Good on John Angus – Children’s Commission has lucky escape

I would like to be among the first to congratulate the new Children’s Commissioner John Angus for coming out so clearly in this morning’s New Zealand Herald supporting the section 59 law change.

It is great that Mr Angus is not shying away from being the advocate for children that his new role demands, rather than taking the kind of risk adverse approach one might have suspected from a former senior bureaucrat in the Ministry of Social Development.

What a relief it is that Christine Rankin did in fact decline the Government’s evident offer of the post of Children’s Commissioner because, as she said in the Dominion Post of 12 May (not available on-line):

I was talked to about (the children’s commissioner job) but I have not applied for that role.

I have a really successful business in Auckland that I love and I don’t really want to live in Wellington.

Instead – as we all know – she took up the post of part time Families Commissioner.

She and her fellow new Commissioner Bruce Pilbrow started work in their $565 per day roles last week, on 1 June.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Families Commission now, with one third of its six part time Commissioners – Pilbrow and Rankin – opposed to the law change which now sees children offered the same legal protection against assault as that enjoyed by adults.

The Children’s Commission has had a lucky escape, at least for now.

On the other hand, the future of the Families Commission is decidedly murky.

It is difficult to see how an organisation set up to advocate for the wellbeing of all New Zealand families will work around the fact that two of its Commissioners have actually campaigned to restore the ‘reasonable force’ defence for child discipline.

The role of Social Development Minister Paula Bennett in all this is not 100% clear either, but the evidence so far points to the fact that she is a key Rankin supporter and that she has done a lot to ensure Rankin ended up with a key role in at least one of these two organisations.

My real worry here is that the Minister may in fact be an opponent of the s59 law change herself, despite the fact she voted for it in 2007 – especially in the light of comments she made on a radio talkback show last week:

Asked for her view on the referendum question, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” she said, “No, I don’t, I believe that actually good parenting should be left to do that in their different ways in their different homes and I don’t have an interest in going into people’s homes and telling them how to parent.”

I hope Ms Bennett will soon release a statement unequivocally supporting the s59 amendment, especially with voting in the postal referendum on this issue starting at the end of July.

It would be sad indeed for the children of this country if we had not only two Families Commissioners but also a Minister of Social Development who actually believe that there should be a legal defence available when parents hit, whack or smack their children in the name of discipline.

193 Comments Posted

  1. “No, I wasn’t, she didn’t act alone, but I wondered if perhaps you would trust, for example, John Key, to make a law based on his (and only his) own experience?”

    We are not talking about only my experience, nearly 400 000 people signed a petition based on their experience, over 80% of the population disagree with Sue on their experience.
    You can’t win greenfly, the greens made a grevious error.

  2. Agreed. What the Green candidate is saying is correct, but it fails to communicate the whole truth, and thus becomes dishonest.

    The reality is that radical Muslims in Europe and the UK are becoming a big problem. The European left thought they were facilitating something like the Catholic Church, but it turns out the radical political wing has the support.

    By pretending the problem isn’t occurring, the Green attitude will merely fuel support for National Front, who, for all their deeply unsavory views, are reflecting the truth.

  3. # BluePeter Says:
    June 13th, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    Here’s a suggestion. Stop thinking of yourselves as intellectually superior,
    …………….
    The Greens are too far around the corner to see the other sides point of view and that limits your ability to communicate, persuade and get some middle ground.
    Here the UK Greens are telling the plebs that Islam is squeeky clean.
    http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/11-06-2009-Greens-Islamophobia-Caroline-Lucas.html
    The Pleb however will see some gravy that didn’t come off in the dishwasher (doesn’t Islam exhort to kill the infidel?) and reject the message.

  4. BJChip has the blueprint for a Green Party that could replace Labour.

    You really need to listen to him…..

  5. BJ, I agree completely:

    “We may need some explicit law about exorcisms too… this business of people hurting and killing others because of superstitions should have been finished with 100 years ago.”

    Unfortunately, this will not happen. There would be a backlash from the usual suspects, the politicians would take fright, and nothing would change. Much the same reason why the politicians, Bradford included, aren’t addressing the real source of the child abuse statistics.

    Dysfunctional Maori. By right.

  6. bjchip – the proposal you put foward earlier looks sound, as does the version from Sapient. It’s always a good idea to present such systems to a range of people too, as there will be experience amongst them that will reveal any glitches and your suggestions are a good example of this with regard the bill that Sue Bradford put foward. I haven’t found Shunda’s comments confusing, I’m just challenging his peripheral jabs at the Green Party and at Sue and his claimed freedom from ‘agenda’. In a nice way.

    Shunda – am I saying that is what Sue has done 🙂
    No, I wasn’t, she didn’t act alone, but I wondered if perhaps you would trust, for example, John Key, to make a law based on his (and only his) own experience?

  7. Greenfly

    Repealing it and replacing it with what exactly?

    Outright repeal would make children legally untouchable, so you must be talking about replacing it with something.

    He hasn’t said anything particularly confusing.

    respectfully
    BJ

  8. Shunda – while it may seem sensible to you to extrapolate out from your own experience with you own children, to what should be done on a National level, would you let an individual politician use the same rationale?

  9. Greenfly, you need to keep in mind that I am not really a “good” christian in the sense that I enjoy the current state of my religion, I don’t.
    I would probably share many of YOUR concerns regarding the behaviour of christians, no people group have screwed me over more than those claiming to be christians.
    My opposition to this bill is because the experience I have with my kids shows that occasional smacking is beneficial to their development, and is not in any way harming them or making them violent.
    The experience I have with other children who are not smacked is entirely negative, I have not met a single parent with this approach who has kids that are well balanced, most are violent.
    Greenfly I hardly ever smack my kids, I think I have smacked my 3 year old once.

  10. Shunda – your claim that your Christian agenda shouldn’t be considered when listening to your arguments is not believable. Jesus has asked that you bear him in mind in all aspects of your life, in ever decision and every act. Are you saying that you pick and choose? Bad Christian !(Jesus don’t like that kinda behaviour!)
    You are sure that Sue Bradford’s ideology colours her actions, but yours does not? I smell hypocrisy!

  11. Greenfly, there is no link between smacking and christianity.
    Despite the best attempts of left wing activists to link the two, no body is buying it.
    I have argued on this issue as a parent, not as some religious nutter. Its a shame that people intollerant to christians, like Sue B, try to make this a religious issue cause it’s not.
    Now greenfly, you still haven’t answered my question:

    Why was a better definition of reasonable force not the focus for the Green party?

  12. Shunda asks – Greenfly, how can there not be any dual agenda ..
    Shunda, you have expressed your ‘agenda’ here on Frogblog many times, you are a Christian by your own admission. How do you expect anyone to take note of the details of your argument, when it is clear that you have a ‘duel agenda’? Perhaps you would prefer that we listen to your argument and put aside our awareness of your agenda. Perhaps you should do the same. Had you ‘kept your mouth shut’ over your Christian beliefs, I’d be able to look dispassionately at what you claim.

  13. “The ‘hardline agenda’ you talk about, Peter and the ‘hidden agenda’ that Shunda describes are conspiracies that you both subscribe to, but are not real.”

    Greenfly, how can there not be any dual agenda when I am only repeating what Sue B has said about her human rights beliefs?. Thats the problem with radical activists, they don’t know when to keep their mouths shut.

  14. I’m not in rant mode (yet) greenfly.

    “Why wouldn’t you support the Repeal of Section 59 ?”

    I am in 100% support of closing a loop hole that allows people to get off, who are in fact beating their kids.
    The ONLY aceptable solution is a better definition of reasonable force, and as BJ has demonstrated, this would not have been even slightly difficult.

    I have a question for you greenfly, why was a better definition of reasonable force not the focus for the Green party?

  15. Shunda talks about closing the loophole as being a good thing to do. The loophole was closed. The ‘hardline agenda’ you talk about, Peter and the ‘hidden agenda’ that Shunda describes are conspiracies that you both subscribe to, but are not real. Still waiting Shunda.

  16. Shunda is correct.

    You blew it. You blew it because you have a hardline agenda that is with odds with what you’re saying. You think people are too stupid to see it.

    They’re not.

    Here’s a suggestion. Stop thinking of yourselves as intellectually superior, and start thinking in terms of people making rational decisions in response to incentives.

  17. Shunda – you flew off into a rant good friend (I have no interest in your views on Sue Bradford) , but didn’t address my question. I wish you would, so I’ll ask it again:

    Why wouldn’t you support the Repeal of Section 59 ?

    (you did say: “The law as it was, was not good”)

  18. Greenfly this is simple.

    The law as it was, was not good, but nor was it being used as a defence very often, infact almost never.

    Sue Bradford HAS an agenda.

    I do not like or agree with her agenda.

    Some where between 80 and 90% of Kiwi’s don’t like her agenda either.

    A better definition of resonable force that allows mild smacking was and still is possible.

    Why the ba-gigammy shiz nitz, did the Greens throw away an opportunity to look resonable to the entire country?

    Because the whole exercise was about a radical human rights agenda, not about closing a loop hole.
    The end result?
    Sue B’s credibility is almost zilch with NZers.
    The Green party is seen as a fringe activist nutter party.

  19. shunda – you support adjusting a law so that people who thrash their kids with their fists or objects like straps and jug cords, can’t get away with it any longer.

    so why wouldn’t you support the Repeal of Section 59. ?

    It’s simple, clean and honest. Repeal Section 59. The baggage you cite is perhaps…your baggage?

    If you would be so kind as to answer the question

    Why wouldn’t you support the Repeal of Section 59 ?

    Thank you (in advance of your straight answer) Shunda.

  20. Greenfly, I have only ever been opposed to the hidden agenda of radical human rights ideology behind the law change.
    I have never had a problem in adjusting a law so that people who thrash their kids with their fists or objects like straps and jug cords, can’t get away with it any longer.
    But lets be honest, even with the law left as it was only a handfull of people used it as a defence in the past 20 years, and all of those kids survived.
    I know all about Sue B’s beliefs on adultism and ageism, so don’t even try and say this is not about a personal agenda to shove it up the “conservatives”. If this wasn’t the case Sue would have proposed a better wording that wouldn’t have lost the Greens so much political capital.
    But please, by all means DON”T LISTEN TO BJCHIP!!!

  21. Shunda – bjchip seems to have earned your admiration and seems to be saying that the law in question is pretty good and is likely to be changed, if at all, only slightly. Have you had a change of heart? You used to ‘rail against the travesty’, now you support the view of someone who says it’s not at all bad!

  22. Greenfly, I would be happy if the wording of the bill was changed to allow the reality that smacking is not harmful to children, and in effect is a legitimate diciplinery method, the use of which is none of the states business.

  23. >>The issue was never that you reacted, but how.

    Fair enough. Apologies if my sense of humour offends people.

  24. Shunda – bjchip said:
    This is all moot. We have the law we are going to get. It isn’t horrible and if it is changed by referendum (as is possible if not likely), it will not be too far different from what you proposed there.
    I think he’s correct. What do you think?

  25. Well I don’t mind people who are “a bit strange” (as long as they’re not creepy strange) certainly better than the red neck jerks around my area!
    And hey, I’m not exactly “Joe normal” myself 🙂
    Keep up the good work BJ.

  26. Shunda

    I have a voice. It gets heard. I am a member of the party and I reckon that my point of view is considered. It isn’t always followed/agreed with, but it is considered. The party as a whole is not the way it is painted in the media. Mostly the people I meet in it think pretty hard about issues, and they invariably take a long view. Few so long as my own, but I am admittedly and often proudly “a bit strange”.

    So I fit right in. 🙂

    respectfully
    BJ

  27. BJ,
    I agree with the exorcism thing, but we would also have to tackle instances such as the christian nuts whom refused to take their children to the doctors, etc. And then that gets close to people whom refuse to immunise their children. Though i guess both would technically be illegal under the laws saying you must look out for the welfare of your child 😛

  28. “The time, energy, political capital lost and foregone, and money wasted on this is massive,”

    Exactly, and any amendment should have an explicit clause that Sue Bradford gets a damned good smacked bottom.

  29. BJ,
    Yup, I see what you were trying to do now. That certainly makes sence. Prehaps make section three section four and insert a section (3) “The actions listed in subsection 3a are never permisable under sub-section one and are always a criminal offence except where the actions are necacary under subsection 3b”

    (3a)
    1. Striking a child with any object other than the open hand.
    2. Striking a child above the neck.
    3. Shaking a child
    4. Choking a child.
    5. Bending any limb of a child to the breaking point.
    6. Using burning or freezing substances on the child.
    7. Holding the child underwater.
    8. Binding a child in/to any machine or device where the device is not designed for a human occupant.
    9. Puting a child in a situation where any action included in subsection 3a is rendered neccacary under subsection 3b.

    (3b)
    1. It is necessary to save the child’s life or save the child from grevious bodily harm.
    2. When the action is immediatly necacary to prevent further harm (i.e. applying ice, traciotomy, lung reinflation [though i guess the last two cant be done my non health profesionals anyhow so this may not really be neccacary])

    (medical professionals are covered elsewhere)

  30. bjchip, I so wish other greenies would listen to you more often.
    My hope is that the bill will be amended along the lines you suggest, basically a healthy dose of common sense.
    Why greenies why, did you not amend the bill along these lines in the first place, Oh riiiiiiiiiiight…….. the whole dual agenda thing.

  31. My real point is that there was a chance and a choice, to make explicit law. Instead great discretion was rendered to everyone involved. That amount of discretion makes it less a law and more a piece of advice… because you can’t really tell whether you’re breaking it unless the court tells you you did.

    This is all moot. We have the law we are going to get. It isn’t horrible and if it is changed by referendum (as is possible if not likely), it will not be too far different from what you proposed there. The time, energy, political capital lost and foregone, and money wasted on this is massive, and alternatives that would have worked equally well but not wasted all that, exist. Those paths were not taken.

    We may need some explicit law about exorcisms too… this business of people hurting and killing others because of superstitions should have been finished with 100 years ago.

    I don’t care if they have a culture that says they “have to” do this… the society as a whole cannot tolerate the use of religious/cultural excuses for assault. Which ties in with the assaults on children.

    respectfully
    BJ

  32. I can go wider but I don’t want to go wider. It is covered by your subsection (2) which I would include in some form.

    The point is that the things listed are very easy for anyone to identify as wrong. Easy to promulgate to the public as guaranteed “crash-landings” and much much stronger than the wide definition. It is important to have some very firm lines drawn, something that the current bill does not do.

    Like I said, I was in a hurry. I like your number two.

    ciao
    BJ

  33. Ha, that’s a good one, BP.

    I do think SAS is an attention seeker. A quick Google search will tell you that. I’m also a little tired of leftist propaganda conflating every sordid issue with smacking.

    No problems with any of that. The issue was never that you reacted, but how.

    FrogBlog is jammed in PC mode, and have problems dealing with people who speak the unvarnished truth as they see it.

    That’s ridiculous. DPF intervenes way more than frog. And innapropriate sexual innuendo has nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of your arguments.

  34. Bj,
    I think you can go alittle wider on the first part. I.E. instead of listing them just say “any action which results in physical harm to the child” or something along those lines. The “it is always” is also contradicted by the “except”, and the “except” only really applied to the first point.
    I would be more inclined to go:

    (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) To deliberatly inflict physical harm apon a child is an offence except where that harm is in accordance with sub-section one

    (3) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution

  35. While we’re sharing stories, I have one. When I was a child, I suffered abuse. This led, in later life, to the embarrassing problem of loud, uncontrollable flatulence.

    It ended my career as a mime.

  36. Rankin is in a capacity where she has to acknowledge all correspondence. How she responds may be to her credit – or to her peril.

  37. big bro,

    I think you had also better take BluePeter’s lead and ignore me.

    As for Rankin – she deserves my true story and she is going to damn well receive it.

  38. >> If you cannot handle us then you will be suicidal if you go up against Rankin.

    But you all make much more sense than she does! Logic and Rankin are complete strangers 🙂

  39. Fin

    I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I doubt that Shunda is either. However I FIRMLY agree with him that a very explicit law is and was possible. I did the following quite quickly and it would certainly be tuned by an actual lawyer, but it is not VASTLY different from Sue’s version except that it lays out things that are never to be done ( note that there is no “interpretation” necessary for any part of this ) and it eliminates the “correction” clause of her bill.

    The following are always illegal.

    1. Striking a child with any object.
    2. Striking a child above the neck.
    3. Shaking a child less than 2 years old
    ( not sure of this age… MD advice needed )
    4. Choking a child.
    5. Bending any limb of a child to the breaking point.
    6. Using burning or freezing substances on the child.
    7. Holding the child underwater.
    8. Binding a child in/to any machine or device where the device is not designed for a human occupant. (The washing machine clause)

    The only exceptions to these three rules are where:

    1. It is necessary to save the child’s life.
    2. For item 6, when under medical supervision as part of treatment (ie wart removal).

    **************First Discretionary clause**************

    Further to this it is required that when is any serious physical harm a child, the first-respondent shall take note of all pertinent circumstances and unless the cause is clearly accidental, shall refer a case to the police for investigation. (Nurses and MDs have discretionary power).

    The police will, at their discretion prosecute, refer the case to Child,Youth and Family, or determine that there is not a violation. (Police have discretionary power)

    Child, Youth and Family has NO discretion relating to cases referred by the police and must investigate them.

    ***********Second Discretionary Clause****************

    Notwithstanding the above, it is affirmatively stated that:

    (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.

    “(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution

    respectfully
    BJ

  40. I rest my case with the three of you: BluePeter, Shunda barunda and Big Bro.

    I now turn my focus toward Christine Rankin.

  41. “I laid in bed all night last night thinking about them and realized how disturbing they were.”

    SAS you need to listen very carefully……..

    you are probably not ready to share your deeply personal experience on a blog such as this.

    If you were, you would not be laying awake in bed thinking about what an anonymous dude on a blog has said about you.
    When you make claims on such a contentious issue, you need to be able to take the flak without it personally upsetting you to the degree that you can’t sleep.
    Don’t put yourself through it, if you are still recovering from abuse this is not going to help.

  42. I fear any further words to you may set you off. I do not wish that to happen. Therefore, I must reiterate that you’re on ignore, so please stop addressing me directly.

  43. BluePeter,

    If you apologize for those disgusting comments you made to me – then I will drop it. I laid in bed all night last night thinking about them and realized how disturbing they were.

  44. Frog, SAS is picking on me, and won’t let it go. I’ve been nice, but now I’m feeling scared, victimised and upset.

    You’re now on ignore SAS. I have no wish to make anyone feel uncomfortable.

  45. BluePeter, That will be enough of that crap from you!

    You made those sexual comments and you show no remorse. That behaviour of yours seems to be very familiar.

    I could say what is going on in my mind about your demeanour, but spelling it out here would not be appropriate. But what I am thinking about you is certainly not very nice.

    You being allowed to continue to post on this tread reflects badly and makes me feel very uncomfortable.

  46. Good for you 🙂

    I find the victim mentality disturbing. It disgusts me that people would waste their lives in such a way, and use my tax dollars to do so. I think most people in here tend to either laugh at me or ignore me, so suggest you do likewise.

    It’s no use playing the victim card with me. It doesn’t work.

  47. BluePeter,

    Something in my early posting made you consider it necessary to make inappropriate sexual innuendos toward me. This cannot be overlooked. Your comments were disgusting.

    What is very concerning is that whatever I said in my personal story, must have caused something very unsavory to surface inside you. That prospect is very frightening to me. I suspect many others who saw your comments would have reacted in a similar manner.

  48. The roll demo turned out to be an appropriate response to the previous comment, go figure!

  49. “BluePeter obviously enjoys looking at himself in the mirror.”

    Ummm,
    Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

  50. See, you’re doing it again. Trying to get a rise, they crying to mama Frog when you get one.

    Here, have some smilies 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
    And some warm fuzzies: sunshine, green grass, fluffy bunnies
    And some home truths….

    I think if you look inside yourself, you’ll find an over-riding need for attention might be the root cause.

  51. BluePeter, your disgusting sexual comments were very sick. You have disgraced yourself.

  52. >>But if BluePeter’s sexual innuendoes toward me, that Frog had removed very early on, has any indication, than that is very disturbing indeed.

    Oh good grief! We need a “rolls-eyes” symbol….

    Meanwhile, the professional victim gravy train rolls on.

  53. “I only ask that you, BluePeter and Big Bro refrain from making personal attacks, accusations and innuendos.”

    Have you ever even considered you are not the only person on this thread that has been abused?

  54. If a common sense definition of reasonable force is not possible, there is no hope for our societey.

  55. Shunda barunda,

    Rave on as much as you desire.

    I only ask that you, BluePeter and Big Bro refrain from making personal attacks, accusations and innuendos.

    I do not wish to try to understand the psychology of a child smacker. But if BluePeter’s sexual innuendoes toward me, that Frog had removed very early on, has any indication, than that is very disturbing indeed.

  56. SAS, you seem desperate to link your credibility to the abuse you have suffered. I am sorry but your experience is not the silver bullet against smacking that you think it is.
    Trying to smear people as intollerant because they deviate from YOUR views is a little imature, although very typical of liberal manipulation.

  57. Big Bro is back into his typical tedious postings. He cannot help himself in his personal attacks on others who deviate from his own views.

  58. SAS

    It is self centred simply because you attempt to link what happened to you with smacking, to me that shows you are desperate for attention.

    By all means speak out against sexual abuse, work as hard as you can to stop that happening but you do yourself and your cause no good at all by attempting to link what happened to you in with smacking a child.

  59. Big Bro – To answer your question: To help protect children who are in a similar position as I was. If you want to see that as “self-centered” – then so be it!

  60. SAS

    The harm caused by your childhood treatment was NOT caused by smacking, you even said as much.

    And please, I have no desire at all to know who you are, for you to take that from what I said would suggest to me that you are one very self centred individual.
    Here is a tip, the world is NOT about you.

    Tell me, what the hell do you hope to achieve by speaking out against the “true harm” caused by your childhood treatment?

  61. Big Bro,

    If you want to label me a fake or a professional “victim”, then that is your problem. I am certainly not fool enough to disclose my true identity here – just to satisfy you.

    And I did not suggest that every child who has been smacked is going to spend their life in counselling, so please stop accusing me of being a lier!

    I will continue to speak out about the true harm caused by my childhood treatment, whether you like it or not!

  62. “A black and white law isn’t possible.”

    Yes it is.
    If a common sense definition of reasonable force is not possible, there is no hope for our societey.
    Only a handful of people ever used this as a defence in the last 20 years, and all the kids survived, it was hardly a pressing issue.
    Unless of coarse you happen to be pushing a radical human rights agenda.
    Shame about all the kids that have been beaten to death since the law change.
    But I guess we have to guilt all those parents that are doing a good job diciplining their kids with a light smack, just in case.
    We all know that pushing subtle guilt on people always has a positive outcome, don’t we?

  63. jH- I believe I have read the newspaper article you link to. I would like a link to the actual study if you could provide one I would be gretful.
    The article quotes the author as saying that LIGHT smacking produces slightly better OR similar results as not smacking. Combining this with the fact that thousands of other trials dispute this (from your newspaper link), leads me to bewary or supposed benefits of smacking.
    BUT THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE
    We need to be able to successfully prosecute caregivers who bash kids. Therefore the law needed amending. BJ points out that it could have been better worded. Valis points out that whereever you draw the line you’re always going to be erring on the side of either: giving caregivers too much legal right to bash, or kids too much protection. A black and white law isn’t possible.

  64. SAS

    I am not sure if you are a fake or you are a professional “victim” , either way your so called “condition” has nothing to do with the anti smacking bill.

    For you to suggest that every child who was smacked is going to suffer from permanent victim mentality is false, for you to suggest that every child who has been smacked is going to go through life feeling sorry for themselves is wrong, for you to suggest that every child who has been smacked is going to spend their life in counselling is indeed a lie.

    Most of us were smacked, 99.9% of us did not choose to use that as an excuse for our woe’s, hell, most of us learnt a valuable lesson from being smacked.

    Seriously, (and here I assume that you are genuine) you need to harden up, deal with it and get on with your life if for no other reason than I imagine that I as a tax payer have been paying for “counsellors” to tell you that it is OK for you to go through life feeling sorry for yourself.

    At some stage you need to fight back.

  65. “You can choose to believe or disbelieve whatever you want. It makes no difference.”

    Right back at ya, smacking has nothing to do with sexual abuse.

  66. Frog said ” So you … think that farm animals and pets should have more protection under the law than your own children?”
    Which highlights the fact that animals had better protection under the law than kids did. But shock collars are still sold and electric prodders are common. Where it is deemed by society that the benefits outweigh the negatives, there is no issue. Choke chains are seen generally as an acceptable training tool, despite not being allowed to assult dogs. So the law (re animals) is flauted and yet I would think that even BB is happy with the law protecting animals.

  67. Shunda barunda,

    You can choose to believe or disbelieve whatever you want. It makes no difference.

  68. “The pain is so great, that I am propelled to speak out publicly.”

    Oh for goodness sake! I don’t believe that for a second.

  69. SAS

    I repeat, by YOUR own words you admit that smacking is not the cause of your condition.

    Please stop telling lies.

  70. BluePeter,

    You are entitled to discuss it until the cows come home.

    Just don’t try discrediting my story or attacking me personally.

  71. Not a cardinal sin, but raises an obvious question about causality – which we’re discussing.

  72. Frog,

    It seems that anyone who dares to speak out the truth about the harm childhood smacking has caused to their life – is a cardinal sin.

  73. I thought it was pretty accurate, given the context. I’m first to admit I also enjoy the banter, so it’s reasonable to assume others do, too.

  74. Statisically your not the whole story, more of an outlier; the Dunedin Study gives the best over all picture (“ground breaking”).

  75. Almost every thread on s59, you’ve cut n pasted your sexual abuse history. Why is that?

    Bottom line is that there is no connection between sexual abuse and smacking. One does not necessitate the other. If it did, the studies, like the Dunedin study, would show it.

    >>they are given the contempt they very well deserve!

    Why do you want to wind me up again?

  76. BluePeter,

    I am an “attention seeker” in so far as that; I will speak out to protect vulnerable children who are in a similar position as I was.

    As for your other comments on this thread – they are given the contempt they very well deserve!

  77. >>You would have to show me what he said, and frog won’t allow that so I guess I can’t tell you.

    I simply responded to provocation in kind. If people can’t take it, they shouldn’t give it. Only way to deal with bullies is to hit back hard….

  78. >>Poor baby. We can’t expect him to control himself can we. No big boys here.

    I do think SAS is an attention seeker. A quick Google search will tell you that. I’m also a little tired of leftist propaganda conflating every sordid issue with smacking.

    FrogBlog is jammed in PC mode, and have problems dealing with people who speak the unvarnished truth as they see it.

  79. Shunda barunda,

    This will continue to be a very sensitive issue for me, for as long as this disgusting “smacking” crap continues to get in my face from the media and elsewhere. I am going to have an offensive document shoved in my mailbox at the end of July.

    The pain is so great, that I am propelled to speak out publicly.

  80. I have read a lot of SAS’s posts but I don’t think it in itself makes a case against smacking as it seemed to be about the context and the intention, however i can see that from individual experience where it is an abusive act it would colour their thinking so that they cannot perceive (haven’t experienced a situation) where a quick smack was justified. The issue (as I see it ) was the underlying assumption that it was never ok to smack*.
    *The Children’s Commissioner claimed on TV3 that x had done a mega study and concluded that it is never o.k to smack.

  81. “You certainly do consider yourself to be an ‘expert’ of my sexual abuse and the outcome. You must have lived my whole life for me.”

    If this is still a sensitive issue for you, sharing it on a public blog that has frequent hot debate on a range of issues is probably not wise.
    I meant no disrespect with my comment, and you should not take offense.
    If you relate your experience to the smacking debate, you open that experience up to the scrutiny of others.
    Some will play nice, some won’t.

  82. Shunda barunda,

    You certainly do consider yourself to be an ‘expert’ of my sexual abuse and the outcome. You must have lived my whole life for me.

  83. “Were it not for the smacking by my parents in my childhood, I believe that I would have had a much greater chance of recovering from the sexual abuse that occurred in my toddler years.”

    The real issue for you is sexual abuse, not smacking.
    Sexual abuse can cause a range of reactions from otherwise completely normal human behavior. Your unfortunate experience is just that, an unfortunate event that had other unfortunate consequences.
    It is also possible for sexual abuse victums to be stimulated by yelling, or derogatory comments, it dosen’t mean we need to ban speech.

  84. “A more explicit law would have worked just as well, would have avoided the problems stated above, would have been supported by 90% of NZ without any difficulty, would have put the Green party in a more reasonable light with NZ as a whole, would POSSIBLY have led to us and Labour in a 4th term and would certainly not be facing a referendum.”

    Exactly. But the Bradford law was never about “protecting children” it was always about forcing a radical human rights ideology on the NZ public.
    Sue even admitted as much.
    Please Greens, keep wagging the dog like this so your influence grows no further.

  85. Sounds like Blue was being resonable at least up to this point, then the attention seeker starts provoking him.

    Poor baby. We can’t expect him to control himself can we. No big boys here.

    If I wasn’t so aware that leftist manipulation so often involves sob stories and faux outrage, I might be more sympathetic in this instance.

    Great, so you’re a moral relativist too. Very convenient.

  86. No Big Bro, I will not accept your assertion that my story is “dishonest”. That is below the belt and crossing the line.

    The fact, as I see it is that you want to silence me.

    Were it not for the smacking by my parents in my childhood, I believe that I would have had a much greater chance of recovering from the sexual abuse that occurred in my toddler years.

  87. BB

    The law as it stands CAN work. It isn’t that horrible. It is typical NZ parlialimentary output that leaves it up to other people to decide what the law actually is.

    Since nobody is actually publishing any information about it, the misinformation holds the top cards.

    BJ

  88. SAS

    By your own words you admit that your “condition” is not the result of being smacked by your parents, for you to attempt to tie this in with the anti smacking bill is at best dishonest and at worst a cynical attempt to silence people into accepting the bill as being one that can work or is needed.

  89. S59 as it stands will work. That was always the case. It is, after a lot of work put into making it better, passable law. It is not however, the best law possible, and the cost of making it as vague as it is (it still relies on police and courts to determine what is un-reasonable force) was immense… to the party and to the government in power.

    Still, not BAD law anymore, just vaguely leaving determinations to police and jurors…. who may in some communities, be uniformly inclined to think that a big stick is more reasonable than a light smack. It also leaves it possible that someone in a more “sensitive” community will be prosecuted for something that is perfectly reasonable to 9 out of 10 of us.

    That vague aspect of it, and the nature of the public eye, means that people are scared to touch their kids and the kids are crowding their parents with their “untouchable” status. The law by being poorly understood, poorly advertised and difficult to really understand (the intention of correcting a behaviour is indicated how? What is “reasonable”? ). Without being hauled in front of a court nobody knows if they are breaking the law. Everyone who has care of a child is wondering what to do if… and the kids are loving it, but not in a good way.

    A more explicit law would have worked just as well, would have avoided the problems stated above, would have been supported by 90% of NZ without any difficulty, would have put the Green party in a more reasonable light with NZ as a whole, would POSSIBLY have led to us and Labour in a 4th term and would certainly not be facing a referendum.

    Still, S59 as it stands, works. Sue got the kids better protection. They did need better protection. However, it really needs to be explained to everyone WAY better than it has.

    I don’t know what the referendum says. I do know that this argument has ALL BY ITSELF AS A DISTRACTION, caused major diversions of effort.

    respectfully
    BJ

  90. That is a typical response from Big Bro.

    Now who is being provocative? Shunda barunda, Big Bro or both?

  91. “There is nothing manipulative or “sob” about my story.”

    Oh really?, it sounds like a clear case of both “sob” and manipulative.

  92. “Sexual Abuse Survivor Says:

    June 10th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
    Lets give BluePeter an A + for pig ignorance.

    What I have said is true and sincere.

    BluePeter Says:

    June 10th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
    I’m sure it is, but I’m just not remotely interested in your personal issues.

    Sexual Abuse Survivor Says:

    June 10th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
    BluePeter,

    My story “Disturbed’ you. GOOD!!!

    Not interested? Tough bikkies!! My story was not put here just for your benefit.

    Stories like mine need to be heard and published!!”

    Sounds like Blue was being resonable at least up to this point, then the attention seeker starts provoking him.
    If I wasn’t so aware that leftist manipulation so often involves sob stories and faux outrage, I might be more sympathetic in this instance.

  93. Which is why you should have kept your mouth shut in the first place.

    But as you didn’t, you should be able to answer the question, as I’ve told you the nature of what he said. Does flinging sexual innuendo at a person who claims to have been sexually abused fit with your definition of decency? Its really not that hard.

  94. ” I still want to know if you support BP’s comments.”

    You would have to show me what he said, and frog won’t allow that so I guess I can’t tell you.

  95. “So you Shunda, like BP and BB, think that farm animals and pets should have more protection under the law than your own children?”

    Now who’s changing the subject.

  96. Valis, the sexual argument against smacking is rediculous.

    Are you aware you’ve changed the subject? We were discussing BP, not SAS, and whether you agree or not with SAS assertions is irrelevant to BP’s behaviour. Sapient showed that SAS’s assertions could be effectively refuted without stooping to a disgusting personal attack. I still want to know if you support BP’s comments. No more evasion, now.

  97. So you Shunda, like BP and BB, think that farm animals and pets should have more protection under the law than your own children?

  98. Valis, the sexual argument against smacking is rediculous.
    This individual has obviously been through some trauma, but really honestly it is not relative to this argument. Using ones negative experiance as a means to dispel debate on an issue is not a good idea, if you are sensitive about that experience.
    Sexual abuse is terrible as is physiscal abuse, smacking is neither of those.

  99. Lovely that you’re prepared to pass judgement without knowing what happened, Shunda. The poster claims to have been sexually abused, but BP nonetheless found it necessary to taunt them with sexual innuendo. I think I can safely say that’s beneath even big bro. Are you really coming out in support?

  100. Indecency Valis? what I find indecent is the use of emotional manipulation as an excuse to avoid legitimate debate.
    It is the lowest blow anyone can resort to, “I was hurt so you have to listen to me”
    Have some self respect.

  101. Well, what a marvelous display of left wing bigotry displayed against BP further up this thread.

    WTF? Did you see what he posted before frog took it down? Since when is outrage over indecency to other people a left wing phenomenon?

  102. “Children will take longer to learn that actions have consequences and more will never pick this up.”

    No, there is no “will” it is happening now. Smacking is the best way to quickly teach kids consequences for unacceptable behaviour.

  103. Valis said:
    “(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

    This is the bit that get the proponents worked up. They feel there should be a general ability to use force when a child is acting up even outside the specific rights granted already.”

    Yes, the use of force for correction. The big no no for all extreme left wingers the world over.

  104. Well, what a marvelous display of left wing bigotry displayed against BP further up this thread.
    Some of you guys just don’t get it do you, all the faux outrage in the world won’t change a damned thing.

  105. fin Says:
    June 11th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    “do much the same in later life” and tying this with the opening sentence
    “refuted thousands of international studies” Do you really think this is evidence to promote LIGHT smacking?
    ——————————
    It hits at claims of harm.

    Preliminary analysis showed that those who were merely smacked had “similar or even slightly better outcomes” than those who were not smacked in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement.

    “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.

    “I know that is not a popular thing to say, but it is certainly the case.

    “The more honest researchers have said, let’s be honest, we all wish we could say it’s all very clear and that no parent should ever lift a finger on a child – although I think that is totally unrealistic as a single parent myself – but the big problem is that a lot of the studies have lumped a whole lot of forms of physical punishment together.”

    Dr Millichamp said the Dunedin study so far found no evidence of the “slippery slope” theory – that parents who started off smacking often progressed to abusive punishments.*

    “We couldn’t find any,” she said.

    The findings undermine Green MP Sue Bradford’s bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows parents to use “reasonable force” to discipline children.”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809

    * one of Sue Bradfords main assertions.

    It suggests Sue Bradford isn’t the great Sage of the Age she thinks she is (the issue tripped the public common sense meter).

  106. Greenfly,
    Just quickly;
    I would hazard a guess that the implimentation of the law would create a feedback loop where-by smacking and child abuse becomes less and less acceptable within society in a manner similar to spousal rape and abuse. The law itself will dirrectly only influence one or two cases a year or so at maximum i think but the roll-on effects as mentioned above will do more good, and bad.
    The law itself will do nothing to prevent child abusers from abusing children but the changed public perception will lead to higher reporting of child abuse and across generations a decrease in net child abuse. The public perception that smacking is illegal will result in less smacking and less approval of smacking. This will result in less anomie in children and probally less teen suicide as a result, less exacibation of the previously mentioned impairments, and will result in the effective removal of possibly the most effective tool in disipline among the middle and higher classes, supported by decades of psychological research since pavlov and skinner. Children will take longer to learn that actions have consequences and more will never pick this up. It is difficult to say the effect on crime as abuse and feelings resulting from punishment both result in crime increases but so does lack of punishment; it is difficult to say which is stronger.
    There is several times this much that I had in mind but I lost my train of thought and cannot recover it.
    I probally wont be replying until tonight as I am rather behind in my study for my exam tomorrow 😛

  107. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

    This is the bit that get the proponents worked up. They feel there should be a general ability to use force when a child is acting up even outside the specific rights granted already.

  108. BP, Did you know you can still lightly smack a kid (if acting as parent) and get the benefits cited in the ‘famous Dunedin’ study… “much the same in later life”?

  109. So there’s heaps of lawful ways to use reasonable force against kids.

    I don’t get it anymore.. I think this might be all politics..?

  110. “do much the same in later life” and tying this with the opening sentence
    “refuted thousands of international studies” Do you really think this is evidence to promote LIGHT smacking?

    But the issue is defining light smacking in the court room.

    Please excuse my ignorance but is the following the law at present?

    5 New section 59 substitutedSection 59 is repealed and the following section substituted:

    “59 Parental control“(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).

    “(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution

  111. “Dr Angus said he supported the new law because vulnerable children should get the same legal protection against assault as adults, and because smacking was not *usually* a consistent or effective form of discipline.”

    Sue’s campaign was a more extreme position than that, relating to a culture change (which can also be related to the sort of ideology that sees criminality as an expression of an unjust society) and smacking as a bad parenting practise on a level with picking ones nose.

    of course we are learning all the time and no discussion is complete without reference to the otago study:

    “Groundbreaking New Zealand research has refuted thousands of international studies which claim that smacking children makes them more likely to become aggressive and antisocial.

    Children who are smacked lightly with an open hand on the bottom, hand or leg do much the same in later life as those who are not smacked, found the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study, which has tracked 1000 children since they were born in the city in 1972-73.”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809

  112. toad – hmmmm…the language of the who ?

    Sapient – my thoughts are, ‘how complex the issue is – here’s one aspect I’d not considered. How many others might there be? It’s an issue that is not without depth’.

    Your intuition on the ‘Repeal of Section 59’ with regard the health of our society? Go all heuristic on me, I can take it 🙂

  113. Greenfly,
    Any child having experianced any form of serious mental, physical or sexual abuse can have the effects of that abuse exacibated by smacking even when done in an otherwise unharmful manner. To a lesser extent verbal assult or non-encouraging remarks can do much the same. It is this same stuff, on a far lesser extent, that tends to lead to suicide among early to mid teens.
    I have not read the report but I would think it would make some mention that it can exacibate some conditions, particuarly those associated with low self-estesm. I doubt they would cover sexual abuse dirrectly unless it was actually encountered among the participants.
    I have never found a valid finding of psych research which is not intuitive 😛

  114. greenfly said …any child receiving a smack…

    Greenfly, don’t fall into the lnguage of the abusers – I know it wasn;t intentional.

    But “receiving a smack” has the same connotations as “receiving a present” – as if it is something good.

    In the language of the spankers, a smack is either “received” or “administered”. The “administration” of a smack is an even more scary concept – like “it wasn’t me, it was the Government”.

    Which is what the law used to be, and was that which some parents relied upon to defend their violence against their children.

  115. Sapient – then any child receiving a smack could be having the effects of sexual abuse acerbated, had they been abused previously? That’s a view I had not considered before. Call me naive. It would be very difficult to know, from a casual observers point of view, if that was occuring. I wonder if that aspect was taken into account in the Dunedin report that is sometimes cited here?

  116. Greenfly,
    Yes I had, thus it makes no alteration. I had presumed everyone else would have also, but that was likely me being me as per usual and not taking a sufficently pessimistic view of other humans or assuming they have accessed easily accesable and relivant information prior to forming opinions (though i guess that falls under the former).
    Smacking has an interesting kalidascope of outcomes depending on the degree, present circumstance, and prior circumstances

  117. Sapient – question: Had you considered before SAS’s post, this point he or she made re: smacking and prior abuse?

    continued childhood discipline smacking acerbated the effects of the sexual abuse

    Given that this is true for SAS, it might well be true for a great number of children, I believe. Does this change your view of smacking? It does mine.

  118. BluePeter, you’re the only serious spanker on this thread since Strings @ 11.54am.

    What happened? Did you get bunted by Boscawen from the yellow placard campaign in Mount Albert for being too much of an extremist liability?

  119. BluePeter,

    It appears that I misunderstood your post. You seem to think I worked for the Families commission. Where the hell did get that crazy assumption from? I have never had anything to do with the Families Commission!. However, I would not mind receiving that fat salary that Rankin undeservingly receives.

  120. Worked for the Families Commission. Thank goodness you don’t now.

    A “negative”. view on smacking. That should be blatantly obvious to you – and the reasons why!

    My story has certainly been around. And in high places.

    Very soon, Christine Rankin is going to receive it. I will then ask her why she thinks it is acceptable to smack children who have seen sexually abused.

  121. Again, where did I say people who have suffered shouldn’t be supported?

    You’ve posted your story, word for word, on FrogBlog before. And elsewhere: tinyurl.com/lacf53

    I get it.

    You have a negative view of smacking.

    I don’t.

  122. Ha – Just as I thought – BluePeter. Not OK that your taxpayers money should be spent to support those who have suffered. That certainly says it all and reiterates what Frog said about you!! No humanity in your bones!

  123. Why do people feel the need to lie about me?

    It’s not “obviously ok” by me. How is this an accident? ACC should be reigned in, as it has clearly spread the net far too wide.

    Sexual abuse is an awful thing. But sexual abuse does not go hand in hand with smacking, for reasons Sapient eloquently points out.

  124. It is obviously OK for BluePeter, that his taxpayer’s money is being spent on my life-long counselling and medical support by ACC and other government funding agencies, to help with the effects of the sexual abuse I suffered, with the effects and expenses acerbated by childhood smacking.

  125. >>Sapient & BP think that farm animals and pets deserve more protection under the law than their children do

    Lies.

  126. Freedom of speech alive and well, I see.

    While you’re having a race to climb on the highest bourgeois moral horse competition, if people can’t take it, they shouldn’t give it.

    The fact that some people blame smacking for their personal problems is neither here nor there. Smacking works well, in some cases, and you can go jump with your stupid, intrusive, meddling law.

  127. * “I unlike BP im not for the animal protection sh*t” should have read “I, unlike BP, am not for the animal protection sh*t based on emotional or ethical reasoning” *

  128. Frog,
    1) I was not arguing against the legislation here nor promoting smacking. i was mearly pointing out that the harm experianced by SAS is not sufficent to make an arguement that smacking should be illegal valid.
    2) I unlike BP im not for the animal protection sh*t, i have said previously that I couldint care if pigs were hung by their legs to grow if it wernt for the harm it causes society. I support animal protection only to minimise such harm and maximise benefit, ditto for children.
    3) I support the changes, I just dont think the time and methods of implimentation were wise for reasons of political positioning.

  129. Yeah, frog, I guess not quite all of them are wandering around Mount Albert with their yellow placards after all.

    I saw the comments by BP you have deleted, and they were extraordinarily insensitive to someone who has the courage to come here and tell her/his personal experience of child abuse.

  130. BP – You have pushed the limits of personal attack way too far. I have edited your comment. Pull your head in mate, and show a bit of humanity.

  131. Sapient,

    There is no argument here. My story is put up to highlight the harm and potential effects caused by smacking children who have been sexually abused. That is all. Everyone, including yourself, can draw on their own conclusions as to where the boundaries should lie.

    I care about children who are vulnerable as I was. That is why I have told my story.

  132. SAS,
    Well under that account the actual harm was due to the molestatation not the smacking. Molestation is prehaps one of th emost ilelgal acts in our society and i would personally view it as worse than murder because of the suffering most survivours then go on to experiance.
    That smacking, for you, exacibates the pain felt due to that molestation is no reason to make smaking illegal. A person raped in a park may have their pain exacibated evrytime they see a park or an image there of. Likewise many rape survivors will have trouble ever trusting a man again and men carrying certain characteristics may further exacibate the trauma. We cannot make illegal something that causes harm to only a very small minority of people, esspecially when making such a action illegal would cause more harm than it would prevent. I am not debating that smacking does not cause harm to all but that your arguement is rendered invalid by your reliance on that single, extremly weak, premise.

  133. Nice to know you enjoy the fact you disturbing people. [Deleted by frog]

    >>Stories like mine need to be heard and published!!

    Form a group.

    [Deleted by frog]

    [BluePeter – you have seriously crossed the line today. Pull your head in and stop making personal attacks.]

  134. BluePeter,

    My story “Disturbed’ you. GOOD!!!

    Not interested? Tough bikkies!! My story was not put here just for your benefit.

    Stories like mine need to be heard and published!!

  135. Lets give BluePeter an A + for pig ignorance.

    What I have said is true and sincere.

  136. I’m deeply disturbed that someone would see a blog as some kind of counseling session.

    I was smacked as a child. As were my brothers. As were most of my friends. We’ve all turned out fine, as did the children in the Dunedin study.

    Smacking children is acceptable, and in some cases, very effective. It really depends on the child, the cultural values, and the relationship with parents. With some kids, it is ineffective.

    Mileage varies.

  137. BluePeter,

    When I was about three years of age, I was molested. As a result, when I was smacked by my parents, the pain stimulated me sexually. As time progressed, the continued childhood discipline smacking acerbated the effects of the sexual abuse. The pain and humiliation associated with it caused me to become sexually attracted to the pain. I then began to self-harm. The resulting intense shame, secrecy and anxiety surrounding this addictive behaviour became very long-term. Later in life it led to two suicide attempts.

    I am able to inflict high levels of pain on myself as ‘sexual stimulation’ resulting from childhood conditioning caused by being smacked. This conditioning is now managed by ongoing ACC and medical support to prevent actual self-harm.

    I now suffer from life-long debilitating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from the treatment I received as a child.

    I am deeply disturbed when people still say that smacking children is acceptable. This brings back all of the pain and distress I suffered over the years.

  138. Toad!
    Rofl, I did look & think about it, but I have just got tired of repeating the same info to the same people who didn’t read it last time.

    And you do it so much better ..

    Please, is it raining where they are yellow placarding? For the gods of weather must be really herniating themselves this week … 😉

  139. Only 4 comments in almost 4 hours – that’s unheard of when section 59 is the topic.

    Guess most of those who support hitting kids must be wandering around Mount Albert carrying yellow placards today.

  140. Strings:

    The basic failure of logic in the section 59 amendment was that children are the same as adults.

    There is no assumption that children are the same as adults Strings.

    The underlying assumption from those who supported reporm of section 59 is that children should have the same protection from violence as adults – very different assumtion from the one you assert.

    …it made even the most basic of physocal punishment (e.g. pulling a child away from another child it is fighting with,) an illegal offence…

    Totally untrue. The current law provides that reasonable force is justified for preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour – both of which apply in the circumstance you cite.

    …others who love their children enough to establish reasonable discipline and social conformity in them are allowed to do so without being criminalised.

    How many such parents have been criminalised Strings? I may have missed something, but I would suggest none, and so would the Police reviews. And don’t cite Jimmy Mason – his actions, as reported, clearly were abusive.

  141. The basic failure of logic in the section 59 amendment was that children are the same as adults. A misconception that has caused problems in many ways and many places.

    If the amendment had looked at defining unreasonable force (something that would have taken considerable mental effort and perhaps some creativity, it would have given the courts a solid legal basis on which to judge those charged with assault of a child (which has always ben on the statutes). Instead, it made even the most basic of physocal punishment (e.g. pulling a child away from another child it is fighting with,) an illegal offence, as the “grab and pull” can be termed assault under our legislation.

    Instead of fighting what is clearly a significant part of society’s thinking regarding the failure of the current state of S59, perhaps you (Sue) and others might turn your intellects to such a definition that ensures those few true rogues amongst us are brought to justice, and the others who love their children enough to establish reasonable discipline and social conformity in them are allowed to do so without being criminalised.

  142. Well said, Paula Bennett!

    Smacking is not assault, any more so than sending a child to their room is imprisonment without conviction.

Comments are closed.