Hard News: The son that got away
144 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Was I naive? I don't know. I'm normally healthily cynical, y'know. If they are going to have the law, I do think it needs clarifying.
Jackie, Boscawen's bill is essentially a re-run of Chester Borrows' amendment, which sought to define an acceptable level of hitting.
The problem with the Borrows amendment was that while it looked reasonable, its wording would have allowed, say, hitting a baby in the head, so long as its effect was transitory and trifling.
Boscawen was asked by a sharp young interviewer on bFM to define "transitory and trifling", after he'd repeatedly used the phrase. He couldn't. He lost his thread and then eventually offered that it was a smack that wouldn't cause any pain or "concern" to the child.
Well, why bother then? Where, in the real world, might such an impactless smack occur? And if the man touting the bill can't define its crucial test, what chance that some parents will have their own idea of what "transitory and trifling".
Others have suggested that the test for "transitory and trifling" is whether a smack leaves bruises or not. The idea that it might be okay so long as you leave no bruises is a bit creepy for me.
Where both bills differ sharply from the current law is that they would allow parents to physically manhandle children not just to keep them and others safe, but to "correct" them. That's the big difference.
-
Boscawen was asked by a sharp young interviewer on bFM to define "transitory and trifling", after he'd repeatedly used the phrase. He couldn't. He lost his thread and then eventually offered that it was a smack that wouldn't cause any pain or "concern" to the child.
And that's where I've got to call bullshit on the whole exercise -- because, to be blunt, if you're not "smacking" hard enough to cause some kind of 'pain' or 'concern' to the object of your loving parental correction, WHY THE FLAMING FRAK ARE YOU DOING IT?
I'd also suggest that if I walked up to Boscawen and kicked him in the baby-maker, the effects would be "transitory" (in the sense that the pain would eventually fade) and probably "trifling" (no permanent harm done to his ability to get it up and make bubba juice). But it would still be common assault.
-
Now that's clarifying. As ever, thankyou Russell. See, I should pay more attention. My concern is this - I work with children who, whilst they are not physically abused, some certainly get more than a little smack occasionally. My whole thing is strategies. as in if you are brought up in a culture where the occasional bash is normal, what do you do when you have children yourself? Lots of our parents don't smack, I know this, but some have a temper for sure. Take away the smacking and what do you replace it with? A piece of legislation does not tell you how NOT to smack, what to do if you're angry and you don't WANT to smack but can't think or don't know of any alternatives. And there doesn't seem to be much education around this, except for those most violent of parents. Most of my parents don't care about the legislation, they'll just keep on doing what they do, which is why if a child has been particularly destructive, often we do not feed back. I won't have a bashing on my conscience. What we've been doing is offering altermatives, but that's just us. It needs to be at a more accessible level. Our parents do HIPPY, some do parenting courses, so they're pretty enlightened, most of them, in their community. That is my worry. Legislating often alienates those it's supposed to educate/inform/whatever.
-
The idea that it might be okay so long as you leave no bruises is a bit creepy for me.
Me too
WHY THE FLAMING FRAK ARE YOU DOING IT?
Exactomondo.
what to do if you're angry and you don't WANT to smack but can't think or don't know of any alternatives.
More campaigning on the TV against child abuse and emphasis on smacking as an aside to what it can lead to could be a simple effective start to enlighten those uninformed. Saturation campaigning, much like what ffs (plural for plural meaning :) do but with govt funds.Trade with the ad for cell phones they have at the mo.
-
And there doesn't seem to be much education around this, except for those most violent of parents.
That's a really good point, and I appreciate your frontline perspective, Jackie.
Baldock touched on it in the Media7 discussion when he said that "all that positive parenting stuff" was hard. But his solution to that was that smacking was an acceptable substitute for positive parenting.
It's also a bit illogical to declare some parents incapable of following positive parenting -- but somehow quite capable of conceiving and employing the boundaries of "transitory and trifling" without mishap. Especially when the guy bringing the bill couldn't define it in an interview.
-
The problem with the Borrows amendment was that while it looked reasonable, its wording would have allowed, say, hitting a baby in the head, so long as its effect was transitory and trifling.
No more than the current law, which allows hitting a baby in the head for any of the following purposes:
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.even if the effect is more than transitory and trifling.
I also think you've misunderstood the (proposed) effect of Borrows' amendment. It wasn't drafted to say "using force against a child for the purposes of correction is reasonable if the effect is no more than transitory and trifling"; rather it was drafted in the negative "any force which has effect which are more than transitory and trifling is by definition unreasonable".
The law as it was said reasonable force used for correction was lawful and left it up to juries to decide what was reasonable and what wasn't.
The law as it stands says reasonable force used for various purposes other than correction is lawful and leaves it up to juries to decide what is reasonable and what isn't.
Borrows' Amendment states that reasonable force used for correction would be lawful and would leave it up to juries to decide what would be reasonable and what wouldn't, but defines some things as automatically unreasonable.
I do not believe the current law would allow someone to hit a baby in the head - because I will not accept that this could be reasonable. But this applies to Borrows' amendment equally. To get off you still have to convince a finder of fact that hitting a baby in the head is reasonable. It doesn't matter that the effect was only transitory and trifling, it can be unreasonable even though transitory and trifling, so it would be illegal.
-
it was drafted in the negative "any force which has effect which are more than transitory and trifling is by definition unreasonable".
Does that mean that a use of force that has an effect that is more than transitory and trifling, but is nevertheless needed to prevent harm to the child (from "a" above) would be unlawful?
-
Does that mean that a use of force that has an effect that is more than transitory and trifling, but is nevertheless needed to prevent harm to the child (from "a" above) would be unlawful?
No.
"a" above is from the current law (i.e. Sue Bradford's law).
The bit that I was pointing out was drafted in the negative was Chester Borrows' proposed amendment.
-
Does that mean that a use of force that has an effect that is more than transitory and trifling, but is nevertheless needed to prevent harm to the child (from "a" above) would be unlawful?
Sorry. I get the question now.
Were Borrow's amendment adopted during the committee of the whole stage - yes.
-
..so what does " more than transitory or trifling" mean, then. You cant hit a kid too hard for correction but you can hit him a little harder if he is running into a speeding car because transitory and trifling has an elevated threshold in certain circumstances?
-
You mean trifling is about just desserts?
-
Depressing correction incident.
Mikaio's defense lawyer, Ted Faleauto, said she had pleaded guilty to what she had done but denied causing the head injury.
Mr Faleauto said his client was not guilty of failing to provide for her son because she did what she thought was appropriate at the time.
-
Maybe the three year old boy was defiantly wetting the bed, in which case we should see Baldcock and co race to this parent's defence.
-
Does that mean that a use of force that has an effect that is more than transitory and trifling, but is nevertheless needed to prevent harm to the child (from "a" above) would be unlawful?
Were Borrow's amendment adopted during the committee of the whole stage - yes.
So say for example force that seriously bruises a child is used, but used in an effort to protect from very serious, immanent danger. The proposed law would say that is a criminal act because the force used was not "transitory or trifling". Unless bad bruising counts as "transitory". In which case that would be equally transitory in cases of correction...
-
So say for example force that seriously bruises a child is used, but used in an effort to protect from very serious, immanent danger. The proposed law would say that is a criminal act because the force used was not "transitory or trifling". Unless bad bruising counts as "transitory". In which case that would be equally transitory in cases of correction...
One might instead argue self-defence/defence of another, or some sort of defence of 'necessity'. But section 59 (as amended by Chester Borrows) would be of no assistance.
-
Oh for FUCK'S SAKE. Key has just appointed Nigel Latta to the group reviewing the child discipline law.
-
Oh for FUCK'S SAKE. Key has just appointed Nigel Latta to the group reviewing the child discipline law.
Lawlz. I should be outraged at the triumph of media over substance, but I don't have the energy.
(At least he seems in favour of non-smacking forms of discipline? And thinks solo mums are perfectly competent parents? He's...not Larry Baldock?)
-
Hey now. We kindergarten teachers like Nigel Latta. We are also fond of Diane Levy.
-
Those are the words of a man, IMO, that fancies himself, rather more than is healthy.
Couldn't agree more. I, along with about 700 others in education went to see Mr Latta in Hastings last term expecting some ideas on how to deal with difficult children. What we got was the Nigel Latta self promotional comedy show. In fact I felt his attitude tended to belittle the behaviour of children and some adults.
-
Having built myself a PVR, I've never managed to see Nigel Latta. However, he brings balance to the (reasonable) force, without being a Rankin or a McCoskrie. I took a more optimist view than Steven of his comments posted above, and it may turn out that if he sees little evidence of 'good' parents being prosecuted he might change his mind. And I assume that as Lucy noted, he's not into the correction/discipline type of 'smacking' that others note.
-
Oh for FUCK'S SAKE. Key has just appointed Nigel Latta to the group reviewing the child discipline law.
Put on yer Julie Andrews frock and sing along with John:
I have confidence in Latta
I have confidence in Hide
I have confidence that they can turn the tide
Besides, you can see I have confidence in meeee....! -
Oh for FUCK'S SAKE. Key has just appointed Nigel Latta to the group reviewing the child discipline law.
John Key wants this all to go away - and he wants a review to make it go away. Whom should he appoint to the groups for it to have any hope of achieving his goal?
-
Dude fancies himself as a skeptic, and yet was fooled by Sensing Murder. Either that, or the lure of being on a high-rating program caused an unjustified generosity. Can't say I place much value on his independence of mind.
-
Dude fancies himself as a skeptic, and yet was fooled by Sensing Murder.
Not. Impressed.
-
Good to see you bring this debate out on Media 7 russell. I greatly admired your restraint with Larry Baldock - I could see you were tempted to apply some good parental correction to the man who of course did not make any sense. Brian Edwards mirrored my response so well - considering what needs to be changed in the world, considering the shear scale of social problems needing leadership this man choose to dedicate a year of his life to secure the right to hit his children.
Its too crazy to consider a real motivation so what was Larry Baldock's motivation ? As that young herald reporter ?Nippet? suggested was it all just a PR exercise to leverage profile for a christian right political movement ? Hey that I can understand.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.