In support of CYFSWATCH NZ and the right of Free Speech. First visit to Watching CYFSWATCH NZ? Visit our home page. Please visit our e/group at

Smacking and Child Abuse: Facts

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 3, 2007

Source: This Is New Zealand

Saturday, 24 March 2007

Smacking and Child Abuse: Facts

New Zealanders have been exposed to a range of remarkably nonsensical and meaningless ideological drivel in the Section 59 repeal debate. This post and the next set out to separate fact from fiction in this issue which is currently progressing through the NZ Parliament.

Firstly, facts. Most child abuse in New Zealand is not corrective, it is mindless thuggery perpetuated by parents who should never have had children in the first place, and complicitly supported by government anti-family policies such as the DPB, easier divorce, weakening marriage, weakening the justice system and laws, breaking down moral authority in society, etc. These situations have come about as a result of socialist politicians subjecting our country to relentless social engineering for the benefit of a relative few people who want to experiment with alternative lifestyles, but to the detriment of many weak minded individuals who have fallen through the cracks. The fact that there is so much weak-mindedness nowadays is in no small measure due to the agenda to break down all traditional morals and teaching of them. Leading Left politicians in NZ have said that they want to see an end to all “Victorian” morality. They want to practice alternative lifestyles with no regard for consequences for society as a whole or other people.

We have a vestigial remnant of Christian schooling that Labour hasn’t yet managed to shut down, that teaches strong moral values to children as part of their education. People who send their children to these schools do so because they know well that the moral teaching in the vast majority of cases produces productive members of society who make a strong contribution to the economic and social wellbeing of New Zealand. In the pre-WW2 era of NZ this was also the case to a large extent in the State system. Even in the first Labour government of 1935 there were significant levels of moral conservatism, the corrupt ideas are more a product of the post-WW2 era.

Create that moral vacuum and you have individuals making weak, mostly self centred decisions. Child abuse is characterised by selfishness on the part of the weak excuses for parents who are in large measure unfit to bring up children. There has been a huge increase in these situations since policies have broken down the family structure. That is where child abuse is coming from and it is the main reason why this Section 59 Bill represents one more step towards creating even more problems in society rather than solving anything.

Let’s take another example, the Christchurch Longitudinal Study of about 1000 individuals born in a certain period. Quoting from Lindsay Mitchell’s posting on the subject, we can see that smacking was quite distinctively different from child abuse for the majority of respondents. In summary,

  • Evaluation of the relationships between reports of physical punishment or abuse during childhood and psychosocial outcomes in early adulthood clearly showed that young people reporting harsh or abusive treatment had increased rates of conduct problems, substantial abuse, depression, anxiety and violent crime. (This was about 4% of the sample)
  • There were, however, no clear differences between the adjustment of young people who reported that their parents never used physical punishment and those who reported that their parents infrequently used physical punishment. (The 96% majority, including 77% in the latter category)
  • In general, young people reporting high exposure to physical punishment tended to come from socially disadvantaged family backgrounds that were characterised by multiple sources of adversity that spanned parental divorce or separation, high levels of parental conflict, parental illicit drug usage, parental alcohol problems, parental criminality, depressed living standards and high levels of exposure to stressful life events.
  • Statistical control for social and contextual factors associated with child physical punishment or abuse suggested that to a large extent the elevated risks of adjustment problems found in children exposed to harsh or abusive treatment reflected the social context within which the child was reared, rather than the traumatic effects of abusive treatment on later personal adjustment.
  • There was no evidence to suggest that those exposed to occasional physical punishment by their parents were at any greater or any lesser risk of adjustment problems than those whose parents did not use physical punishment methods.


  1. Occasional smacking of children is not harmful and should not be banned as the intent is to do
  2. Child abuse will not be addressed in any significant way by this Bill, and we should not believe the claims of its supporters.

One Response to “Smacking and Child Abuse: Facts”

  1. Viv Roberts said

    I agree completely

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: