I have already heard calls to bring back corporal punishment in schools in this current discussion.
I don't think those calls ever went away.
Except my facts weren’t wrong. That’s what the evidence was. I was aware he eventually managed to get the court to throw out the charge because of the way it was framed.
I have no idea what the evidence was, or whether it was credible.
It is a generational thing. Sweden apparently banned hitting children in the 1970s and it has taken that long for cultural change to catch up with legislation.
My understanding is that the 1979 law change in Sweden did not amend the criminal law, as happened here. CNN's description here accords with my understanding:
The result was Chapter 6, Section 1 of the Swedish Children and Parents Code: "Children are entitled to care, security and a good upbringing. Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment." It passed almost unanimously.
The section carries no penalties...
If we had a passed a law that did not carry the weight of the criminal law with it I would not be making this argument.
This position is one I've slowly come to. I make a lot of submissions on bills creating all sorts of criminal offences, and I've started asking myself, would I want any person who did this, and nothing more, to have to answer the question: "do you have any criminal convictions?" with a yes?
Sometimes, the answer is yes, Other times, the answer is, only if X or Y is also present (e.g. some corrupt intention or knowledge), and other times, it's no, but the equivalent of a parking ticket would be okay. And for some things, marijuana possession, and what most people think of when they think of the word 'smacking', my answer is no. I'm not necessarily opposed to law in those circumstances, but feel it shouldn't be a criminal one.
I’m not sure why you’re responding to that part of my comment
I'm always with the facts. Especially in comments threads to posts about people getting facts wrong.
Because far from being used a a method for social change as Graeme is so disingenuously asserting, Section 59 was repealed to stop assault on children with deadly weapons.
Section 59 was not repealed. The level of force permitted by section 59 has not changed, merely the circumstances in which that level of force can be used.
Was it that late? By 1989 I had attended 7 schools and I honestly don’t recall ever being strapped or seeing or even hearing about anybody else being strapped.
Yes and no. That was when the law change was, but there had been a policy change a few years earlier which meant public schools at least had stopped.
We also finally abolished the death penalty in 1989, but the last execution was in 1957.
That idiot Jimmy Mason in Christchurch, for example, who continued to maintain he had just given his son a “flick on the ear” when witnesses saw him punch his son in the face and he actually told the policewoman who arrived on the scene that he had done so.
Jimmy Mason was ultimately acquitted after the Supreme Court threw out his conviction.
I know plenty of young modern parents who appear, in my view, to be doing a great job bringing up their children without resorting to smacking them.
If you think the sky is falling, you need to provide the evidence.
I don't think the the Sky is falling. And if it ever does fall, it's probably not going to fall on respectable white middle class people like me.
Did that come up before or after the compromises that were in the bill as it passed? The ones that specifically allow for the use of force to keep children and others safe? They seemed reasonable to me.
I believe it's a combination of the two.