Cracker: Smack Your Kids Up
145 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
What Parliament shouldn't do is pass a law that criminalises many thousands of parents every day...
Yeah they should. Children are icky. People who make them should get in trouble.
-
plum,
Thank you for your post, Damian. I've kept half an ear on this debate, and freely admit to being conflicted on this one. I agree with your point about the rhetoric becoming unmoored from the fundamental point of the Bradford bill.
A larger (political) point is that we're getting hammered perception-wise. With 80%-85% of the public against the bill, this serves only to sink the brand of the Greens and Labour even more. A tendency on the part of Sue Bradford to demonise her opponents hasn't helped, although the misinformation campaign from the right is even shriller.
I fully understand that, with things like smacking, civil unions, global warming, it's pretty much up to progressives to lead the country by the nose. (Can you see National taking a lead on climate change or gay marriage? Nup. Me neither.)
The trouble is, whenever we try to move forward on socially enlightened issues, we get roasted over the coals by conservatives. So what if time proves us right? In the meantime, they'll be winning elections and dismantling the social contract.
The short and curly is: message-wise, we've screwed ourselves inside out. The right is now seen as standing up for family values, while we're out-of-touch patronising socialist bullies who think we're so smart.
How can we change that?
-
What I consider unacceptable is the ‘wait ‘til your father gets home’ punishment, where the child has done something wrong and physical discipline is metered out in a cold, clinical manner.
I've always thought that punishment dished out at the scene of the crime is often a bit of stress relief for the parents. If they waited, say, 24 hours before giving the kid a smack, the anticipation would probably have made it worse for the kid, but by then the parent might end up feeling a bit guilty for smacking the kid once they've calmed down.
And delayed punishment is how the criminal justice system works, so it prepares kids for that. Um...
-
The Honorable Sue Bradford is not an
out-of-touch patronising socialist bully
.
She leaves me as a young father freaked out that if a policeman/doctor/nurse/health professional sees either myself or my wife smack our children - they have to now contact CYF's because that will be their legal requirement - and just like that our family is destroyed.
A family destroyed means there will be no fun camps in the summer by the beach - no relaxing at night with all the kids asleep at home and warm satisfied feeling that all is well with life. It means lawyers, doubt, money and if the police people don't like you - jail time and a criminal record of child abuse.
I ask why? - but the answers they give either bare no relevance (child abuse - its not targeting that issue - I assume we all agree on that now) or when they are honest it's for purely idealogical reasons of having no state sanctioned violence. (Taser's are just for fun and always voluntary).
Now personally I will no longer smack my children but not because it's a criminal act - civil disobedience can be a necessity - just ask all the great freedom fighters who landed themselves in jail. I can no longer smack my children because it risks if even slightly - that they will be taken from me and my family destroyed - all within the polite setting of the family court and to cap it off the general public will just assume I'm the worst type of father that they have always assumed is behind that story in the paper.
Now chances are this won't happen to me because I'm a fairly successful chap with a neat network of friends - but any statistician will tell you that it will happen - for smacking. - Just like the young family on Close Up tonight who not only first lost a child due to sickness - promptly had their next one snatched from them on the "hint" of abuse - not even an attempt to work with the couple, offer help or even a warning.
For me the direct result of this bill is that the state is changing my parenting style by utilizing fear.
What will happen is the destroying of a certain number of normal happy families for purely idealogical reasons - That cost would be too great for me to bear especially just to satisfy a purely idealogical motive and I gasp at how these politicians seem to handle that cost so lightly.
Everyone else will conform out of fear - and when you fear you are no longer free.
How much nicer would it be if this shift in public perception they keep talking about occurred after rational debate and sound reasoning actually won the arguement on whether smacking was a bad or not as this has not happened.
Sue - that was how the other socialist agenda's were generally won - you will feel like you've "won" when the bill is passed but the fear suggests we're all just starting to lose and please do not tell me not to fear - that only makes things freaky.
-
Apologies if there's a double posting...
Most vague is where such force is for the purpose of "performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting," as long as it is not "for the purpose of correction". Good, that's so much clearer.
My understanding is - and I think the Select Committee report linked to in the main post makes is fairly clear - is that this legalises using force to pick up your child and take them home when a refusal to buy them sweets at the checkout counter has reduced them to a screaming heap. It allows you to make them swallow that godawful medicine. It lets you chuck the filthy little demon in the shower before grandma comes to dinner.
This is important because Section 59, as it currently stands, only provides a defence if you use reasonable force on your child for the purpose of correction. If you just want to get sling the little darling under your arm and take them home, there is currently no defence (shock, horror, every parent is currently a criminal, um, maybe).
So yeah, not entirely clear, but no less clear than it is currently. As a parent, I'll be no more worried about possible arrest if this law is passed than I am now.
-
(I never smacked my very well-behaved daughter, and the one time I came close, I felt terrible. Nor was I ever smacked that I recall.)
I really think this is an area best left alone. We already have legislation on abuse and neglect, and there is already plenty of scope for agencies like CYFS to act. I have big, big problems with law that is apparently designed to be ignored except when the authorities feel like enforcing it. The select committee observed that technically confining your child to its room is kidnap, to which I can only reply a) I doubt it -- was the really the advice given to the committee ? -- and b) if so, that is an argument for amending the law on kidnap, not creating a new offence that can be held against me if the police decide they need the leverage.
The only saving grace is that a successful prosecution will require evidence - and I wonder what would provide evidence under the new law that would not have been evidence of assault under the old.
plum, I don't see any connection between smacking and climate change. And if you're worried about perceptions of people who espouse progressive causes, you should stop that patronising "socially enlightened" bullshit. We've all seen lights and mine's as good as yours. And I don't think extending arbitrary state power into my house is very bloody enlightened.
-
I really think this is an area best left alone.
Well, that would suggest getting rid of sectin 59, rather than getting involved and offering a specific defence to people who assault their children.
-
By "area best left alone" I meant keeping the status quo. Which is also not satisfactory. But I don't believe in changing to something which isn't obviously better.
"...offering a specific defence to people who assault their children."
Well, that's begging the question, isn't it? If there is such a thing as reasonable force - implicit in the term smacking, rather than bashing, let's say - then it isn't assault.
-
plum,
plum, I don't see any connection between smacking and climate change. And if you're worried about perceptions of people who espouse progressive causes, you should stop that patronising "socially enlightened" bullshit.
Stephen-- Thanks for proving my point. You say the govt shouldn't intrude into the home, but don't they already do that in domestic abuse cases?
Is it just me, or have people forgot that we're just extending to children the same rights adults have?
-
Sue,
2 things that i suspect everyone does agree on.
small people are special and deserved to be looked after properly.
domestic violence is bad.how to protect the voices of small people who don't speak up for themselves is where it gets difficult.
police currently do a reasonably good job in taking domestic abuses cases to court, and right now they can take a case to court even if the victim won't lay a complaint. This is great because some people stay with abusive partners and only by police intervention do they discover what life without abuse is like
Isn't this bill kind of in the same spirit?
But just like CYFS,it's all muddled and confused and loony. -
the same rights adults have
Except adults or 'planes or ships. Pilots/Captains can use reasonable force to discipline them :)
-
The short and curly is: message-wise, we've screwed ourselves inside out.
We?
Is it just me, or have people forgot that we're just extending to children the same rights adults have?
So while we're at it we should allow 2 year olds to drive, go to the pub, have sex, vote, collect unemployment benefit, have full criminal responsibility under the law, etc...
If "infant == adult" and there is no need for a special case for parental control (s59) then why not take away all the other laws which discriminate for or against minors?
Perhaps there was a valid reason why s59 was put there in the first place? Perhaps children are not the same as adults? Maybe parents should not have to think twice whether they are breaking the law when manhandling unruly kids.
As a parent I can not bear to think of hitting a child and I find the reports of what some children suffer to be sickening. I find it disturbing that a learned judge and jury can find obvious abuse to be 'reasonable' - although I suspect those cases are a very small minority.
And there's the problem: if a court can't decide what is reasonable then how can I trust that some ignorant stranger who witnesses me struggling to get a kid into a car seat won't mistake my actions for abuse?
I found it chilling to read of the recent case where the police hunted down a girl's father after someone witnessed him putting his screaming tantrum daughter in the car. Now in that case I applaud the witness for contacting the police - that was the right thing to do. The police apparently acted sensibly as well - once they figured out the man was a parent of the girl. A happy ending.
Now, should Bradford's bill pass then this could have turned very nasty with just some small 'differences of opinion'.
Think of combining a law that should be ignored with a witness holding a grudge.
-
OK, am I the only person who quietly mutters 'bullshit' every time I hear the claim that 'time out' is a non-violent method of disciplining children?
No, what it is rather effective pychological intimidation that conditions children to associate undesirable behaviour with physical isolation and withdrawal of affection/attention from a parent.
If you did that to a partner or subordinate in the workplace, it would be called harassment, intimidation, psychological domestic abuse... or flat out assualt.
So, when is Sue Bradford going to introduce the bill banning a nasty form of mind-fucking defenceless children?
-
BTW, am I the only person who remembers when Sue Bradford had no confidence whatsoever in the Solomon-like wisdom of the Police when it came to discretionary judgement calls about when to prosecute folks for offences under the Crimes Act.
Of course, those were the days when the popular image of Ms. Bradford was of a professional protester who spent half her time being put in choke-holds and dragged away from protests by her hair, and the rest plotting the next pinko riot.
-
OK, am I the only person who quietly mutters 'bullshit' every time I hear the claim that 'time out' is a non-violent method of disciplining children?
No, what it is rather effective pychological intimidation that conditions children to associate undesirable behaviour with physical isolation and withdrawal of affection/attention from a parent.
Or perhaps it's a useful way of taking the heat out of a situation and allowing those involved to have a think about things. Honestly ...
-
plum: key word is "extending". My point is that the state already has substantial powers to intervene, and it isn't clear to me that it needs more.
And yes, Craig is right. Sue Bradford, how ironic.
-
By "area best left alone" I meant keeping the status quo. Which is also not satisfactory.
The status quo is an intervention of its own. What you are arguing for is conservatism i.e. there may be good reasons for something to be the way it is, so it shouldn't be changed without long and careful reflection.
Tapu Misa has written another column on this topic in this morning's NZ Herald.
Well, that's begging the question, isn't it? If there is such a thing as reasonable force - implicit in the term smacking, rather than bashing, let's say - then it isn't assault.
Technically, it's an assault, just as technically, time out could be construed as a kidnapping.
The problem with the reasonable force defence is that is has been used 'successfully' to defend beating children wih sticks and rubber hoses, leaving bruises and marks. That is a problem with the current approach, so no, it doesn't seem sensible to leave the existing intervention in place. -
I know about those cases. And I wonder just how typical they are, and whether the right answer isn't to narrow the definition of "reasonable".
I read Tapu Misa's article. I like Tapu Misa and I usually agree with what she writes. But she is using the same rhetorical sleight of hand as a lot of other advocates of this bill: talking about excessive violence, drawing lines and sending a message. But what the bill ACTUALLY does is remove your defence to an assault charge if you smack your child. It doesn't criminalise excessive violence, it criminalises all violence, including the most trivial. It must be a cold day in hell this morning, because I find myself agreeing with Tariana Turia and disagreeing with MIsa.
And yes, what I am arguing for is conservatism. That doesn't make it bad - a conservative approach can be correct. In particular one part of old-school conservatism I really like is that the law is not for sending messages, or taking a moral stand, but for narrowly forbidding only those activities we really wish to stop.
I just read this article on Stuff. As I understand it, if someone reports you smacked your child, you will be arrested
"If it is family violence and there is evidence of violence, the policy is quite clear, the offender must be arrested. Greg O'Connor:
"That means an admission or a witness saying they saw someone smack. Police will have no choice but to arrest a person acting on a complaint."
I find that hugely disturbing.
-
"If it is family violence and there is evidence of violence, the policy is quite clear, the offender must be arrested. Greg O'Connor:
"That means an admission or a witness saying they saw someone smack. Police will have no choice but to arrest a person acting on a complaint."
Now would be a good time to observe that Greg O'Connor has been known to talk complete crap before - fairly frequently, in fact - and he's the only source for the story here.
-
Gawd, I'm confused.
The one thing I do know is that the only two times I ever smacked one of my daughters (burned into my memory) was a product of sleep deprivation, relentless two year old tantrums, and exhaustion of my (at the time) very limited parental tool-kit.
External forces such as legislation, social and cultural mores, and 'what the neighbours might think' played zero part.
And what I learnt from these experiences, painfully, is that smacking my child produced two very clear lessons, the first being that it made me feel absolutely shamed and sick to my stomach, and secondly, smacking doesn't actually work in terms of influencing behaviour in a positive way.
So, I guess if anything, I'm comfortable with the principle of the bill, but would like to see it backed up with wider access to better parenting education (apologies to those who already do a fantastic job in this space) rather than leaving any ill-equipped parents to work out by painful trial and error what works and what doesn't work.
-
Firstly, a general comment - Congrats on one of the most thoughtful pieces, and - subsequently - one of the most reasoned discussions on this issue I've seen. From the 'this bill will stop child abuse and oh, by the way, no smacking either' at one end to the 'this is a Satanist-lesbian-communist plot' (yes I've had emails arguing just that) at the other, there has been a lot of rubbish talked over this issue.
I was disappointed last night the Borrows amendment now looks like going nowhere. Not perfect, I know, but better than any other options I've seen.
I don't believe the occasional slap on the wrist or the bum causes any harm but it is effective for some kids and should be an option.
I'd be opposed to anything more than that. I don't believe it should be beyond the wit of our Parliament to devise a law which allows for that.
I was a bit disturbed by comments in an eariler discussion on PA about how people could understand parents getting beyond their tether and hitting their kids. That is where abuse happens. 'Time out', as Russell has hinted, is often as much for the parent as for the child.
-
"Reasonable force" remains undefined, which, need I remind you, was the whole problem the Bill was meant to address in the first place.
Sorry if this has come up, I've just been skimming...
As I understand it, while 'reasonable force' is not defined, the 'reasonable force' thing only comes into play at all for the things - like directly preventing harmful or offensive behaviour - that you are explicitly allowed to do under the legislation. You would probably be able to do it to an adult as well - some argue the dispensation isn't needed.
Use of force for correction or discipline or whatever the word was is just forbidden, as was the intent.
-
See, I'm not convinced at all by the "the police will be required to investigate every smack" line, since, as people have pointed out, the bill will make the law regarding assault for kids the same (more or less) as it already is for adults. Are the police currently required to investigate every instance of physical contact that legally constitutes abuse (the rugby tackle example has been used a bit)? Maybe, but they sure as hell don't.
-
How anyone can argue against a structuralised approach to promoting non-violence within families is beyond me.
Regardless of how it is played out in individual cases, the idea is to stop using/condoning violence as a means of persuasion/correction.
Enshrining it in law means that the idea (non-violence) will be more pervasive than if left to parents' discretion.
-
The rugby tackle example is bogus. There have been cases of assault in rugby matches brought to trial - and judges have ruled, depending on the facts, and based on arguments around consent and so on, that there was no assault. That's why the police don't charge in every case of onfield violence - because they don't think they'll win. Not because they are exercising some magic discretionary power with respect to assault. If you get deliberately stomped and there are witnesses and evidence, the police probably will investigate, and you might see a prosecution out of it.
The police investigate if they think there might be enough substance to win in court. In the article I linked to, Greg O'Connor was claiming that smacking would now by police policy be treated as domestic violence, and therefore they would be supposed to investigate all claims, as they are for domestic violence now.
Russell notes that O'Connor is not Mr Credible, and that's a fair point. I'd just say that if the Police Association spokesperson is coming out against new offences for police to prosecute, that's something to think about. Because in other cases they're generally pretty happy about it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.