33 Comments:

If a wooden spoon is a weapon then surely a hand should be also. Hands are much easier to kill a person with.

Being a bloke, mum had to use a wooden spoon cause the hand simply didn't do much. Even the spoons ended up broken without really bothering me physically. Unless my wrist getting in the way of it counts hehe.

Even the strap at school didn't really dent me (think I got it once? hmm). And it's not like I have a high pain tolerance.

Cords I disagree with. Blunt objects like a wood spoon or hand have slapping type effects. Cords cut. It's the non damaging slap type that does the best pain for least physical impact.

Yet "spare the rod and..." suggests some instances require harsher punishment. I wouldn't throw out such quotes just for a liberal government.

Quite frankly, a government that sees no harm in legalising prostitution no longer has any credibility when it comes to moral or abuse issues. It's safer to assume disagreeing with them is more morally sound given their track record. hehe :-)

By  Anonymous, at 10:18 am, June 14, 2005  

It doesn't have my support.

I firmly believe that legislating against 'smacking' will do nothing to lower child abuse unless it is outlawed completely and there is a policeman standing next to every parent every second of the day.

Legislation does not actually prevent people from doing wrong.

In the same way, bringing the drinking age back up to 20 won't prevent underage drunkenness.

New Zealand is in moral decline.
Legislation is powerless to prevent that.

By  Dan, at 1:08 pm, June 14, 2005  

It won't change behaviour but it will stop people getting away with abuse under the current law.

By  Anita, at 2:29 pm, June 14, 2005  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By  Scotty, at 3:51 pm, June 14, 2005  

Dan is right!

Question: Isn't it already illegal to assualt and beat children?
Answer: But Of course.

Question: Will people who now assault their children stop because there is a law against it?
Answer: NO! (Did assaults stop when they became illegal!!! ;) )

Question: Why then would we bother introducing this law?
Answer: So that a socialist government can further tear apart the family, and control the people with it's own anti-family agenda.

By  Scotty, at 3:53 pm, June 14, 2005  

My other comment was deleted because it had a spelling error. there was exchanged for 'their'.

By  Scotty, at 3:54 pm, June 14, 2005  

Anita,

Who is getting away with it?

Do you know of any instances lately to prove that people are using 'discipline' as a defence in child abuse cases and are being acquitted as a result?
I certainly haven't heard of any, and I'm sure cases like this would generate a good deal of public attention.

If the judges in our courts are unable to adequately determine if someone is abusing or merely disciplining their child, then shouldn't we be questioning our judiciaries, rather than the law they sit under?

By  Dan, at 4:01 pm, June 14, 2005  

I must confess a degree of ignorance; Scotty has brought this NZ Herald post to my attention.

I do not feel, however, that this negates my point regarding the judical system. The incidents described clearly fall outside use of 'reasonable force', and these children have been failed by the justice system, but not by legislation.

People need take responsibility for their roles in society, and should be held accountable when they fail to.

By  Dan, at 4:28 pm, June 14, 2005  

The job of judicial system is to enforce the law, if they law is inadequate then the verdict will inadequate. The two are not separate things, the judicial system does not act independently.

Scott the answer to your first question is - not entirely. That is why the law should be changed

By  Anita, at 10:21 am, June 15, 2005  

The law is adequate. It is the administration of the law that is deficient.

If an adult beat another adult with a pipe and left welts - it would be considered assault. Why was this not the result?

More law only means more confusion, more loopholes, and hence more legal costs, wasted time and bureaucracy.

Things need to be made simpler, and more clearly defined; not more complex and more ambiguous.

By  Dan, at 10:29 am, June 15, 2005  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By  Anita, at 10:56 am, June 15, 2005  

But what the law is saying at the moment is saying effect is that an adult can beat another adult (or really a child) but he should make sure he uses reasonable force. The problem is the way reasonable force has been intepreted over the years. You are not making more law you are just redefining the existing law to close the loophole and make it less ambiguous.

Sorry the previous comment didn't make sense so I deleted it

By  Anita, at 10:58 am, June 15, 2005  

And it still doesn't make sense....:P

By  Anita, at 11:06 am, June 15, 2005  

13 comments is not bad! :) must've hit a nerve! tehe

I think your comment did make sence. Even tho i'm about to disagree with it!

I believe the use of reasonable force is fine for discipline of children. As dan has said already misinterpretation of this is a fault of the judicial system. not the legislation.
Our Government is using extreme examples of things to make addition laws that are unnessecary and do nothing but give the Government more power to control who they wish.

This is similar to the bill tabled earlier which was basically hate speech legislation. There is already current legislation against speech insighting violence etc. no need for more.

Less power to the government... more to the people I say!

By  Jonathan, at 12:44 pm, June 15, 2005  

Here's a thingy in the NZ Herald.

Quote:
"The Herald editorial suggests the law be clarified rather than repealed because parents would not be able to administer a simple smack, or restrain children. Amendment is not an option because it implies that a level of smacking is a good thing. Let's be clear and repeal section 59 to stamp out any possibility of physical punishment leading to child abuse and give the police the opportunity to prosecute where warranted. They are not likely to be concerned about a simple smack."

There is a problem here for parents who believe that a degree of physical discipline administered in love is necessary from time.
Sure, they can be given all the assurance in the world that they won't be prosecuted, but that doesn't change the fact that their actions are legally considered worthy of prosecution - they are acting against the law.

Analogous to this would be the situation where police are finding it difficult to prevent drivers from speeding. So they pass legislation to make all driving illegal, but simply don't prosecute drivers unless they speed.

It's stupid.
I believe that the majority of people who physically discipline children do so appropriately, with no ill effect to the child.

Funny thing is, I'm sure the majority of drivers actually speed quite regularly, even if it is only by a few km/h over the limit, and not worth of police attention.

Crazy.

And who cares what the UN think - they're perhaps the most potentially dangerous organisation on the planet.

By  Dan, at 11:31 am, June 16, 2005  

On the UN, I agree. We should give the UN the two fisted Strong Bad salute.

By  Scotty, at 11:34 am, June 16, 2005  

Could someone remind me what is bad about the UN?
So if we all agree that the problem is the way the law has been applied in the judiciary system then how do you fix that?

By  Anita, at 10:19 am, June 17, 2005  

Can we save the UN for later?

I'm really not sure how we effect change in the judiciary. Legislation is not the answer - it only exacerbates the problem.
We have very poor accountablilty in NZ with only one house of representatives, and a government-appointed judiciary. These are what I see to be the main problem, but any positive change would require a government that is altruistic enough to relinquish their control in these areas.

By  Dan, at 10:57 am, June 17, 2005  

One a judge interprets the law and gives a sentence this sentence becomes law. Eg Mr X in Mr X verses The State Mr X hit his son 3 times with a plank of wood. Mr X uses the 'reasonable force' argument and wins. The judge lets him off. The next time anyone else hits his son 3 times with a plank of wood they will get off.

Does that make sense? So if people have using the reasonable force arguement and getting off the only way to makes changes in the judiciary system is to change the law!

By  Anita, at 12:18 pm, June 17, 2005  

What if the law is already 'reasonable'?

Why should the law have to be made 'unreasonable' in order to administrate it 'reasonably'?

By  Dan, at 1:13 pm, June 17, 2005  

It doesn't matter

What matters is that we have a situation were people are getting away with child abuse under a law. As Christain we don't like people getting away with abusing children right? And if the only way to stop this is to change the law then why wouldn't we support it? Surely you can't put a childs wellbeing over princples on how involved a government should in law making?

By  Anita, at 1:44 pm, June 17, 2005  

So it's okay to have a law that makes criminals of most parents for the sake of the few parents who do actually abuse their children knowing that there will always be approximately the same number of parents who will abuse their children regardless of what the law says?

By  Dan, at 1:49 pm, June 17, 2005  

Yeah totally Dan! How daft is that?!

By  Scotty, at 2:22 pm, June 17, 2005  

I understand what you say but the law will not be changed to ban smacking 100%. It will still be 'ok' lightly smack your child. They are not criminalising smacking totally

By  Anita, at 3:13 pm, June 17, 2005  

I've got a new billboard for Tui.

It will still be 'ok' lightly smack your child.

YEAH RIGHT.


Seriously - I don't trust this government because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

By  Scotty, at 5:23 pm, June 17, 2005  

In hindsight almost every major law change made by Comrade Clark is a direct quote from the feminist movement documents she worshiped in her younger years. And probably still does. There is very little on that list yet to be fulfilled. Free abortions is one, although she has almost got there as shown over @ Dan's Blog.

Legalizing prostitution was on the agenda. That passed into law.

Smacking I'm sure is another in this area. And sadly, based on track record, this too shall pass.

Get that woman out of power. She's the one abusing us.

By  Anonymous, at 2:42 pm, June 18, 2005  

Me again...

Maxim has something to say about smacking.

Quote:
"There is no clear correlation between countries with low rates of child maltreatment and those that have banned all physical discipline."

By  Dan, at 8:42 am, June 20, 2005  

I am not sure that I think I am being fooled.

My reason is this and this alone. I believe people are getting away with abuse in court because of a law that is not clearly defined. I am saying let talk about it and be informed. If the government and select committee's talk to the wider public and come up with lets ban smacking 100% or even restricts the use of a firm hand then I would be 'let's not go there'. But I support a discussion of a law that may stop people GETTING AWAY with child abuse, I was never naive enough to believe it would STOP child abuse.

And of course any law that restricts a God-given command to discipline our kids would not have my support.

By  Anita, at 9:50 am, June 20, 2005  

Well, when you say it like that, I guess I agree with you. And that also means that - in this case - I need to recant a statement I made in a previous comment.

Perhaps the law does need to be made more specific in this case.

However, supporting the repeal of section 59 makes the law even more open to interpretation than does the current inclusion of the phrase "reasonable force".

Section 59 then needs to be amended to protect not only children from abuse, but also the position and importance of of parents in the discipline of their children.

Either way, supporting this repeal is not the answer.
Perhaps the existing bill could be amended at select-committee level to clarify, rather than obfuscate the intention of the law.

This repeal is merely a vehicle for the furthering of a dangerous agenda that seeks to remove all parental authority and place children under the sole responsibility of the state.

By  Dan, at 10:46 am, June 20, 2005  

I would also like to add that I also think that there are certain groups in NZ society that deal harshly with their kids. I think a message needs to be sent out that it isn't ok to call you kid 'a little %$#%' and it isn't ok to hit them when you are angry. I am seen and heard.

I think you have to be a real on it parent not to hit when you are angry. Covenant had a parenting video series on last year and there was one on smacking. I found it really helpful because up until then I was like 'I am not going to smack ever'. But now I am educated on how to administer it in love and according to how God commanded. But lots of people aren't educated and smack on instinct and instinct can be 'hit cause you are angry'. I have had a negative experience of smacking in my childhood which has contributed to a negative opinion of smacking.

By  Anita, at 12:55 pm, June 20, 2005  

That should read- I have seen and heard it

By  Anita, at 1:19 pm, June 20, 2005  

I agree.

But repealing Section 59 is not going to mean that if I hear a mother swearing at her child and treating them like crap, I can then call the police and have her prosecuted.

A parent can be entirely hurtful and emotionally violent towards a child without laying a finger on them and the law will be powerless, whether s59 is repealed or otherwise.

You're talking about a different issue here.

Changing laws will not change attitudes.

By  Dan, at 4:59 pm, June 20, 2005  

Another Herald article on the smacking issue.

Quote:
"Several countries have changed the law to ban smacking. Those who advocate for a smacking ban often quote Sweden as a role model. Smacking was banned in Sweden in July 1979. A primary aim of the ban was to decrease rates of child abuse and to promote supportive approaches for parents rather than coercive state intervention. Since the law change, child abuse and criminal assaults of minors have increased six-fold. Changing the law won’t significantly reduce child abuse."

By  Dan, at 9:41 am, June 21, 2005  

Post a Comment