Cracker: Smack Your Kids Up
145 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
hear hear
-
until s59 is amended, pursuing the softer (although likely more effective) measures you describe will be a little absurd when the 'reasonable force' defence remains
Why would that be absurd? Is it absurd to tell people not to blow smoke near their infant child's face? Being sensible is not absurd just because being ignorant is legal.
Come to think of it: making it a criminal offence to smoke in the same household as children would have a greater positive benefit on childrens health than the proposed amendment.
Kate has a very good point. There are obviously a lot of bad parents out there - parents that don't care about or even don't want their children. Removing the 'reasonable' defence is not going to turn these parents into loving models of parenthood.
The Bill's proponents say that violent parents and NZs shocking record of domestic violence are the targets of this bill. When the Sensible Sentencing crowd get fired up about minimum jail terms for crimes of violence then one of the standard responses is that violent criminals do not think about the law while they are beating the crap out of someone. The law is not a deterrent for crimes of violence.
Will violent parents have a copy of the revised s59 on their coffee table?
-
WH,
I think Kate has made an important point - ultimately the need to upskill our parents is at the heart of this.
So if we conclude that children have the right not to be hit, then hitting children is not a right extended to anyone through belief or religion.
True. But its also true that most societies (including a majority in our own society) have concluded that parental discipline (including reasonable physical discipline) is not a breach of a child's rights. Simply asserting that this right exists will only get you so far.
Implicit in your discussion is the claim that smacking for the purpose of instilling self-discipline is harmful to children - that banning smacking would yield our society benefits. But as we established earlier, there is no evidence for this.
By way of concluding my contribution here, I would just say that I respect your position. I'm just annoyed that the bill's supporters are so willing to enforce their minority view on the parents who don't share it.
-
We could always just throw caution to the wind and enact a law that results in parents who smack their kids getting a good fuckin smacking.
-
Kate has a very good point. There are obviously a lot of bad parents out there - parents that don't care about or even don't want their children. Removing the 'reasonable' defence is not going to turn these parents into loving models of parenthood.
I think people are making the assumption that just because they haven't heard of it, no moves are in the wind to promote and educate positive parenting. I would bet within a year we'll be seeing TV adverts or some other campaign teaching alternative skills to smacking.
Most of the groups that have been advocating this position would say that's just as important as the law change. It's just that the law change is what's happening now.
True. But its also true that most societies (including a majority in our own society) have concluded that parental discipline (including reasonable physical discipline) is not a breach of a child's rights.
I think the point is, that's looking like changing here in the near future. While it's not being done explicitly, this is a debate about whether or not children have that right, and if the bill passes (in its mangled current incarnation) then it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that in NZ, children now have that right.
-
The amended bill on page 4 has a section on public education.
Public education
We recommend that if the bill is enacted the appropriate agencies
should conduct public awareness and education campaigns ... -
here's a list of organizations that support Sue Bradford's bill.
UNICEF New Zealand, Save the Children, Barnardos NZ, Royal Plunket Society, Office of the Children's Commissioner, Families Commission, Jigsaw – Child Abuse Prevention (representing 14 member organisations), IHC, Amokura Family Violence Prevention (representing 7 iwi Chief Executives), Churches Agency on Social Issues (represents Presbyterian, Methodist, Quakers and Churches of Christ), NZ Council of Christian Social Services (represents 6 major church social agencies), National Council of Women New Zealand, NZ Federation of Business and Professional Women, National Network of Stopping Violence Services (33 members), Relationship Services NZ, Paediatric Society Of New Zealand, Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa, NZ Foster Care Federation
Women's Refuge (49 member refuges), NZ Psychotherapists Society
Parents Centre, NZ Psychological Society, NZ Child Care Association, NZ Playcentre Federation, NZ Federation of Graduate Women, CCS,
Brainwave Trust, Child Development Foundation, Pacific Foundation (founder Lesley Max), National Council for Young Catholics, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, ParentingWorks, Youth Law Project, Wellington Community Law Centre, NZ Association of Counsellors.isn't it odd that despite the so called 'majority of nzers' that are outraged by this bill, the groups that actually have some understanding of the law, and who are actively involved in making a positive contribution to children and families' lives completely support it?
-
Whoa, deja vu
-
WH,
I think the point is, that's looking like changing here in the near future. While it's not being done explicitly, this is a debate about whether or not children have that right, and if the bill passes (in its mangled current incarnation) then it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that in NZ, children now have that right.
That may be the argument you are making, but its certainly not what either Bradford or Clark are telling the public:
"But today she said her stance had not changed. [PM Helen Clark] still did not support a smacking ban and did not believe that was what Ms Bradford's bill would achieve."
IMO we should separate what we might think about smacking from whether we can validly make the entire country do what Riddley wants.
-
and again even. or maybe its jame vu?
-
re the education thing, there is already the SKIP programme (strategies with kids, information for parents), see more at http://www.familyservices.govt.nz/info-for-families/skip/
i'm pretty sure these pamphlets (or a summary of them) came home with my daughter from primary school last year, and are being distributed by various agencies. i know plenty were being handed out free on children's day, as well as at various other events (eg women's expo in hamilton).
-
That may be the argument you are making, but its certainly not what either Bradford or Clark are telling the public:
"But today she said her stance had not changed. [PM Helen Clark] still did not support a smacking ban and did not believe that was what Ms Bradford's bill would achieve."
Hmm. It's against the law to speed in this country, and yet I can travel 51 km/hour and never get a speeding ticket, ever, because no cop is going to waste their, and my, time. Does that mean that speeding is banned or not?
Sue Bradford is right. She's not banning smacking, she's removing a defence which allows people to get off (http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR10668.html. Smacking is already banned in this country, in much the same way that punching people on the rugby field is banned. Just one currently has a 'reasonable force' defence, whereas on the rugby field police apply common sense.
And no, Helen Clark never plays politics when she gets dragged into a debate. She's a 100% straight shooter that one, honest.
-
cheers Kyle
seeing's how repetitiveness is becoming the sine qua non of this discussion:it has always been a crime to smack a child and carries a maximum sentence of 2yrs jail. as it stands you can also be sentenced for kidnapping for sending a kid to their room - that carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
as the law stands police investigate if they receive a complaint, and after investigating they then decide whether or not to press charges.
then the case goes to court where a judge and jury consider the merits of the case.
the only thing that actually changes is that 'reasonable force' is nolonger a defence specific to parents who mistreat their children sufficiently for the police to press assualt charges.
-
merc,
And no, Helen Clark never plays politics when she gets dragged into a debate. She's a 100% straight shooter that one, honest.
Meanwhile at Kiwiblog HQ...
Sulu: Captain Farrar, there's been a HUGE disturbance in the right space continuum.
Captain: What! We'd better gather some curious figures and nifty headlines, and get over there right away!
Spock: We'd better check our data for logic first Captain.
All: Nahhhhhhhhh, we'll pickup Fred on the way.
Captain: But you all know I'm Fred, right guys? -
nice one merc.
no sign of life over there -
Have you seen that someone has organised a protest march!
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/03/march_against_smacking_ban_bil.html
What fun!
-
merc,
Overlord is my new God, sorry Sonic, mind you, it was a very Sonicesque quip...
-
merc,
Nup, your re-instated Sonic, I think you caused poor Murray to melt.
-
merc,
Sonic, you actually got one of them to threaten you with assault while they were marching on an Anti-Smacking Bill protest.
Awe. -
poor souls, they know not what they do (simultaneously beatific and murderous smile)
-
boy that thread is pretty hilarious though
-
merc,
DPF disciplined Murray offsite, but left the assualt threat, I wonder, did he smack him?
-
those kid loving types are particularly vicious and violent what
-
It is even more surreal than usual over there. I always think, surely they must get outrage fatigue, but no they never do.
Have you seen the site that they link to?
.solopassion.com
Now there is a link you would think twice about clicking in work.
Love the pics as well
-
merc,
Hell Sonic, you're supposed to filter that stuff for us, the faces, the faces...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.