Watching CYFSWATCH NZ

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 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/watchingcyfs/

No smacking compromise

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 26, 2007

Source: David Farrar DPF’s Kiwiblog

No smacking compromise

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.

Comments (121)

Graeme Edgeler:

The Green argument is essentially that, yes, the bill does ban smacking, but it doesn’t criminalise parents, because they won’t be charged.

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.

David Farrar:

Heh such Green logic – so that means if I drive at 150 km/hr I am not breaking the law unless they catch me 🙂

Andrew Davies:

This whole debate is a sham.

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.

dan:

Whether one supports the intention of this Bill or not, one cannot honestly say that a) this is well-drafted legislation, and b)this Bill is a representation of the sentiment and will of the constituency.

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?

Chuck Bird:

When is John Key going to do something meaningful to stop this legislation? He should have made it clear that if National’s suggestion was not accepted that National would repeal the legislation when they become government and if necessary bring that dopey blonde into line,

Craig:

I don’t condone the smacking of children in any way. As a parent of 2 and a foster parent of 14 I have delivered a few well placed smacks in my time. Always followed at the appropriate time by an explanation and a hug.I usually felt like crap afterwards. However, most of the time it achieves it’s desired result and no long term harm is done. My kids are now in there 20’s and I am very proud of the young adults they have become.

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.

dmw:

Agree 100%, Chuck. John Key needs to stand for something. Here’s a chance to claim 80%+ of NZ voters, and he is just watering down the anathema. Who gave him the mandate to compromise?

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.

kiwi in america:

David – once again your analysis on this subject has been spot on. I hope the media who read your blog will pick up on these two gems and run hard with it so that the wavering MPs can feel even more electoral opprobrium if they support this ludicrous law change.

Clueless:

How long will it be before Plunket, CYFS etc are given the power to investigate how some, or even all families, discipline their children?

CYFS already have this power…

james cairney:

David: This Bill has been in this form since (November?), this is hardly a revelation. It was always intended as a smacking ban, and it does achieve this in law, (aside from possibly some far fetched examples I wont get into). This is why I stated that in most cases the defence will will not get put the jury by the Judges.

“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.

Graeme Edgeler:

Not quite DPF – I believe the argument is that if you drive your car at 150km/h you are (technically?) breaking the law, but you are not a “criminal” until caught and fined.

phil u:

andrew said..

“..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)

kat:

I think you need to look at why do parents smack their kids as opposed to spending the time with other forms of discipline.

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.

pacman:

I await the Green partys new found confidence in “police discretion” make its way firmly into their other policies. They can effectively drop their policy to decriminalise dope, the police will be fair and just gatekeepers that can be relied upon to use their judgement in each case.

dave:

DPF wrote” Heh such Green logic – so that means if I drive at 150 km/hr I am not breaking the law unless they catch me :-)”

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.

Clueless:

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.

James Sleep:

This country has huge amounts of violence happening in the home. I’m not saying it is from parents that care very much about their children. This bill has been written up to stop the child abusers who do absolutely beat their children into submission.
People who are found to be beating their children are 1st) Charged (GREAT) 2nd) Taken to court (GREAT) 3rd) A lot of child abusers at that point argue they had used “Reasonable Force” (Not good) and sadly because section 59 of the crimes act is how it is. Courts rule from that and sadly a lot of these “Child abusers” get away with their crimes because the legislation does not define reasonable force.

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

http://www.sleeponpolitics.blogspot.com

dave:

James, you may be being groomed up to be a Labour politician but we here at Kiwiblog can distinguish between the effects of an Act and the intention of a bill about to be come an Act.The bill has been given a bad name because the proponents and promoters do not want to talk about the effects, just the intention.

James Sleep:

dave.

“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.

Andrew:

“Thats funny why has Ms Sue Bradford and Helen Clark always defending the bill by talking about what they feel the effects would be.”

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.

Graeme Edgeler:

Dave – I’d prefer the new Key wording to the Borrows wording – it very clearly and understandably sets out what’s acceptable.

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

James Sleep\:

Andrew.

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.

dave:

James,
“feelings on effect” equates to “intention.” Why do you think Bradford cant explain her bill without using the word intention or an equivalent. Its because here stated intention doesn’t match the wording of her bill thats why. Helen Clark has always support the bill, name a time when she explicitly hasn`t.

Jenni:

If I belong to a religious minority, according to article 3 of the Bill of Rights, I am entitled to practise their religious beliefs.

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?

Graeme Edgeler:

Jenni – yes it is a violations of such rights, the question that needs to be asked is whether that violation is a reasonable limit on your right to raise you children according to your religion. That’s where the real debate is.

Murray:

“Spacific”?

My god is there treatment for that?

Peter S:

Graeme,

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.

southern raider:

James,
Section 59 is already working. Show one case of child abuse which has been successfully defended using Section 59. There isn’t one!

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.

Kat:

I think James Sleep needs to get off the blog and go back to school.

And try an English class

Peter S:

“shing” ??

I must proof read more.

Should have been “brushing”

sorry.

haggis:

Peter S,

Very eloquent.

Couldn’t agree more.

!!! Mark:

James Sleep said:
“Courts rule from that and sadly a lot of these “Child abusers” get away with their crimes because the legislation does not define reasonable force.”

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.

Nicholas O’Kane:

If labour seriously don’t want parents prosecuted for a light smack they have nothing to fear in backing keys ammendment. good post david. i’d love to see Sonic and the Labour suporters try and spin their way out of this question. If the bill is not intended to crinimalise parents who give their child a light smack for the purposes of correction, then why is labour not suporting the ammendment by John key to ammend the bill to allow parents only to use force if it is a light smack of “minor consequence”?

haggis:

James Sleep says

…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

dave_c_:

We need some reporter with “Balls” to raise this anomoly between the legislation and what the perpretrators are saying directly on national television news, and force an answer. I am sick and tired of asshole politicians playing smoke and mirrors with the public, as though it us who are the imbeciles. Nothing could be further from the truth !
Pricks !

James Sleep:

So if 7-8 people absolutely kicked the crap out of a poor little dog in front of your eyes and were not put away and just equittted do you think thats not a lot. And there has been many more cases of Child abusers getting away with their crimes. I do not have figures but there is morew than 7-8. those 7-8 people could still be out there do that and instead of being in Prison they are allowed to be free.

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”

Kat:

James Sleep,

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.

dmw:

The insidious danger with a bill like this on the statute books is that, in a few years time, its interpretation will change and Police or CYFS or the KGB (or whatever the latest incarnation of the “anti-good citizen”, anti-family jack-booted govt dept is called) will not exercise discretion to not prosecute any longer.

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.

ross:

James,

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.

Kimble:

“And there has been many more cases of Child abusers getting away with their crimes. I do not have figures” – so i just have to guess, and i am really, really, really good at guessing.

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.

james cairney:

“You are not a parent. You have no concept of being a parent. Leave this debate and go back to school.”

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.

James Sleep:

I put this to you.

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.

kiwi in america:

James Sleep
10/10 for having the guts to post in favour of the Bradford Bill – with NZ sentiment so strongly against it it is the blogging equivalent of farting against thunder.

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.

james cairney:

Here are my predictions:

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.

Kimble:

I put this right back to you, JS.

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?

Kimble:

JC, a child is not an adult wife.

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?

james cairney:

Kimble: In ‘my predictions’, I stated: “As with the right to hit one’s wife for correction, the right to strike children will slowly cease to be accepted by society”

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?

Murray:

Who told you it was illegal to smack pets?

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.

Peter S:

It is interesting that Bradford advocates the law treating children as adults with regard to smacking/assault, and yet the Greens were howling against the proposal to lower the age at which a child can be prosecuted as an adult for commiting an adult crime.

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.

mo more:

One point I haven’t seen raised: I have seen parents inflict sheer terror in their children without lifting a finger, especially adult men (but also mothers) screaming in anger at cowering little kids. I’m sure the damage from that behaviour is at least as bad, but probably much worse than a smack.

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?

James Sleep:

Yes I think JC has hit the nail on the head. Absolutely correct, the bill of course will technically make parents at wrong when they hit their children but police will not have their priorities set on finding parents who lightly smack their kids. Because it is made illegal parents will start to look for alternatives to correct their childrena dn I think its a great bill to do that, as well as stopping child beaters geting away with their crimes.

james cairney:

“It is interesting that Bradford advocates the law treating children as adults with regard to smacking/assault”

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.

Peter S:

” 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.”

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.

haggis:

James Sleep says……….but police will not have their priorities set on finding parents who lightly smack their kids.

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.

Kimble:

James you made the comparison between physically disciplining a wife and child, I didnt. Do you really think that if the wife wasnt considered the equal of the husband (ie not the same mental capacity) that physical discpline would be as frowned upon as it is now?

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.

Conklin:

If my dog bites someone I can legally get him put down.

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?

haggis:

Totally agree with you Peter S.

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??

Lucyna:

Sue Bradford explicitly said two years ago that she would like to make smacking illegal. She didn’t think that it was the right time to do so back then, but now it looks like she’s going for broke!

Kimble:

Ok, from now on if anyone says that smacking is wrong and illogical because you cannot smack an adult the way you would a child, they are a fucking idiot for life. No chance of parole, no appeal to a higher court, no extenuating circumstances. Idiot For Life (IFL).

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.

scrubone:

“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.”

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.

 

Kimble:

The argument so far:

Smacking is already illegal. Even though it isnt.

The bill doesnt make smacking illegal. Even though it does.

The bill isnt even intended to make smacking illegal. Even though it explicitly does.

The police wont enforce it. This requires that you dont ask, “well, why pass it then?”

Police will be too busy ith more important crimes to worry about parents who smack. Yeah, just like they are too busy solving murders to sit on the side of the motorway and give out tickets for being 7k over the limit.

Lets check on the score,

‘Those opposed to bradfords retarded law’ – 27
‘IFLs’ – 0

ZenTiger:

Unfortunately, this is far more than being about if the police prosecute. It’s what CYFS do. It’s what parents will be forced to do, when confronted by CYFS.

James, you missed a fewpredictions off your list:

* The number of children into foster care will noticeably increase.

* Parents will willingly place children into foster care when threatened by CYFS to do so, or risk “having them permanently removed” during a period of investigation.

* Investigations will spin out longer, due to the increased case loads

* The number of children abused in Foster Care will skyrocket.
These predictions are supported by the Swedish example – stats the anti-smacking crowd ignore.
The other issue is on a matter of a difference of opinion on the effectiveness a light smack can be as discipline. I agree most parents probably do not apply this well, and some mothers and fathers with grown kids are probably guilt ridden that they smacked their children in anger, not discipline, and are all too eager to do penance by banning smacking.

That too is an over-reaction, as those kids still grew up ok – worse emotional damage is often inflicted than a passing smack – and all it means is that parenting skills need to be increased. But making this illegal is foolish.

llew:

“but police will not have their priorities set on finding parents who lightly smack their kids”

So what’s the point in making laws that won’t be enforced?

BTW Kimble & Murray, while it is not illegal to smack dogs, it is frowned upon these days as a training tool, with its place being taken by positive reinforcement rather than punishment.

But I see what you’re getting at – what I’d call a light smack would probably be interpreted by my dog as a rather wussy patting, but as you say, the dog knows the intent from other signals – hence no need to actually smack, dogs want to please.

That said, I’ve given her a good enough nudge with my foot, to almost count as a swift kick to stop her from doing something potentially catastrophic to herself.

Conklin:

The Bradford model for life:

Prebirth – No rights, No responsibilities
From Birth to becoming a Parent – All rights, No responsibilities
Parenthood – No rights, All responsibilities

james cairney:

Peter, I never stated that you did not have a point about abortion, my only point was in regards to criminal liability for minors and section 59.

Kimble, again, I did not in any way assert that ‘children would be equals’, you wrongly imported that into my argument. Again, how did you get that from those words? Is does not even come close to following logically, as I stated above.

You state: “And it is YOU that drew the parallel between spousal and parental physical discpline”

I did no such thing.

Show me in my words where I did that? I compared the slow process of change in societal acceptance of of the two forms of ‘discipline’, that is all. Any assumptions beyond that are your own. Do not attribute something to me that I did not state.

These are the facts:
1. We once had the right to strike our wives.
2. It was also once largely socially acceptable.
3. We no longer have that right.
4. It is also now longer acceptable, and the acceptance does not necessarily coincide with the law change.
5. We have the right to smack our children.
6. It is largely socially acceptable.
7. There is a law change that will remove the right to smack our children.
8. At some point “the right to strike children will slowly cease to be accepted by society” (my exact words)

The fine points of the rights and wrongs of either form of discipline (wife or child), were NOT mentioned at all. Nor were the two ‘compared’ for any purpose aside from a predicted change in social acceptance. NOR DID I IN ANY WAY assert that children would become accepted as ‘equals’. Those were imported by you.

You are either intellectually dishonest, or incompetent. There is no other possibility.

Peter S:

I think James C had a point that the law affords children slightly less protection in the physical sense, and that children are more vulnerable to physical assault than adults.

However, as is always the case with real life, reality is more complex than that.

Children are afforded better protection under the law than adults in many areas, and, in the case of punishment for offences the state is particularly hamstrung in its ability to mete out punishment to children.

It has always been something of a trade-off.

Children cannot be prosecuted or imprisoned.

Trade off-

The law has given parents licence to administer physical discipline in lieu of the state applying mor draconian measures.

Bradford’s bill ignores and forgets all of the reasoning behind why these things were in place.

An unfortuate and unforseen result of the law passing is that there will be very few measures left that can be used to correct/punish serious offending by children.

Another negative consequence will also be an increase in serious assaults on children- exactly the opposite to what people are trying to achieve.

Why will the assaults increase?

A smack, administered early, whilst the parent is in control, can stop trying behaviour in its tracks.

The problem is that general behaviour standards amongst children have been deteriorating for some decades now, and the smacking ban will accelerate that.

Real beatings come from frustration- where someone loses control(and a person out of control won’t be stoped by a law).

Lowering standards of behaviour is going to raise frustration levels in parents, increasing the liklihood of parents losing the plot and going over the top.

haggis:

James C,

You are rather quiet on the rights of the unborn child.

I would say “checkmate”

Peter S:

“Peter, I never stated that you did not have a point about abortion, my only point was in regards to criminal liability for minors and section 59.”

Fair enough James.

I added the bit about the abortion issue because I feel that Bradford is inconsistent in her views.

Were she, say, anti-abortion too, then I would give her far more credit for the anti-smacking views than I do now, because it would be applying the same logic and standards.

I feel that she is picking an choosing what she wants to apply the logic to.

Peter S:

haggis,

It may be that James actually agrees with rights for unborn children- if that were the case then I for one would be the first to give credit to him for being consistent in wanting protection for children.

If this is the case, he may simply be sticking to the part of the issue where he does agree with Bradford.

haggis:

Agreed Peter S,

But for one who is so supportive of the bill, his views concerning the rights of the unborn child would be of interest.

They may be 2 separate issues, but for someone who supports the rights of children, I would be keen to read his opinion on the rights of an unborn child.

Spitting Llama:

In response to James Sleep’s assertions, I’ve been trying to find a decent list of cases where S59 has been used successfully as a defense. The best I could come up with so far has been the Maxim Institute’s (Why does that name ring a dodgy bell for me?) original submission on the issue.

It is a PDF document available here. What is interesting to note is that they do list all the cases. And out of the 60 cases they list, in only 6 has S59 been used successfully as a defense, and in the summary of those cases it has been deemed acceptable by a court (Judge, jury – you know – a group of people agreeing after hearing ALL the facts)

It makes for an interesting read, leastways.

bunctiuos:

i don’t even know where to start, and am not keen for the wave of nastiness that you lot hurl around if anyone disagrees with you, but for goodness sake! How about not savaging posters just cos you don’t like their spelling or their age? How about getting your facts right? And how about acknowledging that Greg O’Connor is not the official voice of the New Zealand Police?

phil u:

ah..!..look..!..it’s kumble..!

i was talking just the other day about the old-skool frothers ‘n ranters..

and then..up you pop..!

and still with yer inchoate/incoherent outbursts..eh..?

and look..!..there’s lucyna..!

careful..!..or soon she’ll be telling us god spoke directly to her..

and told her it is aok to whale/whack into nippers…

d’ya know that religion is one of the few things that had to invent(?) a problem.(.namely hell..)

to justify its’ existance..?

food for thought/doubt..eh..?

(but sshh!!..don’t tell lucyna..eh..?..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

james cairney:

“Children are afforded better protection under the law than adults in many areas …”

Except for physical assault. In that regard they are afforded less protection in law. And physical assault is central to the discussion.

And to whoever stated “assault on a child”, you clearly missed a defence called section 59 (it’s kind of topical at the moment too).

The vast majority of assaults on children come from their care givers. Their caregivers presently have a defence at law if their action was “reasonable force for correction”. That is a fact. What happens from that point on can be debated.

Peter, I think your abortion argument has merit, however one would quickly fall into a rights argument that I do think is entirely apposite in regards to section 59 (or a ‘point of existence’ argument). Any apparent inconsistency you managed to show on Bradford’s part does not impinge on the changes to section 59 having merit, (it could just be that the current abortion law is wrong). And it is the merit in the changes to section 59 that is in point.

bunctiuos:

i don’t even know where to start, and am not keen for the wave of nastiness that you lot hurl around if anyone disagrees with you, but for goodness sake! How about not savaging posters just cos you don’t like their spelling or their age? How about getting your facts right? And how about acknowledging that Greg O’Connor is not the official voice of the New Zealand Police? You love accusing the other side of disingenuity, but this criminalisation hysteria is just silly – that’d be analgous to the police ‘having’ to investigate (and prosecute according to you lot) every instance of people driving at 103 km, or shoving their way to the front of the bar. C’mon!

Kimble:

“You state: “And it is YOU that drew the parallel between spousal and parental physical discpline”

I did no such thing.”

FFS, James, here!

“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.”

You cannot mention physical discipline of a spouse and that of a child in the same sentence and then claim that the two a distinctly seperate with no relationship between them.

By saying that one will go the way of the other (and given that they have so much in common) you are implying that the reason for the one going will be the same for the other. If you didnt intend to make that implication you should have been more careful with your words so that a reasonable person couldnt infer it.

ross:

“We once had the right to strike our wives”.

Really, what century are you referring to? The Iron Age or the Stone Age? Such is the logic of the anti-smackers that they have lost the debate before it has even begun.

ross:

“And physical assault is central to the discussion”.

No, James, smacking is central to the discussion. There are already laws in place which cover physical assault.

Kimble:

hey bunctious,

if “shoving your way to the front of the bar” was punishable with the forced removal of your children and the government was bringing in a law explicitly making it a crime of assault (on par with beating your wife) giving police no option but to act on it any witnessed transgression or tip off from CYFS, well maybe then your analogy would be worth more than a pinch of shit. As it stands however…

james cairney:

Kimble: “You cannot mention physical discipline of a spouse and that of a child in the same sentence and then claim that the two a distinctly seperate with no relationship between them.”

Quite true, but I did not do that. That relationship between the two was the predicted similarity in changing social attitudes. Nothing more.

“By saying that one will go the way of the other (and given that they have so much in common) you are implying that the reason for the one going will be the same for the other. If you didnt intend to make that implication you should have been more careful with your words so that a reasonable person couldnt infer it.”

All that means is that (according to you) I am implying that the two are both objectively wrong. Even if that was the implication, it would still not follow that a person can then infer that the ‘reasons’ for them “both being wrong” must be the same.

A reasonable person would infer no such thing. A politically motivated person would make a quick assumption and infer something that is not contained in the words.

As an aside, I agree that the link in terms of justification is an unsound argument. But I did not in any way push that argument. I think you realise that on reflection, and should show some guts and apologise. It was not a reasonable inference, it was an assumption.

David S.:

Peter S.

Your prediction about an increase in child abuse for the reasons you state is not reasonable. If a parent is thoughtful enough to cease to smack their children because of a law change, I find it likely they will be thoughtful enough to find an alternative method to smacking before that level of frustration occurs.

My main problem with the bill is that CYFS’s credibility has been questioned several times of late, and it should not pass until that credibility has been restore.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with James C’s predictions.

james cairney:

“”And physical assault is central to the discussion”. No, James, smacking is central to the discussion.”

*yawn* The section 59 defence is one for what would be physical assault in its absence. So ross, in the absence of section 59, smacking is physical assault.

If you can’t comprehend that, why would you bother entering this debate. I am not twisting anything.

the rights and wrongs of it are being debated, but if you’re one of those that want to pretend the debate is not what it is, then have it with someone else.

Andrew Bannister:

while it is not illegal to smack dogs, it is frowned upon these days as a training tool, with its place being taken by positive reinforcement rather than punishment.

Bingo!!

I think more time should be spent on this (i.e. alternatives to smacking) rather than all the other nonsense we have had to put up with in this so called smacking ‘debate’.

It is possible to be a good parent without needing to smack. That doesn’t necessarily mean I think smacking is harmful, as some might make it out to be. However, it does appear to be largely unnecessary and less effective as other methods.

While I see Bradford’s bill as a complete waste of time, I also think the hysteria over it has been a complete waste of breath. Nothing will really change if/when this bill goes through. From a civil liberties perspective, my right to smack a child isn’t a civil liberty I can get all that worked up over. There are far more serious threats to civil liberties than the right to smack your kids.

StephenBaird:

James,

My reply:

“We are not able to smack our dog, cat, rabiit whatever.”
Actually we are allowed – the law prevent cruelty, not smacking –

“We cannot go and hit another adult.”
Actually, we do and can in any number of specific cases; i.e as a member of a rugby team I can tackle an opponent under rules – if I punch them I have ‘broken the rules’ and punished. More importantly, as a society we have given specific people (i.e. the police) power (the right) to LEGALLY assault members of the public – i.e. with batons, pepper spray, police dogs, etc. once again in specific situations. By opposing this bill, the parent is asking for less power over their children than the Police have over any of us – by saying that they should have the right to physically discipline their child as appropriate.

“We cannot go and smack an adult we have issues with.”
(Most) Adults can be reasoned with – ever try reasoning with a 4 year old in the middle of a tantrum?

“So why should the law allow us to smack children?”
As a parent I am responsible for the result of my child’s actions, so I must be able to exert some control.

“Pets can be worse than childrena dn its illegal to go and hit them and get them into line.”
No it is not. The threshold for prosecuteable behaviour is still quite strong – cruealty. Did you know that the racing industry have specific rules for legal ways a jockey can whip their horse?

“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.”
And yelling at them doesn’t cause them pain? Shutting them away for 5 minutes or more doesn’t cause them pain? Of course they are crying because they enjoy it! Pain comes in many ways, nature is not nice, pain is natures way of letting you know something was wrong and as a very effect neural feedback mechanism to learn not to do it again. I would rather smack my child then hug them to let them know I love them but not their actions than shut them away for 5 minutes at a time, letting them think that as a parent I am rejecting them.

ZenTiger:

Unfortunately, this is far more than being about if the police prosecute. It’s what CYFS do. It’s what parents will be forced to do, when confronted by CYFS.

James, you missed a few predictions off your list:

* The number of children into foster care will noticeably increase.

* Parents will willingly place children into foster care when threatened by CYFS to do so, or risk “having them permanently removed” (cannot even visit them) during a period of investigation.

* Investigations will spin out longer, due to the increased case loads

* The number of children abused in foster care will skyrocket.
These predictions are supported by the Swedish example – stats the anti-smacking crowd ignore.

Kat:

Bunctious,

If James Sleep wants to debate on a thread with adults, then he needs accept their comments.

The point I tried to make, was that I thought his argument was naive, and his time would be better spent at school, learning the basics of our language.

And no one takes the nastiness seriously, people only get ugly on this site when they have nothing better to say.

DavidW:

“ … And how about acknowledging that Greg O’Connor is not the official voice of the New Zealand Police? You love accusing the other side of disingenuity, but this criminalisation hysteria is just silly – that’d be analgous to the police ‘having’ to investigate (and prosecute according to you lot) every instance of people driving at 103 km, or shoving their way to the front of the bar. C’mon!
Posted by bunctiuos | April 26, 2007 3:11 PM”

Well bunctiuos, it is like this. The Police will have their hands tied quite tightly behind their backs on this one. Any reported case of a child being struck is automatically a case of domestic violence. The Police are obliged to investigate every case of domestic violence. They already spend countless hours attending reports of domestic violence.
One of the outcomes of a report of domestic violence against a child is that a decision must be made if a defence under S59 is likely to be successful or not.
If not, the accused perpetrator will most likely spend the next 24 hours in a cell during which time the child is just as likely to be placed in the care of CYFS pending a CYFS investigation into the circumstances of the child (and other children in the household).
Without a defence of “reasonableness” (and BTW this is the measure that changes over time and in accordance with the social climate of the time) a chain of almost unstoppable events will occur possibly ending with a criminal conviction (sufficient to prevent the “perp” from being employed in many industries or travel to many foreign destinations for the rest of his/her life), the removal of a child (or several children) from their parents, financial disruption to the household including but not limited to the ability to service debts like mortgages and HP, and the stigmatisation of a family in the community.
I am surprised that you find it odd that many good, honest, loving and caring parents are concerned about this issue.
Phil u accused opponents of the Bill of whipping up fantasies/soufflés and others have used the argument that it is no big deal, let it go and see what happens. Frankly IMHO I would rather prevent a catastrophe of unintended consequences than be a party to picking up the pieces of what looks like having some far reaching negative effects. Except that it will be an almost impossible task to undo the damage. Refer to Zymurgy’s Law of Evolving System Dynamics. “Once a can of worms is opened it is impossible to fit all the worms back in the same can.”

dad4justice:

Having sat back from this thread for good reason I am appalled at the writings of the left particularly the delinquent James Sleep. Do me a favour please go back to watching playschool as your rot rhetoric that is pure garbage and painful to read. The whole argument about anti – child spanking/smacking /discipline bill is an absurd and rather pathetic attempt at trying to address escalating numbers of abused children. Sue burn the bra Bradford talks piously that it is our fundamental thinking that must change, children should have freedom of rights. This is idiotic social engineering. e.g. I suppose that is why my two alienated daughters got lawyers and psychos at six years of age. John Key correctly states that it is totally unacceptable and clouded law – police agree with him. Sue burn the bra states – the solicitor general will sort all the odds and ends out. Poor David Collins I bet he has a bad headache!

Peter S:

David S,

” If a parent is thoughtful enough to cease to smack their children because of a law change, I find it likely they will be thoughtful enough to find an alternative method to smacking before that level of frustration occurs. ”

Parents will feel compelled to follow the law, but, whilst the law will remove parenting tools that exist, it will not replace with any that did not previously exist.

The problem is that with some children the alternative forms of discipline are either completely innefective or so difficult to apply as to make them unviable.

I’d love to be proved wrong with my prediction about increased frustration & increased serious child beating.

But I very much doubt I will be, and only time will tell.

haggis:

D4J,

About time you showed up.

This debate needs to be dragged back from the left and put where it should be.

dad4justice:

Haggis I am with John Key on this the whole sorry saga, as it is utter pc nonsense.

Jenni:

Peter S,

I think you make a very good point.

What alternative do we have for children that cannot be reasoned with?

People suggest time-out, but is that more abusive than smacking.

I knew of a guy that was put in a cupboard, for time-out, by his anti-smacking mother.

He committed suicide at the age of 25.

llew:

“This debate needs to be dragged back from the left and put where it should be.”

Goodness, that really does invite some specific directions.

Peter S:

Careful llew, that type of suggestion would get you charged with sedition. 😉

Sam Dixon:

“D4J,

About time you showed up.

This debate needs to be dragged back from the left and put where it should be.”

– hilarious, turning to D4J for help. Honestly, he never drags a debate anyway but down. I mean look at his contribution so far – ‘utter PC nonsense’? – its like he’s a parody of the right. At least he hasn’t called anyone a bitch or made hollow, cowardly threats of violence yet, I suppose.

unaha-closp:

Does this country still practice jury nullification? Could the law fail to gain prosecution because juries see it is so flawed?

dad4justice:

Sam I know you hate me – that’s cool -just making a point mate – take a chill pill mate .

Kat:

unaha-closp,

I guess you could have a hung jury.

Prosecutors would have a hard job finding impartial members of the public to be on the jury.

What do you think, Mr Cairney, since you seem to know so much about the law?

Sam Dixon:

Sorry, what’s the point? What does ‘utter PC nonsense’ acutally mean?

Don’t hate you dude, not much a of a hater.

David S.:

Peter S./Jenni –

Anyone who wonders about the alternatives to smacking seriously needs to watch super-nanny aye.

No-one likes smacking their kids, that seems to be the one thing everyone agrees with. like Andrew B. said, it may be argued that this bill is pointless, but it sure isn’t the end of civilisation.

Red Rasputin:

Dave this debate is getting boring….i think there are few in Greens and Labour that deserve a good smack for wasting our time with pointless legislation.

Red Rasputin
http://redrasputin.blog.com/

peasant:

Is anyone keeping track of all the LIES surrounding this legislation??! The Left appals me

Jenni:

Good point, David S

Perhaps the govt will fund each family to have a super nanny, and we won’t have to worry.

Southern Man:

Jenni,

I’m confused, how does putting a child in a cupboard count as time out? This is clearly abuse.

Surely most children can be reasoned with in some way (except maybe autistic children).
For example: for a smack to be an effective punishment, wouldnt the child have to “reason” that there is a reason why they are being smacked?
If not, then you would just be hitting your child randomly.

Andrew Bannister:

The problem is that with some children the alternative forms of discipline are either completely innefective or so difficult to apply as to make them unviable.

Peter S, you are spot on. It is the “difficult to apply” bit that makes other forms of discipline unattractive. Smacking is so much easier. Of course, it is no more effective than other forms of discipline and usually less effective.

What alternative do we have for children that cannot be reasoned with?

Jenni, there are many many many alternatives to smacking that work extremely well. If other forms of discipline don’t work, you can bet your bashing-spoon that smacking won’t either.

Also, people don’t commit suicide after being timed-out in a cupboard. There were other reasons for that suicide, and trying to link it to time-out is absurd.

smackemharder:

Why the hell are the people of NZ even letting a ridiculous bill like this to even get off the ground?.

Just looking at Sue Bradford on the telly makes me throw up,how did an idiot like this get anywhere near parliament?.

What, does she think criminalizing good parents from a disciplinary smack is gonna change our violent society?.

We all know who the offenders are, who go too far when smacking becomes abuse or bashing with intent, and those are the ones our agencies should target.

Could start by prosecuting heavily all those savage teens who are using UTUBE to air their graphic displays of criminal violence against the defenceless.

Southern Man:

Jenni,

I’m confused, how does putting a child in a cupboard count as time out? This is clearly abuse.

Surely most children can be reasoned with in some way (except maybe autistic children).
For example: for a smack to be an effective punishment, wouldnt the child have to “reason” that there is a reason why they are being smacked?
If not, then you would just be hitting your child randomly.

Jenni:

I agree, Southern Man.

If you read my thread, I gave you an example of someone who saw putting their child in a cupboard was suitable time-out.

It’s open to abuse.

Southern Man:

Jenni,

Hopefully time-out does not involve a cupboard for the majority children and this is just an extreme case of bad parenting. Although I am sure that many a child gets locked in a cupboard.

Jenni:

Andrew Bannister,

You have no idea, why he committed suicide, and don’t suggest the link is absurd.

In counselling prior to his suicide, the fact that he was put in a cupboard by his mother, was identified as a major reason for his depression.

It was unfortunate that these issues were not resolved.

Jenni:

My point, Southern Man, is this.

As with trying to define light smacking, it is difficult to define what is acceptable for time-out.

Parents need to be very careful of the pychological damage that sort of punishment can do to children.

It might be fine for 90%, but not ok for the rest.

Will govt legislate on that one, too?

Southern Man:

Jenni,

Just a hunch, but wouldnt it be rare for a parent to be into putting a child in a cupboard and at the same time against hitting a child?
It just seems like an unusual combination.

Andrew Bannister:

Andrew Bannister,

You have no idea, why he committed suicide,

No I don’t, but I do know that being put in a cupboard wasn’t the reason.

and don’t suggest the link is absurd.

But it is absurd. People don’t top themselves because they were locked in a cupboard. There must have been a lot more going on to drive him to suicide.

That doesn’t mean I agree with locking kids in cupboards as punishment. However, your link is even less plausible than Anderton linking smacking to animal cruelty. And remember, that was absurd.

dad4justice:

The Sue burn the bra bill is set to make many on the gravy train happy =”Dysfunctional and dangerous cyfs “,clever lawyers and the nutbar consultant clinical psychologists look set to be the winners on the day .

Southern Man:

dad4justice,

you come across as a little bit sexist with your “burn the bra” comment
this gives the impression that you are not sympathetic towards ‘social justice’
which would make your name a little ridiculous

dad4justice:

SM -I just want you to understand that I cannot tolerate feminazi’s who fail to treat mothers and fathers the same . Not fair – kids need mums and dads = that’s my social justice .

sally:

The Labour Party refused to ratify Article 13 of the UN convention stating that men and women need to be treated as equal parents and the family as a central group of society. This lack of legal global recognition gives them no right then to legislate against a major group of society that they won’t formally recognise.

Yet, hand-in-hand with the Greens, they see fit to interfere in telling us how to parent in our own homes, when the majority are doing just fine without Nanny State interference.

If the Labour and the Greens were truly concerned about child abuse and not the real agenda of the intrusion and division of the State, they would target the high-risk groups associated with child abuse eg low maternal age, low parental education, poor knowlegde of contraception , welfare beneficiaries and Maori. There should be tagging of parental courses alighned to benefits and monitoring, but hell, we can’t alienate the lefty vote now can we??

dad4justice:

Thank you sally – all this social justice and they can’t even sign a UN agreement to treat mum and dad the same . The bastards are a disgrace to common sense !!

The UN wants answers from government over a mans case in family court !!
God help us !!

Southern Man:

dad4justice,

Fair enough, but I don’t agree with your statement that children need both a mum and a dad.
I think a child can get by just fine with either just a dad or just a mum

dad4justice:

I agree SM – the difference I see between kids that make it and kids that don’t , most often is one caring and loving adult .

Busted:

Since Dad4Justice has hijacked yet another thread, check out his latest contributions to James Sleep’s blog under the “Tax Cuts To Come – With A Positive Outcome – Future Proofing New Zealand” thread:

James you feminasi worshipping loon. Suck on Helen Klark’s dick you piss-filled scum?

And:

James you braindead lamer squirt – you have no idea how sick this Liarbour government has become? Stick you dick up Helens ass and see where that gets you?

Way to go Dad4Justice – you just hit the sewer vat!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: