologically driven.
The 80% who dissagree may perhaps be “the wisdom of crowds”.
jh
May 20th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Toad “Times move on, as they have in much of Europe, where hitting kids as a diciplinary measure is not an option most people even consider now. ”
Nice try Toad - it’s a bit of a myth though.
“Much of Europe” EXCEPT for Spain, Greece, Ireland, Italy who have the lowest child abuse in the world (half that of Sweden and lower), and allow smacking. Others that allow smacking are Netherlands - (also lower than Sweden) and Poland UK, Switzerland etc.
It completely ruins the Sweden/Europe myth that anti-smackers trot out to try to mislead people.
See “The Swedish Myth”, published in The British Journal of Social Workers
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Child_deaths_in_Sw eden.pdf
May 20th, 2007 at 1:13 am
toad Says:
May 19th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Politicians are elected to provide leadership towards a better society,
]
——-
Haven’t you ever listened to the rhetorical twaddle in parliment Toad? I don’t hear much objectivity, critical thinking. Helen Clark told her mp’s how to vote.
Presumably all Labour and Green MPs don’t agree with Proffessor David Fergussen when he said that:
the prospect of reducing child abuse by outlawing smacking was vanishingly small. [but what makes those mp’s so smart one wonders….
jh
May 20th, 2007 at 1:17 am
A parker pen to noskinnychicks
jh
May 20th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Toad said “Peter, the converse to “educated liberal distasteâ€? is “uneducated rural bigotryâ€?. ”
wiktionary says otherwise:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/converse “The opposite or reverse.”
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigot “One strongly loyal to one’s own social group, and irrationally intolerant or disdainful of others”
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bigotry “The characteristic qualities of a bigot; intolerance or prejudice, especially religious or racial.”
I think Toad’s lapse of good judgement in this instance is a good indicator that this debate has become heated to the point that it is bringing out the worst in everyone and is becoming counterproductive.
Personally I have always found emotional abuse far more cripling and less foregivable than physical abuse. But that it just my own personal experience. The balance of the evidence indicates that there is too much that science and medicine don’t know about human behaviour and psychology to be able to draw any valid conclusion on whether smacking should be defined as good or bad parenting.
There is considerable anecdotal evidence that much more harm is being done to our children and future society by subjecting them to an education system awash in relativism. The attitudes expressed by those immersed in the boy racer phenomonen, “me-me-me” consumerism and in-your-face binge drinking seem to be a logical outcome a relativist indoctrination.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/relativism “(philosophy) A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.”
I am assuming that relativism was adopted as a means to tackle discrimination but it seems to have had the opposite effect of fragmenting society into groups of narrowly defined like minded people.
Great for product marketing but not great for building a healthy society.
May 20th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Two Parker Pens to Kevyn ……( a stamp on the hand with Chairmans Maos face on to some of the others)
jh
May 20th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Critic of “non violence” here… [David Round…very bright chap]
http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4059723a22215.html
jh
May 20th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I’m interested to know just what politicians are presented with before they vote.
1. Select comittee report.
2. briefing papers eg
[This briefing sheet has been provided by the following
organisations —
• Barnardos NZ
• EPOCH NZ
• National Collective of
Independent Women’s
Refuges
• Plunket
• Save the Children NZ
• Unicef
…………… They base their evaluation
upon
• international research,
• their knowledge of best parenting practice,
• their understanding of human rights.]
There are conflicting views in many areas, I would like to see what their decisions were and why… a sort of auditing of the decision making process.
jh
May 20th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Some people find smacking intolerable.
Fair enough.
What I find highly disagreeable is the implication that those who smack their children lack parental skills, and, through ignorance, do harm to their children.
This is simply not true, as the Dunedin study shows. As Kevyn has stated - at best, this area is gray.
What is even more offensive is the criminalization of parents who have a reasoned basis for smacking, a position supported by research.
Punishment by the state has been decreed by a small group of well-meaning, yet seemingly ignorant, zealots, who refuse to let the facts cloud their ideology.
It wouldn’t matter how many studies show that smacking did no harm. They detest smacking. Full stop.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:57 pm
PeterExistsLeft - well said.
And while good parents doing a good job are being criminalised, we have the state taking literally thousands of children away from their families every year, and then playing pass the parcel with their lives, shifting them from home to home to home - sometimes over ten shifts per year.
If they we’re stuffed up before, yopu can guaranatee they will be now.
It’s state sponsored child abuse.
And do the idealogues of government really have our childrens best interests at heart? More and more people are saying the lack of male teachers is causing problems with both girls and boys as many have no male role models in their lives.
With new male teachers at a paltry 10% and dropping, the Education Department say they are quite happy with the situation and will let it continue - they have no interest in sorting out the problem.