Cracker: Smack Your Kids Up
145 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
that's easy ben, try here:
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/
or if you're a Press Gallery journalist, here...
http://www.nzmagazineshop.co.nz/nz-magazine-shop/cover/255/new-idea/index.php3
-
"or if you're a Press Gallery journalist, here..."
Heh heh - Riddley you have obviously done some time in the Gallery! (I thought it was a well kept secret where all the best political goss comes from).
-
Oh dear....made the mistake of posting without reading all replies.
Some of you men seem like you have some serious anger issues.
You think women are the issue?
Who do you think is responsible for most serious crime against children?
Mothers or Fathers?Come on.
-
I'm not a paranoid parent. As noted earlier, I'm a non-smacker. But I might be paranoid if I didn't have my middle-class pakeha advantage.
-
J Wilkinson:
Who do you think is responsible for most serious crime against children? Mothers or Fathers?Well, J, if I looked at prison stats - and the makeup of the folks who get prosecuted and convicted of death penalty offences - in the United States I'd probably make some flawed assumptions about blacks, Hispanics and low-income Americans.
Anway, I think you're question is missing the point. Sadistically beating, neglecting, raping or mudering a child is totally beyond the pale, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator.
-
giving women the vote - the sky is falling
nz drops the pound for the dollar - the sky is falling
nz military stops being cannon fodder for Britain - the sky is falling
husbands can't rape their wives - the sky is falling
nz goes metric - the sky is falling
teachers can't beat their pupils - the sky is falling
nz stops doing anything the US asks - the sky is falling
homosexuals can't be jailed for being gay - the sky is falling
civil unions legal - the sky is falling
treaty obligations honoured - the sky is falling
hitting children outlawed - the sky is fallingAnd here we have the real cause of global warming folks - as the sky falls the sun gets closer, making the earth warmer!
-
I thought it was common knowledge that when the Crimes Act was passed in 1961, the second National government led by Keith Holyoake and Jack Marshall was secretly infiltrated by radical feminists two years before The Feminine Mystique was written. Why else would male assaults female be a separate, more serious charge than common assault, along with adult assaults child?
-
nice one Leigh. how funny that global warming, as you so eloquently put as the result of the sky falling, is the one thing the right have denied will happen.
-
WH,
The bill is illiberal: there is no evidence that mild smacking is harmful to children and there are no liberal grounds for prohibiting it.
The bill is undemocratic: most of our community does not believe that mild smacking should be made illegal.
I'm not even clear that the balance of legal or moral argument supports the bill - calling this "progressive" is an orwellian detraction from the meaning and force of the term.
I do not believe that our Parliament should feel entitled to pass this law in these circumstances. One can always rely on Sue Bradford to find a wedge issue for her own side of the political spectrum.
-
Weston - yeah i guess you're right, those dastardly Greens and their typical wedge politics. i've never seen the Iwi/Kiwi National party be that low and coniving.
by liberal do you mean old liberal, new liberal or neo liberal? it ain't old liberal (conservative) that's for sure. it is new liberal because they don't tend to go for state sanctioned violence if other alternatives are about. it could be neo liberal if there's money in it.
you may be surprised to learn that democratic is not necessarily majoritarian, except in the crudest of circumstances - like on Talkback for example. civilized democracies also take care to protect the interests of vulnerable minorities against the 'tyranny of the majority'. of course if that minority isn't vulnerable but instead powerful, then it's called a Jonkey plutocracy.
-
Nicely put, Riddley.
-
WH,
Riddley,
I think that, in this case, using the party whip to pass a law that 70% of the voting population oppose counts as bad politics. Even on your theory of representative democracy. You may disagree.
As for your lesson on the tyranny of the majority - why don't you have a look at Article 18(1) and (4) of the ICCPR. I'm touched by your concern for the vulnerable, selective though it might be.
-
The bill is illiberal: there is no evidence that mild smacking is harmful to children and there are no liberal grounds for prohibiting it.
Hmm. There's a lot of debate about the research in this area, and most people recognise that there hasn't been enough research to say definitively what the harm to children is. There is evidence indicating that smacking is harmful to children however, it's just debated in extent and long term effects.
But step back and think about the argument that you're making. If you were to take the word 'children' from your sentence, and replace it with 'women', 'Maori', would you use the sentence? Probably not. If it's not OK to use it as an argument for those people, why is it a valid argument to use for children?
The debate should be about whether children have the right not to be hit, or if that is a right denied to them because of their age. I can think of valid reasons not to give children the right to vote, the right to drive. What's the reason for not giving them the right not to be physically hit?
-
he he, good one.
the extensive use of the word 'whip' in current conservative circles is amusingly hamfisted. this is not a concience vote so parties are voting in blocks just as they always do, and just as they always do not ever member of every party will support their party's stance to the same extent. indeed i understand some National MPs are voting with Labour on this one, and they will get arseholes for that from their whips. but National are sour they can't muster the same solidarity in their party so want to paint it as Labour heavying its MP. oh please.
70% i hear you say? would that be in NZ's first ever valid and representative commercial poll on a sole issue? or is that from the over-represented but very vocal 'moral majority'? even if 70% were accurate, that's not actually that much if you look historically at progressive bills that have since become commonly accepted (the proportion initially opposed to homosexual law reform and stopping teachers beating pupils was much higher than that). but i'd say it would be closer to 50/50 at most -
But step back and think about the argument that you're making. If you were to take the word 'children' from your sentence, and replace it with 'women', 'Maori', would you use the sentence? Probably not.
You forgot "slaves". We can still discipline our slaves, right? Because they are like children to us and not to do so would upset the natural order of things.
Weston, does that sound ridiculous to you? Hyperbole perhaps? Go back 150 years in time and follow that debate.
-
WH,
There's a lot of debate about the research in this area, and most people recognise that there hasn't been enough research to say definitively what the harm to children is.
So clear evidence of harm then?
The debate should be about whether children have the right not to be hit, or if that is a right denied to them because of their age.
Another way to frame the debate would be to ask whether people who believe smacking is wrong can tell everyone else how to raise their children. The relationship between parent and child is sui generis IMO.
I happen to think soy products are an affront to human dignity. The only person who I would dream about imposing this belief on is Sue Bradford.
-
Weston, whilst I find it a bit hard to get in a froth about this bill, we are already told how to raise our children.
They have to receive an education. We are not allowed to send them out to work (unlike my parents and grandparents). We have to provide them with certain basics of life. If we fail in the above the state will and does intervene. When children die and the state is seen to have been neglectful in its duties, all hell breaks loose.
I happen to think soy products are an affront to human dignity. The only person who I would dream about imposing this belief on is Sue Bradford.
Or, we could start a petition - where do I sign?
-
WH,
Weston, does that sound ridiculous to you? Hyperbole perhaps? Go back 150 years in time and follow that debate.
Yes, but 150 years into the future, dairy products will be outlawed as the bovine holocaust they clearly are.
I know this because I am a progressive, and sense these things more keenly than other people.
-
Another way to frame the debate would be to ask whether people who believe smacking is wrong can tell everyone else how to raise their children. The relationship between parent and child is sui generis IMO.
Well clearly there are things society, as represented by government, can tell people to do, and not to do, as parents. Most laws apply to the parent-child relationship regardless of whether or not the parent-child relationship is unique. Parents can get in trouble if they fail to ensure that their children are properly fed, educated, clothed etc.
Just because it's a unique relationship in our society doesn't mean that laws don't apply. Marriage is a unique relationship in our society, that doesn't mean that we stop applying criminal laws when they're between couples. You can still get charged for raping your wife if the actions match the definition of rape.
And it's not people who believe smacking is wrong telling everyone else how to raise their children. It's a bill before parliament, so its the government doing the telling. There are lots of laws on the books telling people who to, or how not to, raise their children. This is nothing new.
-
WH,
It's a bill before parliament, so its the government doing the telling. There are lots of laws on the books telling people who to, or how not to, raise their children. This is nothing new.
Kyle, what I am saying is that the special obligations inherent in the parent/child relationship require special treatment in law. You will be well aware that, internationally speaking, smacking is not considered to be a breach of a child's legal and moral right not to be assaulted.
That point to one side, what I have really questioned is the political legitimacy of this bill being passed by Parliament. I, like the majority of New Zealanders, do not believe that the supporters of this bill have made the moral case for the legal prohibition it contains. I also wonder whether the bill is inconsistent with Article 18 of the ICCPR.
In my view it is an unfortunate accident that the Government has the numbers to pass this bill against the wishes and reasoned objections of so many citizens. You might disagree.
Cheers,
Weston -
umm Weston, 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.
and umm, as the law stands police investigate if they receive a complaint, and after investigating they then decide whether or not to press charges.
umm 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.the problem with this matter is that it takes some capacity to sort the wheat from the chaf and the msm are doing everything they can to make sure that doesn't happen, at least for that 'moral majority' that is so very lathered up about nolonger being able to show their kids how much they care with a loving beating.
-
Its seems to me that there is a shocking failure by the government to address the real issue here.
The need for a bill like the anti-smaking one to be passed has undoubtedly arisen largely from NZ's high rate of Child abuse.
There is no denying we have a problem in this country, many children are being "hurt" to say the least, and "killed" to quote the extreme, by the people who are responsible for their welfare.
Reactionary measures to simply pass-a-bill-and-stop-the-smacking are a simplistic and highly unlikely solution to a very complex problem. It also fails to address the real problem at hand.
New Zealanders need to be taught, educated and advised on parenting. Its all very well to make smacking illegal. But where are the constructive offers of alternatives? To cancel out what may be deemed a culture of violence there must be borne a new culture of the opposite. New skills need to be learned and new attitudes adopted by many parents and parents to be.
This would be no easy task of course. But there is a real lack of resources, education, and practical example available to parents and parents to be in this country.
Everything from books, phamlets, courses, counsellers, in home services, internet information, 0800 numbers, specialised tutors and mentors, etc etc should be available to anyone and everyone. And they shouldnt have to look for it should be more than readily accessible.
These sorts of services do exist - www.kiwifamiles.co.nz or www.parentingskills.co.nz, but there needs to be more, and the already exist services need more support and funding, ie from the government.
Quite literally it is mandatory (encouraged by doctors/midwives and pushed in the public and private practice health sectors) to teach expectant mothers how to push out their babies, and a basic guide to caring for a newborn (birthing classes)... but the rest is grey matter.
-
Perhaps Kate this amendment is just the first step - a very public statement (almost a declaration) that this is an issue and will no longer be tolerated. Whatever happens to this legislation (and I fall close to Riddly on this) at least it is now clear that something will be done.
Of course as you point out there is far more that needs to be done before the child abuse problem will be under control. This will be true test of our resolve.
-
Kate, i think Ben is right. absolutely more needs to be done along the exact lines you suggest, but this is a major vanguard to that movement. and 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.
and to be fair, this is far from a 'reactionary measure' and has been in the pipeline since long before the msm embarked on its latest round of faux outrage about nz standards of child welfare. -
Kyle, what I am saying is that the special obligations inherent in the parent/child relationship require special treatment in law.
But there's no requirement that the special obligations in the relationship be applied to the area of smacking/assault. Indeed parents have certain laws that only apply to them because they are parents (eg truancy).
That point to one side, what I have really questioned is the political legitimacy of this bill being passed by Parliament. I, like the majority of New Zealanders, do not believe that the supporters of this bill have made the moral case for the legal prohibition it contains. I also wonder whether the bill is inconsistent with Article 18 of the ICCPR.
Point 3 of that article states: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."
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.
In my view it is an unfortunate accident that the Government has the numbers to pass this bill against the wishes and reasoned objections of so many citizens. You might disagree.
I spent much of the late 1980s and most of the 1990s unhappy that the government had the numbers to do a large number of things that the majority of the population were against. That's not an accident though, that's parliamentary democracy.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.