Hard News: Stop the Enabling
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
Is it that odd? I can't ever see myself smoking a cigareete, but don't think it should be illegal. I can't ever see myself smacking a child, but don't think it should be illegal.
Smoking inside your house, with your children around, is demonstrably, indisputably harmful to them, even if it's just a few light cigarettes; but I'm guessing few here would want it made a crime punishable by imprisonment.
1) On smoking in the house:
Is it demonstrably, indisputably harmful? That's not a rhetorical question; I thought the passive smoking issue was still in hot dispute. However, if it IS clearly harmful, I think an argument could be made that smoking inside the home with children regularly around should be legislated against. There are other factors involved, though, but in principle I'm not against the state saying a parent cannot impose their smoking on children.
2) That said, the reason it seemed an odd comparison is that the reason most people are okay with smoking being legal even though they may be "against smoking" is that they see it as a personal freedom issue, that affects the individual only (notwithstanding the passive smoking aspect).
I imagine that you and I, and most people here, are of the view that smoking is basically a "bad habit", i.e. an unhealthy habit that we wouldn't recommend. However, we accept that it is up to the individual to run their own life; it is not for the state to make them criminals. That's why I believe it should not be illegal.
That is not applicable to smacking, which by definition is not purely a personal matter, and involves one individual interacting with another by force.
-
Thanks Russell, I'm certainly sympathetic to your resolve. Your justifications appear be informed on your persuasions - not vice versa - and based on what others may or may not see as their right, or the outworking of their religious belief. But that does not mean you need to conclude that light corrective discipline should be against the law - a law that has a prison term attached to it.
It seems to me that the only real way forward is for no one to hit children
That's a bit like saying the only way forward to avoid cancer-related smoking deaths is to ban smoking, while permitting police discretion on a law banning cigarette sales in supermarkets. Law alterations have never - and will not - provided that way forward. Especially without education. If only people concentrated more on education and less on a desire to change the law.
-
The implication in the above indented comment is surely that the only real way forward for no one to hit children is to make it illegal.....
-
while permitting police discretion on a law banning cigarette sales in supermarkets.
One problem with the "ban smoking" analogy is that, if we did have such a law (which we shouldn't) I doubt a defense would be allowed whereby they only smoked a small, "least harmful" amount and so weren't criminals after all.
-
As for the position he's got himself into, well,
that position being taking 3 kids he couldn't manage through town with dangerous traffic,
And face it Rob, you turning up just after someone said "Section 92A" was quite funny ...
humor must be on a low ebb round you then russell.
I'm happy to watch you men of wisdom debate with authority all the topics you so clearly understand, but knowing members of masons family and his background I find it less easy than you to write the guy off. you must remember those guys from their punk days in the early eights Russell. the was a pretty rough crowd around them. He's got a family and a wife and probably some issues to work through but I really don't know enough about what happened to pass judgment on him, and judgmental is what I read into some of the comments on here.
You Russell have a little high ground to be judgmental from having achieved a reasonably difficult result, but you'll also know the difficulty of controlling out of hand kids.Maybe I was just moved by the tv puff piece. nice wife, cute kids, dude not down at the pub ignoring them.
-
Do you also accept that it shows very negative outcomes as a result of the kind of "discipline" dished out by Jimmy Mason and the others we've discussed on this thread?
Russell, you started this thread about Jimmy Mason so I will stick to Mason. I accept that Mason’s overall behaviour is an example of poor parenting and he could benefit from good counselling such as Parent Inc started by Ian and Mary Grant.
I was impressed what robbery had to say at 6:11pm. He apparently knew a little of Mason’s background. I only saw Mason briefly on TV but he did not come across to me as either a bad person or a bad parent. As I said his parenting on the day left a lot to be desired but that is a lot different than calling him a bad parent. Those parents who took their children on the bridge protest against police orders or instructions were also examples of bad parenting on the day. That does not automatically make them bad parents.
A good parenting course could be of benefit. If the Court orders him to a course with an ideologically driven anti smacker keen on exerting their authority it could make matters worse.
This stupid law makes it a lot more difficult to get someone like Mason to modify their behaviour to a behaviour that is acceptable to 80% of parents.
A smack within reason should be one of the tools in a parent’s tool kit. Many years ago when my children were young I smacked very occasionally. I never used an implement and I never lost control. A quick sharp smack on the legs does far less harm than a parent losing control and yelling let alone swearing at his or her children.
I know of cases where parents where one child responded to a smack and the other did not because of their personality. A law such as purposed by Chester Burrows or John Boscawen would stop verdicts by rogue juries. Most people would respect it and try to follow the guidelines like no implements. Under the present law the majority of parents see it as a law forced on them by Sue Bradford – politician and a hypocrite despised by many.
-
This stupid law makes it a lot more difficult to get someone like Mason to modify their behaviour
Compared with what? You apologists piss me off - just how many people have been victimised so far by this terrible law change? Thought so.
-
Candyman, Candyman, Ca....
Classic result.
-
I also believe most members of the public - like say a certain eyewitness - know the difference between a "smack" with an open hand and a "punch" with a closed one. One is also most likely to be described as a "slap" when administered to the face.
The verbal gymnastics are offensive anyway. If you want to say that all men have some god-given right to hit their children hard then have the balls to say so. If you insist vast numbers of parents are being prosecuted for slapping their kids on the legs, then show us the proof. I'd suggest you find a different poster-boy in any case, no matter how cuddly you find him.
-
This stupid law makes it a lot more difficult to get someone like Mason to modify their behaviour to a behaviour that is acceptable to 80% of parents.
Christ. Good parenting isn't a democracy. Just because some proportion of the population think that something is good parenting, doesn't make it so.
-
Is it demonstrably, indisputably harmful? That's not a rhetorical question; I thought the passive smoking issue was still in hot dispute.
I suspect something like passive smoking causes cancer is in dispute. That children of parents who smoke in the home are more likely to have asthma, be underweight as young children, smoke themselves, do worse in school etc. etc. is probably less so.
You've got post hoc problems, I suppose, but no more so than smacking.
-
A law such as purposed by Chester Burrows or John Boscawen would stop verdicts by rogue juries.
Did you have any particular "rogue" jury in mind when you made that comment? Just wondering.
-
He's got a family and a wife and probably some issues to work through but I really don't know enough about what happened to pass judgment on him, and judgmental is what I read into some of the comments on here.
Like I keep saying, I just want the guy to get some help with that anger -- and maybe some help to realise that knocking your kids around isn't good.
Those kids are real flesh-and-blood humans, and they were treated in a way that even the research quoted here by the pro-smackers says is not good. Under those circumstances "don't judge the guy" carries very little weight.
But the fact is he wouldn't be in the position he's in now if he hadn't gone to the media immediately on being warned by police over his behaviour. It was the bullshit "ear-flicking" story he sold to the media that prompted the witnesses to come forward. Perhaps Jimmy Mason needs to own his own behaviour a little more than he seems to want to.
-
Fat chance. Given the lengths some people will go to find excuses for him, I can but imagine the excuses he's finding for himself.
-
The verbal gymnastics are offensive anyway. If you want to say that all men have some god-given right to hit their children hard then have the balls to say so. If you insist vast numbers of parents are being prosecuted for slapping their kids on the legs, then show us the proof. I'd suggest you find a different poster-boy in any case, no matter how cuddly you find him.
Nicely said sacha. The guy in question - and it galls me to use his name, the sooner his 'celebrity' status fades the better - appears to believe that his kids are his property, to do with as he pleases. Like a dog barking inside a parked car his family are his mobile territory, and anyone who's offended by his behaviour is an interfering busybody. It's a bogan attitude that'll be familiar to anyone who's attempted to intervene in a public display of domestic violence and been bluntly told to butt out, often by the supposed victim as well.
-
they were treated in a way that even the research quoted here by the pro-smackers says is not good.
And the anti-smackers who just don't think the full force of the criminal law is the best way to change minds ... and the pro-rule-of-law-ers who think Parliament shouldn't be passing legislation it really doesn't want enforced.
-
Perhaps Jimmy Mason needs to own his own behaviour a little more than he seems to want to.
And there's bugger all chance of that while his cheer squad keeps finding reasons why it's not his fault. Feminists made him do it, your honour. Just a light punch. He's a "good man". Blah blah blah.
There's a name for that behaviour. Oh, that's right - "enabling", isn't it. -
Since when has a law been made on the basis that it is not enforced? I ask that here
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10384076 -
Since when has a law been made on the basis that it is not enforced? I ask that here
Wow. I'm truly staggered that you've voluntarily pointed to your commentary on a case that really provides a compelling argument for the removal of the Section 59 defence.
In one case, a boy swung a baseball bat at his stepfather's head, while verbally threatening him with a permanent head injury. Fortunately he was able to block the blow and disarm the boy.
The boy's mother disciplined him with a riding crop and was subsequently acquitted using section 59 as a defence.
You know very well what happened was not "smacking" and equally well what happened after the woman was acquitted via the Section 59 defence. If you didn't have a good idea of the abusive nature of her parenting then, you surely must by now.
And yet in that column you blamed the child. There were any number of legitimate actions that could have been taken if the disturbed child had in fact behaved as alleged (and given the woman's subsequent barefaced lies, I rather doubt it). Responding with more violence is not one of them.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
Out of curiosity: is it even possible not to be accepted as a guest columnist on the Herald? I'm thinking of putting myself forward for a series of contributions on how we should reintroduce serfage.
-
I'd stepped out of this conversation having grown frustrated by dave crampton's repetitive and seemingly pointless commentary. I see nothing's changed in that regard. Can I suggest now that dave really is simply a troll and we might treat him as such?
And the anti-smackers who just don't think the full force of the criminal law is the best way to change minds ... and the pro-rule-of-law-ers who think Parliament shouldn't be passing legislation it really doesn't want enforced.
Simply criminalising activity, or rather removing a defence for what would otherwise be a criminal act, alone is not sufficient to change behaviour, but it was not the only thing done. I might be misinterpreting you, but you appear to think the amendment will have limited impact. I'd agree but for the fact that the amendment was one of numerous individual and government initiatives intended to reduce child abuse.
-
Out of curiosity: is it even possible not to be accepted as a guest columnist on the Herald? I'm thinking of putting myself forward for a series of contributions on how we should reintroduce serfage.
I'm seriously considering preemptively writing a response piece to Garth George and sending it in, because I just know there will be a whinge about cyclists on the top of the opinions page tomorrow morning.
-
Paul,
Your answer doesn't really address the second part of Graeme's comment that you quoted, though.
As for Dave, I wouldn't go so far as to say he's a troll, but he doesn't argue in entirely good faith.
-
emotive, Russell emotive.Since when has a law been made on the basis that it is not enforced? Answer that.
-
Quit being emotive, Russell. We're talking about children here, not actual people. They're trial persons at best.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.