Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 10:02AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

Yes, I know not every opponent of the bill is a weirdo.

Too kind, Russell. Can I just say here that I don't lump you as an opponent of the Iraq War in with the photogenic anti-Semitic loons that seem to attach themselves to every anti-war rally out there? Or should that actually not need to be said? You can find lunatic extremists and over-heated rhetoric on all sides of every issue, and I don't think it really adds much to a sensible debate to try and tar everyone on the 'other side' with that brush.

Posted at 10:07AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

O.K so I'm not a parent, and I was smacked as a kid (althought Mum 'doesn't recall' it ever happening...). I agree with the intent of the bill, even if I think it is a little unwieldy.

What I really can't fathom is all of the opponents of the bill who keep saying the government has 'no right to legislate the private lives of families' etc. If you're going to use that argument, then I presume the government has no right to enforce any legislation about anything ?

Why are 'family situations' supposed to be exempt from legislation, particularly a bill which offers protection to our children, and will only affect parents who are blatantly abusing (not smacking) their children? Going back to my favoured cannabis example...if a whole bunch of potheads started rallying around Parliament saying 'the government has no right to make it illegal for me to get high, watch stupid movies and munch out on junk food', would it carry the same (or any) weight at all?

I can't see the difference between existing legislation that influences/governs family situations and the proposed amendment to section 59...am I missing something?

Posted at 10:22AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

Smacking debate. Aargh.

You don't have to say anything thats actually false to be misleading, you can just be selective about your material. Lets have another look at those Herald comments:

Since when did an MP whom wasn't even elected to parliament get to tell me how to bring up my kids? I will be voting National come next election if this is passed.

We live in a plurist society and normal parents should be able to choose the form of discipline most appropriate to their family without the government intervention.

Everyone is against child abuse - Chester Burrows included. I'm not buying this 80% of us are wrong/aliens thing.

Love your work Russell - have a good weekend all.

Posted at 10:24AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

Rogan:

I actually think that's a rather stupid straw man argument from all sides. I'm no anarchist, but nor do I think the state has a legitimate interest in regulating every aspect of your life Parliamentarians find distasteful or 'weird'. . I will be interested to see how many MPs who support this bill, will also support allowing same-sex couple to adopt because they don't consider it legitimate for the state to disqualify homosexuals from raising children.

On another thread, I raised the point (and got thoroughly rubbished for doing so) that I find 'time out' a psychologically abusive - if undeniably effective - form of bullying. Why not ban that too - or is 'violence' acceptable as long as you do it with your tongue rather than your hand?

Posted at 10:37AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

Rogan wrote: "I can't see the difference between existing legislation that influences/governs family situations and the proposed amendment to section 59...am I missing something?"

Well, yeah, you are missing something.

Parents are able to do all manner of things with kids, potentially dangerous things which can and do cause kids injury. But that's a parental decision. I wouldn't want to see a law imposed on what activities kids can and cannot do. As far as I'm aware, and I could be wrong, no child has ever been hospitalised or died from a light smack to the bottom or hand. But this debate has produced numerous references to NZ's rate of child deaths, references to the situation in Sweden, our child abuse record as measured by the UN, etc. All of these references may be interesting but they're irrelevant. Even Walter Mitty wouldn't expect that our rate of child abuse is going to improve if this bill is passed. Let's be intellectually honest about the debate.

Posted at 10:38AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

As noted in other threads I'm against it. And I don't like the fact that scary loons agree with me for whatever bizarre reasons of their own. But that's a necessary outcome of having principles.

Otherwise, I'd never take up water colour painting, because Hitler did too.

Posted at 10:40AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

Craig:

Fair enough, I guess what I was getting at is the fact that people on both sides of this argument seem to have gotten tied up in the 'us against them' mentality, without really giving too much thought to the likely actual implications of the bill (which I think will be minimal), rather than the hypothetical 'the cops will arrest us all' post-bill Apocalypse scenarios that have been getting chucked around.

But I don't think it's a very strong argument to simply say 'I don't like that law, so the government has no right to bring it in'. There's heaps of laws that heaps of people don't like, but that's part of life, isn't it?

Posted at 10:46AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

While we're recommending videos DPF has a nice thing and it's sort of the opposite of smacking.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/03/just_watch_it.html

Well it's nice unless, as indicated by some coments, you are a grinch,

Posted at 10:48AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

That's the comments on Kiwiblog. Just to be clear.

Posted at 11:15AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

i see the opponents to the bill on this thread are just as aggressive, intolerant and quick with the rampant flood of dysinformation as ever.
hardly surprising then that they have the wholehearted support of rightwing american fundamentalist churches as detailed in FundyPost.

Posted at 11:16AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

Too kind, Russell. Can I just say here that I don't lump you as an opponent of the Iraq War in with the photogenic anti-Semitic loons that seem to attach themselves to every anti-war rally out there? Or should that actually not need to be said? You can find lunatic extremists and over-heated rhetoric on all sides of every issue, and I don't think it really adds much to a sensible debate to try and tar everyone on the 'other side' with that brush.

Arggh ... deja vu all over again. I thought it was simply polite to point out that the majority of opponents of the bill, and certainly those here, aren't loonies.

But I think it's a stone-cold fact that the worst behaviour in this debate has come from pro-smackers. They're the ones calling Katherine Rich and threatening her children; they're the ones posting nasty comments on a range of sites and fantasing about killing Sue Bradford and publishing MPs' home addresses on CYFS Watch. I'm not talking about people who I simply disagree with, or even people who annoy me, I'm talking about people who really creep me out. People who I would not trust to know the meaning of reasonable force.

And I can't recall an issue that has drawn out so many of those people as this one has. I'll be glad when it's over so I can go back to not having to think about those people.

Posted at 11:17AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

As noted in other threads I'm against it. And I don't like the fact that scary loons agree with me for whatever bizarre reasons of their own. But that's a necessary outcome of having principles.

Otherwise, I'd never take up water colour painting, because Hitler did too.

Fair enough. But do you trust the "scary loons" to know the meaning of reasonable force?

Posted at 11:18AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

Ron wrote

All of these references may be interesting but they're irrelevant. Even Walter Mitty wouldn't expect that our rate of child abuse is going to improve if this bill is passed. Let's be intellectually honest about the debate.

In all honesty I believe it will have an effect. At the same time I accept I could be wrong. But I'd rather try.

For me repealing section 59 is nothing to do with smacking. Instead it is everything to do with removing a legal but abhorent defence for child abusers.

It has been said before but I'll repeat it - it is currently Illegel in New Zealand to touch another person without their consent - it is assault. And if the police wished to they could spend a day on Queen street arresting people who bump into other people on the footpath. Oddly enough they don't waste their time and the court's time doing this. But the law is clear and it allows the police to act if they need to - eg inapropriate touching.

Repealing section 59 will create the same situation. Yes it will be illegal to smack a child with an open hand (setting aside any discussion of proper forms of child discipline). And the police will not bother you if that is all you do. But if you get angry and smack your child so hard they actually can't sit down or use some implement like a 4X2 as was used some years ago in Hawkes Bay. The police will be able to charge you and in all likelyhood convict you.

In my mind that is a good thing.

The problem that is hidden from view now and that you are ignoring in your comment is that currently the police say (using very careful language because they don't want to lose their jobs) they simply don't bother trying to prosecute anything but the most disgusting cases of abuse. And even then they sometimes lose the case and if they win they usually have to spend huge amounts of time and money defending the inevitable appeals. This is real and it happens now and that is what repealing section 59 will change.

So yes I firmly believe the law change will allow police to start affecting our child abuse rates in NZ. BTW the reported rate will almost certainly go up because cases will actually be filed.

you also said

But that's a parental decision. I wouldn't want to see a law imposed on what activities kids can and cannot do.

Too late. There are many laws that already prevent parents allowing their children to do certain things, even if the parents believe tham to be good things to do. The best example is a commune that used to exist where the parents thought it was OK for children to be sexually active with adults. Guess what, it was against the law and the police did act, and you know I think most folks are glad that the government (in the form of the police and the law) interferred with that form of parenting.

Not every parent gets it right - most really really try - a few fail. Sometimes you need a law to deal with the failures.

Sorry bit too passionate about this :). Didn't mean to pick on you Ron.

cheers
Bart

Posted at 11:23AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

"But do you trust the "scary loons" to know the meaning of reasonable force?"

I don't want to go into great detail because goodness knows we've thrashed this subject. Briefly, no, I don't trust them, but neither do I think the proposed legislation is the right way to assuage that distrust. Hence my mental discomfort. Such is life.

Posted at 11:24AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

Clearly "thrash" wasn't the best possible word to choose there.

Let's say "belaboured."

Posted at 11:25AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

Abbe
We are more than likely leaving NZ for Australia

oh i love it when people use that line. i just so wish they would, we'd all be so much happier for it.

Posted at 11:48AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

Since when did an MP whom wasn't even elected to parliament get to tell me how to bring up my kids?

That argument especially scrunches my panties! I heard a similar argument recently: "I don't like MMP because half the MPs are expected to toe the party line instead of represent the actual population". Well, I elected Sue Bradford to parliament, 5% of the voting public and I wanted the Greens to represent us; and that's exactly what we got.

On another thread, I raised the point (and got thoroughly rubbished for doing so) that I find 'time out' a psychologically abusive - if undeniably effective - form of bullying.

...and a whole stack of parents use far more damaging psychological tactics to cut their children down, often for no reason, and will never be hauled into a court for it. I'm not sure what to do about that. It makes me believe this whole repeal is an arbitrary line shift, and I think most of the arguments - both for and against - highlight that. Everyone's very emotional about it, but I think there's a distinct lack of convincing logic on either side. I don't like that either side - and I think the anti-repeal side's arguments seem especially tenuous - are still trying to justify their gut feelings in logical terms, when there is no discernable logical basis for their stance.

FWIW I hold to the emotional viewpoint that it'd be great to live in a country where there's no legal justification for violence against children. It'd also be great to live in a country where a handful of parents aren't telling their kids that they're worthless on a daily basis, but that's a fight for another day.

Posted at 11:53AM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

I will admit to being somewhat left cold by the list of groups (not individuals) fighting the bill. Generally (although there were a few exceptions) they were the kind of intolerant group that I'd usually oppose. The list of supporter groups however are mostly groups that I have respect for because they actually get out there and do good work, not just pontificate on the morality of things like science, the family and religion.

I had a look at the FF site the other day, and they explicitly state that every single problem in the world today is the fault of the decline of the nuclear family (no, really).

Posted at 12:19PM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

But do you trust the "scary loons" to know the meaning of reasonable force?

Not at all, Russell. Then again, there are some folks of my acquaintance who don't know the meaning of 'moderate alcohol consumption' - which may suggest many things, but I'm far from sure it's much of an argument for prohibition.

Posted at 12:32PM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

nice try, but over-consumption of alcohol is self-harm, whacking children is harm of another.

Posted at 12:46PM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

"They're the ones calling Katherine Rich and threatening her children; they're the ones posting nasty comments on a range of sites and fantasing about killing Sue Bradford and publishing MPs' home addresses on CYFS Watch".

Russell, you've identified TWO or maybe THREE individuals. Nice distraction from the issue though.

Posted at 12:49PM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

nice try, but over-consumption of alcohol is self-harm, whacking children is harm of another.

It's Friday, Ridldley, and I don't really have the time or the energy to start writing you a reality check about the amount of domestic violence, child abuse and other violent crimes that are perpetuated by folks under the influence of alcohol. Again, I very much doubt that's much of an argument for prohibition - though there are plenty of hysterics who will do their best.

Have a nice weekend, because I've got to go to work in the reality-based community

Posted at 12:55PM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

Bart wrote: "currently the police say (using very careful language because they don't want to lose their jobs) they simply don't bother trying to prosecute anything but the most disgusting cases of abuse".

I'm not sure what you base that comment on unless of course you regard smacking as child abuse. I imagine that police try to prosecute all cases of child abuse, as long as there is sufficient evidence.

BTW, I think you'll find that child abusers, when caught and charged, are usually convicted. Of course, there is the odd one that isn't but that applies to every crime. But that doesn't seem to me to be a good argument for changing the status quo.

Posted at 1:34PM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

"Fair enough. But do you trust the "scary loons" to know the meaning of reasonable force?"

Wasnt this the exact reason for the Chester Borrows amendment?

I'm prepared to accept that when this bill passes, or if it passed with the Chester Borrows amendment (now essentially dead), that the actual outcome vis-a-vis policing and prosecutions would be remarkably simmilar, as suggested in earlier posts at public address.

Whet I find really distasteful about this whole episode is the politicians in support of it denying that it is a law designed to outlaw smacking. If it really was designed to only stop abuse (or, make it prosecutable), why the increadibly strong reluctance to define anything as reasonaable or non-criminal?

Many people supporting the bill have come out and said they find NO level of smacking acceptable, and thats a perfectly reasonable viewpoint (even though I disagree). But it seems to me the Labour and Green Politicians supporting this bill actually DO hold that view themselves, but arent prepared to admit it publicly. Otherwise, thee Chester Borrows, or similar, should have been acceptable to satisfy thier stated aims.

That is what I dislike. They wont admit thier own ideology.

I doubt there will be any prosecutions for "light smacking"... but the police have already said they have to investigate any complaints... this does indeed raise issues of teenagers complaining while rebelling against parents, and ex-partners bringing up behaviour they found acceptable at the time, but using it as "ammunition" in custody disputes if the relationship fails...

Posted at 2:37PM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

As far as I'm aware, and I could be wrong, no child has ever been hospitalised or died from a light smack to the bottom or hand.

That's probably true.

As far as I'm aware, no adult has, either. But, oddly enough, I'm not allowed to wander about my workplace swiping my colleagues' arses, and they could prosecute me for assault if I chose to.

Even Walter Mitty wouldn't expect that our rate of child abuse is going to improve if this bill is passed.

So hitting children improves their behaviour, but announcing that people have one fewer defence when they belt their kids between them and jail won't improve their behaviour? An odd chain of thought.

While we're at it, I guess we may as well repeal all traffic laws! They have no effect on the road toll! Only Walter Mitty would say so!

Let's be intellectually honest about the debate.

Feel free to start. Such gems as:

references to the situation in Sweden, our child abuse record as measured by the UN, etc. All of these references may be interesting but they're irrelevant.

Irrelevant because... you say so? So we shouldn't look at other countries and ask how we measure up and see what we might learn from them? Simply announce that our world-leading rates of child abuse are nothing to worry about and do nothing?

Posted at 2:47PM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

Ron you asked

Bart wrote: "currently the police say (using very careful language because they don't want to lose their jobs) they simply don't bother trying to prosecute anything but the most disgusting cases of abuse".
I'm not sure what you base that comment on unless of course you regard smacking as child abuse. I imagine that police try to prosecute all cases of child abuse, as long as there is sufficient evidence.

No the police don't try to prosecute all cases of child abuse - that is the whole point of this law change. To allow them to do precisely that.

I am talking about the situations where parents have hit their children in situations where the parent could claim the blow was for discipline. These occassionally get reported in the newspapers especially when the child ends up in hospital. Note I'm not using the word smack quite deliberately. For example a blow with a fist, a kick with a boot etc. These cases are not typically prosecuted because they are likely to fail because of the section 59 defence.

The police can and do refer the cases do CYFs and that sometimes works. What this law change would allow is prosecution when for whatever reason CYFs cannot intervene.

Fletcher asked

If it really was designed to only stop abuse (or, make it prosecutable), why the increadibly strong reluctance to define anything as reasonaable or non-criminal?

Because that essentially demands that the court defines the legal definition. That isn't the courts job. And the result of such a law would be very expensive test cases that would almost certainly go to the highest courts before being sorted out - at huge expense. The reason the amendment will fail is because it is bad law - as bad as the original section 59 (which BTW was never intended to provide the protection it does now).

Laws have to be crytsal clear otherwise you just make more money for lawyers.

Cheers
Bart

Posted at 2:58PM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

"These cases are not typically prosecuted because they are likely to fail because of the section 59 defence."

You know, I've heard that claim (and read a couple of shocking examples of such cases) numerous times in the past few weeks. So what do you make of this?

I say the repeal of section 59 is unnecessary because in my experience it is just that - unnecessary. I never lost a case which I prosecuted on the basis of section 59.

I drafted an indictment against a man who was convicted of smacking his 4-year-old son about five times on the backside with an open hand, leaving marks.

I think the jury convicted because the man smacked his boy too hard and because the boy was smacked not for a deliberate misdemeanour but because he soiled himself.

Posted at 3:05PM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

In an effort to get away from the topic

Thanks Leo, I just loved the space invaders clip. I can't help but think of how hard it must have been to make, I mean getting students to sit in the right place in the lecture theatre????

cheers
Bart

Posted at 3:30PM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

If it really was designed to only stop abuse (or, make it prosecutable), why the increadibly strong reluctance to define anything as reasonaable or non-criminal?

I would presume, that abuse is already reasonably well defined legally, particularly by case law.

The problem with section 59 (or, one of them) is that people have been getting away with abuse by using the section 59 defense. If it's been getting people off that clearly should have been convicted, then there's a problem.

Also, no where else in laws to do with assault do we say "you can't assault people, except for...". This lack of exceptions isn't a problem with assaults between adults that I'm aware of. I don't think it'll be a problem between parents and children to have the same system.

So what do you make of this?

The experience of one lawyer, prosecuting or defending, doesn't apply across the board.

As for her arguments that 'every reported smack will be investigated'. Currently smacking children is illegal. It's assault.

If this bill goes through, smacking children will still be illegal, and still assault. Are people going to report every smack to the police? Are the police going to wander around looking for smacking? No and no.

The law on assaulting your children is not changing. So currently if you see someone smack their child, it would be ethical to report that assault to the police. Almost no one does that now, and I can't imagine that everyone is going to rush forward and do it afterwards.

Yes there will be more investigations as a proportion of actual smacks out there - maybe it'll double from 1% to 2%. There will also be, I think, less smacking as people develop alternative parenting skills. I don't have a problem with the first, because I don't believe it will be over the top. The second sounds great to me.

Posted at 3:36PM on 30 Mar 07. Permalink.

Rodgerd: "I'm not allowed to wander about my workplace swiping my colleagues' arses".

One would hope that you wouldn't need to, though why you compare a 2 yeard old child with your colleague is beyond me. You probably don't spoon feed your colleague or tell him he must be in bed by 7.30 either. Enough said.

"So hitting children improves their behaviour.."

Well, there's a fair bit of research to show that smacking can change kids' behaviour, apparently for the better. I'm not sure about hitting though. Of course, smacking is just one tool - some of the anti smackers seem to think it is the ONLY tool.

"Irrelevant because... you say so? So we shouldn't look at other countries and ask how we measure up and see what we might learn from them? Simply announce that our world-leading rates of child abuse are nothing to worry about and do nothing?"

Well, I agree we can learn from other countries...if we want to. For example, several countries which permit smacking have the lowest rates of child deaths in the Western world, as low or lower than the often-quoted Sweden. Maybe there is absolutely no relationship between a ban on smacking and low rates of child abuse?

You seem to have fallen into the trap of equating child abuse with smacking. I thought we'd moved well beyond that.