Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Stop the Enabling

574 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 23 Newer→ Last

  • Gareth Ward,

    No Dave, her line is very much about changing attitudes and making people think and specifically says (a number of times even) that her law can't stop abuse.

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    I heard on the radio this morning that Mason had the boys' baby sister with them as well. Given the attention-span-shredding abilities of the preschoolers I know, I certainly wouldn't feel confident in taking three out and giving two of them the extra mobility of bikes. And if the situation slipped out of my control, it would be my fault for biting off more than I can chew, not a four year old's fault for being a four year old.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 780 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    But yes, my point was in fact that spatula followed by cuddle is far more damaging than spatula alone.

    I agree. It's disappointing how New Zealand culture now reads sophisticated home, garden and cuisine magazines, but they still relay on edmonds cookbook for its child welfare concoctions.

    Since Nov 2006 • 2476 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    That's what she said today. I had understood Dave to be suggesting that at other times Bradford had said the amendment to section 59 was about reducing violence against children.

    In the long term, yes. But I don't think she claimed it would immediately reduce violence against children, or that that would be a realistic aim.

    Almost without exception, the parents championed by the pro-smackers turn out, when the case reaches court, to have significant problems with anger, which they're acting out with violence. If they get helped with that as a result of coming to court, then that's good thing.

    Bob McCoskrie' role in all this is particularly distasteful. He made a media hero out of the "Timaru Lady", who we now know to be a violent and seriously troubled person whose children are not safe with her.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18509 posts Report Reply

  • ScottY,

    Bob McCoskrie a year ago:

    Family First national director Bob McCoskrie was astounded to be told Mason had been charged. "That's amazing," he said. "That's going to be a test case. I think everybody has been waiting for a case like this to go before a judge so we can get a new interpretation of the law.

    Bob McCoskrie yesterday:

    As the police and judge have reiterated, this case has nothing to do with the anti-smacking law as was previously suggested in media reports", said Family First's National Director, Bob McCoskrie.

    Some people just don't know when to shut up and take their medicine.

    Yorke of The Atatu • Since Feb 2009 • 787 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    Perhaps because of the number of times any BDSMer will be told they MUST have been abused as a child.

    That's not how it works. And it gets kind of old.

    Honestly, I had no idea.

    Can we pretend I made a joke about make-up sex instead?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2917 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Littlewood,

    David Clarkson, who, back in the mists of time, was a colleague of mine at the Christchurch Star

    Dave Clarkson's great value- he was a tutor/subeditor at the Canterbury University postgraduate journalism course, who was a fout of great humour and much patience with ruffian would-be journos like myself.

    I'm amazed he finds the time to do all that teaching (he also does stuff with the broadcasting school, I think) and act as (effectively) the sole Christchurch Court Reporter for NZPA- although his wife Anne helps him out with that. He's a bloody good writer.

    As for the other topic raised in the post, I thought RB summed it up nicely. Really, it's amazing how unhinged the Family First lobby is, when you get down to it- no matter how much they couch it under the whole notion of "individual rights".

    Today, Tomorrow, Timaru • Since Jan 2007 • 436 posts Report Reply

  • Brickley Paiste,

    Graham:

    Before the amendment passed, we had a law that said assault is a crime, but (implicitly) if that assault is a parental smack, then it is not a crime.

    It is currently the case that we have a law that says that assault (and murder/manslaughter etc.) are crimes, but if that assault/murder is in self defence then it is not a crime.

    If there was a proposed law to repeal the defence of self-defence, I imagine people would call it the anti-self defence bill. Because the law would be making self-defence (something then legal) into something illegal - just as when we passed a law making parental smacking (something then legal), into something illegal.

    No, I think that is incorrect.

    First, before, the law said that a defendant could run a defence (reasonable force in the circumstances or something equally odious). The success of that defence was not pre-ordained. Second, self-defence is not "something legal" or otherwise. It is a defence that can be run or not run depending on the facts. Third, my understanding was that before the law parental smacking was not "something legal" but rather if one was charged with assault on a child one had at one's disposal s59 (a defence) -- and now that is no longer the case.

    You are conflating the existence of a defence with the legality of a specific action. They are not the same.

    Since Mar 2009 • 163 posts Report Reply

  • JackElder,

    Four and two years olds do not always listen, let alone preschoolers on bikes zooming off at warp speed. It shows a true lack of judgement to take them into the city.

    The number of children on bikes on Wellington's waterfront argues against this. I personally wouldn't think twice about taking my kids (5 and 2) into the city to learn to ride; the WCC has a cycling map that specifically recommends the concourse by the stadium as a good traffic-free area. Certainly, I feel a lot happier about taking the kids to a large, flat, traffic-free area - such as the waterfront - rather than having them cycle around our neighbourhood, until they have better control skills.

    And if the situation slipped out of my control, it would be my fault for biting off more than I can chew, not a four year old's fault for being a four year old.

    And I agree. I just take exception to the idea that taking kids somewhere public to learn to ride their bikes reflects poor judgement. Taking three preschoolers out by yourself is always possible to slip into "more than you can chew", bikes or no.

    Get 'em on wheels early is what I say. Now, if you'll pardon me, I'm off to buy my youngest daughter a running bike for her 2nd birthday on Friday.

    Wellington • Since Mar 2008 • 708 posts Report Reply

  • ScottY,

    Here's what Family Integrity said about Mason last year:

    Jimmy Mason was out for a walk with his two boys - Seth, 3yrs and Zach, 2yrs. They were having a great time learning to ride the bikes that they had recieved as an early Christmas present. Making their way along Cashel Mall in Christchurch, they came up to the Bridge of Remembrance.

    This magnificent memorial was built as an enduring mark of gratituded to the thousands of young men from Christchurch who selflessly gave their lives to defend our Free Land of New Zealand from the tyranous usurpers, many thousands of miles over the water. They fought and died so that the generations that came after them might live in freedom and without fear of oppression from any government, whether it be their own, or a foreign governement.

    As all little boys do, Seth and Zach crouched low over their handlebars, racing down the ramp leading down from the bridge, the path leading around a sharp corner. Seth, one year older than his brother, took the corner nicely. Zach however, struggled to keep control of his bike - and losing control, he smashed into the solid brick construction of the bridge. When his father ran up to assist his 2yr old son, he found him lying on the ground, holding his hand to his eye.

    Seth had stopped at the corner. He looked down at his brother, lying on the ground, slipping in and out of conciousness. He saw the concern on his dad’s face, and heard him say “wait Seth, we have to look after Zach”. Whether or not he understood how serious the situation, it was with loving fatherly discipline that Jimmy flicked his son on the ear as he started peddling away.

    An off-duty police-officer stood nearby, and she immediately reported the incident. With a few minutes, six uniformed police officers stood around the Man and his two little boys. As Jimmy cradled his injured toddler in his lap, one policemen pulled out his notebook as another pulled out his radio and spoke brusquely to head-office.

    One can only imagine how scared the two little boys must have been, and the terrifying thoughts rushing through their dad’s head. How was he going to tell his wife that their children were going to be put into a foster-home?…

    Seth and Zach are now confused, because they know that their daddy who they love is in trouble with the police. Jimmy is angry because he now has a warning on his record, and CYFS will be faster than ever to remove his children from him and his wife if they hear the slightest little thing.

    I'm looking forward to hearing Family Integrity's latest view of Mason's "loving fatherly discipline".

    Yorke of The Atatu • Since Feb 2009 • 787 posts Report Reply

  • Brickley Paiste,

    Sorry, that should have been "Graeme" not "Graham" and I didn't know how to make your post look all grey and cool...

    Since Mar 2009 • 163 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    You are conflating the existence of a defence with the legality of a specific action. They are not the same.

    And a key point here is that had that defence not been available to the "Timaru Lady", with her riding crop, she may have been restrained from then doing some awful things that I can't associate with her on account of a suppression order. (As Dave C would doubtless remind me.)

    The pro-smackers championed her case long and loud. And that case turned out to be the most compelling argument you could hope to make against their ideas.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18509 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    Some people just don't know when to shut up and take their medicine.

    Are you kidding? He's in print, again, saying anything he likes without challenge, again. If you have no shame or worries about consistency, it's just continuous win.

    He and Garth McVicar are obviously on speed-dial for the nation's journalists, and what they say doesn't matter.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2917 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    Jack - agreed. Traffic free areas are completely different from busy streets. My mental picture of the area in the Chch case is more like the footpath alongside, say, Kent Terrace than the open space on the Wgtn waterfront.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 780 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    He and Garth McVicar are obviously on speed-dial for the nation's journalists, and what they say doesn't matter.

    They're on speed-dial precisely because they will always instantly give a quote, even when they have no idea what they're taking about. So yes, no shame at all.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18509 posts Report Reply

  • Joshua Arbury,

    This case precisely shows why the s59 repeal was so necessary. It seems fairly plausible that he may have got away with punching his 4 year old in the face under the old laws.

    Auckland • Since May 2009 • 216 posts Report Reply

  • ScottY,

    This case precisely shows why the s59 repeal was so necessary. It seems fairly plausible that he may have got away with punching his 4 year old in the face under the old laws.

    I'm not sure I agree. It's hard to see how anyone could argue punching a child in the face was reasonable force.

    I suspect the legal result may have been the same, though we'll never know for sure.

    Yorke of The Atatu • Since Feb 2009 • 787 posts Report Reply

  • Jolisa,

    My mental picture of the area in the Chch case is more like the footpath alongside, say, Kent Terrace than the open space on the Wgtn waterfront.

    More like this, actually. Ideal spot for wee ones to tool around on bikes, as long as someone adult is monitoring the road end of things.

    Auckland, NZ • Since Nov 2006 • 1408 posts Report Reply

  • MikeE,

    "That's not the case and if McCoskrie had any honesty at all he would admit it. Jimmy Mason hit his four year-old son in the face with a closed fist. That's what happened."

    That still would have been assault regardless of s59 amendments yes?

    Kingsland • Since Nov 2006 • 138 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    Can we pretend I made a joke about make-up sex instead?

    Certainly. Is it this one?

    More like this, actually. Ideal spot for wee ones to tool around on bikes, as long as someone adult is monitoring the road end of things.

    Yeah, it's a good area, until you come off the side of the bridge along from the police station. There you have a narrow strip of footpath right on a very busy one-way street. On the bridge and the grass area on the east side of the river, no problem. At that point, the west side isn't safe.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • JackElder,

    Thanks for that, Jolisa.

    make-up sex

    "So _that's_ what you've been doing with my lipstick!"

    Wellington • Since Mar 2008 • 708 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    One could reasonably speculate that the only reason Mr. Mason ended up in court was because the "culture shift" implied in the repeal of Section 59 empowered a bystander to intervene and to call the police, where once they would have said and done nothing.

    We are all guardians of all our children, 24x7x365 - something that a lot of New Zealanders seem uncomfortable with.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1740 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    One could reasonably speculate that the only reason Mr. Mason ended up in court was because the "culture shift" implied in the repeal of Section 59 empowered a bystander to intervene and to call the police, where once they would have said and done nothing.

    I'm sure that actually is true in other cases. In this case, he punched someone right in front of the central police station. It's not a solid move tactically. The main witness was a just-off-duty police officer.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • Eddie Clark,

    Emma, which combination of old spock/new spock old mccoy/new mccoy are we talking about here? I know the picture is the old lot, but reboot slash could be fun :P.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 270 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Did anyone else find it revealing that the Family Integrity quote (ta, Scott) capitalises "Man"?

    With a few minutes, six uniformed police officers stood around the Man and his two little boys.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16272 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 23 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.