Source: David Farrar DPF’s Kiwiblog
One should give credit to Sue Bradford for her willingness to talk to John Key on a compromise, even though no agreement could be reached. This is not entirely surprising considering Bradford has always said she is unwilling to define any acceptable level of force – even light smacking, as being worse than the status quo
Plaque on both their houses points out how extraordinary Bradford’s position is – arguing that reducing the level of acceptable force is worse than the status quo.
Now Bradford has come out and said that the fear parents have that this bans smacking is the fault of bill opponents. But having had occasion to reread her bill this week, her protestations of innocence do not add up. Just look at the official purpose of the Bill:
The purpose of this Act is … abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.
Now this is as clear as day. None of this Clark bullshit about just removing a defence. The purpose of the Bill is to abolish the use of parental force for correction. Now it could not be clearer. Smacking is a subset of parental force for correction. The purpose of the Bill hence is to abolish or ban smacking. These are Bradford’s own words in her own bill.
This is why compromise could not be found. The aim of the bill is to abolish the use of any parental force for correction.
Now looking through the Bill again I found to my horror the amended Bill is far far worse, in my opinion, than the original Bill was.
Why?
The original bill merely deleted Section 59. It left the law silent on parental correction. It meant there was no specific statutory defence, but the judicial authorities would be able to consider the circumstances of particular cases.
But the amended bill goes far beyond just abolishing the specific defence. It states in s59(2):
Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
I should have highlighted this earlier. This doesn’t just remove parental correction as a defence. It outlaws it by statute. And even worse it specifically wipes out any ability of a court to consider common law in its interpretation. I’d say that any case that makes court, no matter how trivial, will be a slam dunk for the prosecution. Because 59(2) explicitly rules out any defence.
So when Sue Bradford and Helen Clark claim the bill does not outlaw or ban smacking, remember these two things:
(1) The stated purpose of the Bill is to abolish the use of parental force for the purpose of correction(2) Section 59(2) explicitly forbids the use of any force for the purpose of correction
So remember this bill is not just about removing a defence. The Bill’s own purpose states it is about banning parental correction which uses force, which includes smacking.
That is, it isn’t denied that smacking will be illegal but because they use a definition of criminalise which requires a conviction parents won’t be “criminalised”.
Good parents won’t be criminalised, so the argument goes, because to be criminalised, first the parent would have to break the law, then be investigated, then be charged, then be found guilty, then be convicted – which Bradford quite reasonably asserts is highly unlikely.
It’s a stupid definition of criminalise, but if adopted then the conlusion is at least logical.
Bradford knows this is not about child abuse. It is about giving politicians with totalitarian instincts the ability to target families.
Strong families means a population more able to govern themselves. This means a strong nation which requires only small central government. Big government advocates know that when families are weakened we lose a bit of that ability to govern themselves. This then gives them the excuse they need to fill the breach.
Bradford will not compromise as she is determined to give bureaucrats the ability to be proactive in investigating families, especially families who belong to a group\political persuasion\religious belief she may not like. How long will it be before Plunket, CYFS etc are given the power to investigate how some, or even all families, discipline their children?
Meanwhile true abusers will continue anabated.
Bad, bad, bad legislation. Who are these clowns, and why do they think they can try to dupe us and still expect us to vote for them?
However, even believing in a utopian world where smacking isn’t needed or administered, doesn’t stop Bradfords bill from being bad law IMO. Bad laws should not be passed. I really think it is that simple.
I suggest that he not only states the National Party will remove this bill completely, but that he also backs the two referenda, with all the resources at the National party’s disposal. That way, it is forced into the public arena at the same time as the next General Election, and no one can forget who passed this vile legislation, just when they are choosing their party vote.
CYFS already have this power…
“And even worse it specifically wipes out any ability of a court to consider common law in its interpretation.” Not quite, and there is also the possibility for the development of a defence of de minimis, or ‘to trivial to warrant the criminal sanction’.
I accept it is a smacking ban, and always have. Whats more, I think it is a good move. What has shocked me, has been that the opposition to this Bill (includind yourself), have not been able to grasp what the Bill actually is, apparently until now. The National party themselves have been completely inconsistent about what this Bill achieves, criticising it for doing nothing, for doing too little, and for doing too much.
You deserve credit for your honesty over this Bill David (amongst a sea of bull-shit I might add), but you really need to solidify your grounds for opposing Bradford’s Bill.
“..It is about giving politicians with totalitarian instincts the ability to target families..”
(whoar..!..some of us march to the beat of a different drummer..eh..?..)
whipping up paranoid fantasies/souffles..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
TIME is a factor. Usually both parents work, come home tired, then smack when kids get unruly(I am simplifying here).
If we had one parent to stay at home to raise children instead of both working we might have a different attitude to this bill. Many families put income and lifestyle ahead of bringing up their children.
Actually DPF, you are technically breaking the law, but it has no effect uless you are caught. The implications, in Bradfords words go further: Nobody is out to catch you, so its okay to break the law – and we are going to make law specifically so you can break it and not be prosecuted -thats the Green logic. If John Key was serious about his position, he will come out and say that he will push through Chester Burrows amendment – effectively party policy – after the election – rather than making fluffery comments about “waiting to see if we have suitable coalition partners”
Party policy does not depend on future coalition partners.
One has to wonder if the possibility of scaring off coalition partners is the reason why John key and the National Party are refusing to take a real stance on anything, and don’t seem to have any real policies.
This bill HAS been given a bad name because of the opposition. Instead of looking at the purpose of the bill which is to mainly stop these child beaters going through court and getting away with their crimes thanks to how section 59 is written up at this present day,
The opposition have just looked straight into the household and seen that this will “Criminalize Good Parents” this in fact will not “Criminalize good parents”.
Let’s look at it through the eyes of a parent: ok when a child is doing something that is going to harm them or others then you need to do what anyone would do and that is to remove them from that situation and that could be picking them up and stopping them. The other thing could be giving them a slight smack on the hand or where ever to make them aware of what they are doing and what their actions can possibly cause. If a police officer saw you do that on the street they are not going to pull out the handcuffs and arrest you because I’m sure everyone understands that if you had not intervened at that time then the child could have harmed themselves and others.
I think you need to be realistic about this, and really look at what the bill is trying to effectively do which is to get the real child abusers put away.
Ms Bradford believes that violence is not the way to correct behavior and in a lot of situations it does work, but I feel we need to look at other alternatives to disciplining children. We can be credited on the international state as an anti-violence state which at the moment we are not.
By reducing smacking in the household and effectively trying to stop it, it can show organized crime groups and other groups of people that use violence frequently that New Zealand is better than violence and can operate without it.
Everyone knew that Mr. Key was going to the negotiating table with the wish for the bill to allow smacking. Ms Bradford has done a wise thing to not go through with his wishes.
It was like Mr. Key going to Steve Chadwick and asking her to rewrite her to rewrite her “Easter trading bill” to include the right for business’s to trade on all public holidays it was totally unrealistic.
James Sleep
www.sleeponpolitics.blogspot.com
“The bill has been given a bad name because the proponents and promoters do not want to talk about the effects, just the intention.”
Thats funny why has Ms Sue Bradford and Helen Clark always defending the bill by talking about what they feel the effects would be.
It is the opposition that is taking their statements of the effects of the bill which in fact are quite positive and then they twist it.
Im sorry dave, they are always going on about the effects as all MP’s would go on about the effects of a bill.
James Sleep: Do not let facts spoil your view, Helen Clark did not always suupport the bill.
What she has done is more like a flip flop depending on the wind shifts of maintaining the her hold on the purse strings.
And while I’m not usually one to just post links in comments, Audrey Young nails it:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10436161
I’m Sorry I’ll be spacific.
Why has Ms Sue Bradford and Helen Clark been quite open about the effects they feel it will have on NZ to the media. Helen commenting on the effects since she has supported the bill.
Now if these beliefs include discipline by smacking, the anti-smacking bill will violate my human rights, under this bill of rights.
So, is Sue Bradfords bill a violation of all our rights as parents?
My god is there treatment for that?
Thanks for the link to the Audrey Young article.
She has struck on something that I mentioned last week.
Key is acting in the same way that made him successful in the type of business he was involved in. He has hedged his position so that, whatever the outcome he makes a gain.
Labour struggled with Brash because he did not act like a politician. They succeeded in outmanoevering him in the end by using the press & some pretty underhand tactics.
Key is a different type of opponent again, and by removing Brash, Labour has made things harder for themselves, because Key is a more dangerous opponent than Brash was.
Labour is full of career politicians, and they have a reputation for being very adept at politics.
They do less well when their opponents act in ways that break the political mould.
Brash did not have the level of cunning that Labour did. Key does have at least the same level, if not more. The problem for Labour is that Key is treating politics like a business takeover- he is out-thinking and out manoevering Labour at every turn, and they have no idea how to cope with him.
Key has given Labour the choice of shing off the reasonable approach of Key (and continuing to look arrogant & out of touch), or accepting it (and making Key look like the power broker, whilst also jepoardising their support from the Greens).
It really is Lose Lose for Labour and Win Win for National whatever happens.
This law will be about as useful as the microchipping of dogs.
A democratic society doesn’t make laws that aren’t intended to be enforced.
And try an English class
I must proof read more.
Should have been “brushing”
sorry.
Very eloquent.
Couldn’t agree more.
Absolute bullshit – 7 or 8 cases where parents using riding crops etc, does not equal “a lot”, regardless of how you view these decisions
“…We can be credited on the international state as an anti-violence state which at the moment we are not.”
Pardon me if I don’t give a damn what the “international state” thinks of NZ laws regarding parental discipline of their own children. What will this credit get us? carbon credits? big ups and shout outs from the UN? The “international state” has far bigger fish to fry than NZ smacking laws.
“By reducing smacking in the household and effectively trying to stop it, it can show organized crime groups and other groups of people that use violence frequently that New Zealand is better than violence and can operate without it.”
I literally laughed out loud when I read that James, do you seriously believe that organised criminals give a fuck about anti smacking legislation? How delightfully naive.
…Let’s look at it through the eyes of a parent: ………………….If a police officer saw you do that on the street they are not going to pull out the handcuffs and arrest you because I’m sure everyone understands that if you had not intervened at that time then the child could have harmed themselves and others.
Firstly, James, if you are 15, like they say you are, don’t even think that you can look at things through the eye of a parent.
Secondly, do you honestly believe Mr Plod is going to say” oh, its ok, dear, I understand why you smacked your tantramising kid. Of course I won’t arrest you.”
Go back to school, James.
Good on you for trying to debate these issues, but this one is out of your league
The reason why Ms Bradford and the Labour Party have not supported Mr Keys proposal is because it will contradict part of the bill.
Also the other reason is Mr Key is going on about allowing “Light Smacking” whats light smacking you have to define it and that is the problem and you just cannot define a “Light Smack”
After reading your thread, I would be more concerned about your command of English and your ability to make it in the world, than arguing the limits of a “light smack”.
You are not a parent. You have no concept of being a parent.
Leave this debate and go back to school.
Just like has happened with the sedition bill.
And Sue must be hallucinogenic if she thinks we have enough police to check up on every potential infringement reported.
Some poeple get away with murder, and instead are found guilty of manslaughter. Some men are acquitted of rape even though they may have raped. Should we rewrite the rape and murder laws because the justice system sometimes comes up with the wrong outcome? What other laws should we rewrite while we’re at it?
As Audrey Young says: “It is almost inconceivable Parliament will pass a law that explicitly bans physical punishment and then expects the police to prosecute only extreme cases”. Indeed Greg O’Connor has said that police will investigate every complaint of smacking. Presumably if there is evidence of smacking, police will prosecute. And the resources devoted to genuine cases of child abuse will decline as a result.
Give up, dude. You make phule look rational.
Some people may say they admire your enthusiasm, I would wager that most of us dont. You make very little sense in your rants, your logic is twisted, your metaphors are flawed, your grasp of facts is poor, your understanding of any opinion other than your own is comically bad, you have zero life experience on which to base your opinions (and it DOES matter). People are dumber for having read your comments.
But keep posting. Your comments are a perfect example of why we dont treat children the same way we do adults.
Kat, what gives you the right to state who can and cannot comment on this issue?
An argument’s strength lies in its reasoning, not its source.
Sleep’s comments were attempts at debating the issue in point, and yours were not. Andrew, Mark, and southern raider (and others) all had no problem raising civil counter arguments for Mr Sleep. If you have nothing of substance to offer then perhaps it is you who needs the schooling.
We are not able to smack our dog, cat, rabiit whatever.
We cannot go and hit another adult.
We cannot go and smack an adult we have issues with.
So why should the law allow us to smack children.
Pets can be worse than childrena dn its illegal to go and hit them and get them into line.
Why should we have the right to smack children, just because they are the same species as us and they talk the same language and they are our children shouldn’t give us the right to be able to inflict pain on them.
But James you must do as David says, read the preamble of the Bill. If the intention is not to criminalise parents for a light smack (as Bradford, Clark and other supporters claim) then why state that the intention of the law change is “abolish parental force for the purpose of correction” which is statute language for making smacking illegal.
Greg O’Connor is a credible commentator on police issues – he was a very effective detective prior to his Police Association role and having met him and had debates with him, he is a formidable advocate. If he says the police will investigate complaints they are highly likely to. Why pass a law that is designed to be honoured in the breach from its inception?
James – you are probably too young to have been involved in many CFYS cases. I’ve seen the ugly side of incompetent and arrogant social workers who use the law to act capriciously with devastating effects on families. Almost all social workers try hard to be fair. One of the reasons why this amendment is so universally loathed is that parents dont want to take their chance that a zealous cop or CFYS worker will turn a correctional smack into a police record and a compulsory removal of the child from the home.
1. The Bill will become law.
2. Good parents will continue to be good parents.
3. Bad parents will continue to be bad parents
4. Some good parents will continue smack their children during those stressful moments (and they will continue to feel shitty for doing it, long after the child has forgotten about it). They will not be prosecuted.
5. Some parents will continue to discipline their children with force, and gain an increased contempt for the law generally. The majority will not be prosecuted, a small number will be.
6. Some parents will work at developing ‘non-smack’ parenting strategies.
7. The police will be more inclined than at present to prosecute for apparent violence in the home, when there are notifications etc.
8. An increased number of parents will be accused of violence against their children at the time of relationship break ups and custody claims, it will become yet another tool in custody disputes.
9. John Key will assume power and will not change it, as it will not have made a lick of practical difference to the vast majority of people.
10. As with the right to hit one’s wife for correction, the right to strike children will slowly cease to be accepted by society.
Children are not dogs, cats or rabbits. Though in the case of dogs, a smack is a very good correctional method. Smack a dog for doing something bad, he wont do it again. People are not allowed to BEAT their dogs. Just like they arent allowed to beat their children.
Children are not adults. This is the point you have illustrated so well yourself. We do not let them drive, drink, smoke or vote. You argument here is idiotic, and you should be embarassed for making it.
We DO smack animals. We are not allowed to cruelly beat them. We use riding crops with horses. Cattle prods with cows.
When we pat our dogs we use more force than when we discipline them. But the difference is the intent and the dogs are aware of this. That is why mild physical discipline and cruel beatings are so easy to distinguish. A mild smack on a dog is no worse a physical contact than any other normal contact.
A smack on a child is exactly the same. If we rough house with our kids we probably use more force than when we smack them. The difference is the intent.
Everyone rational person on the face of the planet can distinguish between a smack and a beating. Why is it that you and your ilk fail to make that distinction? Why, in a discussion about smacking, do you constantly bring up gross physical abuse? Can you really not tell the difference? Are you THAT stupid?
The acceptance of females as equals, with equal rights and responsibilities, was one of the major reasons why wife-beating became to be considered a bad thing. When the assumed superiority of men over women disappeared so did the justification for spousal discipline. Who are you to discipline another adult who has the same capacity for rational judgement you have?
Are you really saying that children will come to be considered equal to adults? That they will have the same rights and responsibilities as adults from the moment they are born?
Why are people being so fucking stupid?
Yet you assert “Are you really saying that children will come to be considered equal to adults?”
I said no such thing (nor did I imply it). How on earth did you draw that from those words? Whether striking is acceptable and whether groups are “considered equal” are not the same thing.
For many groups of people, the ’smacking of pets’ is considered unacceptable, yet it simply does not follow that these groups now ‘consider pets as equals’!
Now if I may borrow your words, why are people being so fucking stupid?
You hysterical lefties are just making shit up as you go. Next you’ll play revisionist and claim smacking has been illegal for last hundred years or some such shit.
The double standard is just as evident when you consider that Bradford is also an abortion advocate.
If a child has the same rights & protections as an adult, then an unborn child should be afforded the same protections.
Does Sue have a nifty little solution for that type of emotional “assault” too, or is that somehow acceptable? Is she saving that, to be addressed in future Green/Labour party law?
I imagine her reasoning is that children are 1. more vulnerable than adults and 2. are at present afforded -less- legal protection against assault than adults.
It is not a ‘double standard’, it is totally consistent with her other position.
It is not a ‘double standard’, it is totally consistent with her other position.”
You missed the bit about abortion.
The unborn are afforded the least protection of all, because Bradford & her ilk regard them as less than human, and yet it could be argued that the unborn are the most vulnerable of all.
James, do you have information that we do not know about??
How do you know what the police priorities are??
Greg O’Connor has stated publicly that police will have to investigate any complaint of smacking under this new bill.
You do not discipline you wife because she is your equal. You do not need to discpline her, physically or otherwise. On the other hand children need to be disciplined/corrected. It is the disciplining of adults spouses in general that is archaic, not simply physical aspect of it. And it is YOU that drew the parallel between spousal and parental physical discpline, not me.
Many groups of people consider the BEATING of pet unacceptable. A smack is not a beating. The sorts of loons that would find smacking a dog unacceptable (and on par with gross physical mistreatment, even though in reality the smack is nothing more than a tap) probably DO consider animals the equivalent of humans.
If my wife assaults someone I can legally call the cops.
Now knowing full well that the previous 2 options aren’t available for children and also remembering that timeout requires the use of physical force, what child policing agency should I call?
The govt has made it legal in this country to kill an unborn child, yet they want to make any sort of smacking of a child an illegal act.
What do you say to that James C??
If you have made this argument you are not thinking at a higher level than everyone else, you are not being particualrily insightful, you are not contributing anything to the discussion. You are an IFL.
I’m sorry, but WTF?!?
Have you never heard of “assault on a child” – children have far, far more protection against (real) assault, including at least 2 government departments to protect them.
