A friend alerted me to the following email this week, it certainly makes for some interesting reading, and I think it raises some good good questions about the reliablity of the recent report on the issue of smacking…
Families Reject Smacking Report and Claims of ‘Misleading’
“Why were we never consulted” – Parents
We, the parents who were accused of misrepresenting the facts of our smacking cases and therefore misleading Family First, are refuting the claims, and reject the findings of the report commissioned by the Prime Minister.
Why were we never consulted in the process? It appears that our accounts of what happened and the supporting documentation we provided, including court, police and CYF documents, to Family First has been ignored and the only opinion that matters has been that of the police and CYF. The terms of reference of the Review failed to allow our voice to be heard.
The report contains glaring errors including
· misrepresentation of basic facts,
· contains alleged actions of parents which were found to have no basis in court but which still presents the parent as being abusive,
· fails to take into account the response of the court including discharges without conviction for what were previously claimed as serious assaults
· reports a case where the police prosecution was dismissed by the court, yet the report still argues that all police action was appropriate
· fails to address a number of cases where parents were investigated by police or CYF for erroneous claims of smacking made by passers-by or the children themselves ringing 111
In one of the cases, the parent involved says
CYF fully acknowledge that their handling of this case around alleged smacking was inappropriate and breached good practice. They have apologized, both in written form and in person, and freely acknowledge that their failure to adhere to good practice caused undue stress to the family. Although it was certainly appropriate to investigate, the separation of the family for 72 hours should never have happened.
In another case, the parent involved says
The report has included material which paints me as abusing my child yet that evidence was never accepted in court, was only alleged, and the child even renounced those claims to CYF and said the complaint was made up – yet I am still painted as guilty.
As parents referred to in the report, we believe that we should have had the opportunity to respond to the claims made by the police and CYF. This is a one-sided report and fails to objectively hear the evidence from both sides.
We reject the notion that we have misrepresented the facts to Family First, and that Family First has lied in their advocacy work in this area.
Family First has been one of the few organizations willing to hear our side of the story and advocate for our concerns.
We are not child abusers, yet this report continues to make that accusation, and does so without providing an opportunity for rebuttal or a full assessment of the facts.
The effect of the experience of being investigated and in some cases prosecuted has had a huge effect on our families including our children, yet this has been minimized or ignored.
Signed
“John and Sue” – pg 27
Parent – “Father charged for one smack” – pg 24
Parent – “Father charged for shoulder shake” – p21
“John and Mary” – pg 23
“Tania” – pg 30
“Briar” – pg 29
“Jeff and Mary” – pg 28
Parent – “My daughter ran from our house” – pg 31
(page numbers refer to relevant case in Prime Minister’s Report http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Sec59_review.pdf )
You can read the full reponse here – it includes a brief response to each specific case, where the parents refute allegations made in the report
Time to move Ox. The hyperbolic language of the pro-smakers turned out to be empty nonsense. There have been six police reviews and now the Nigel Latta review. No one has been prosecuted for the light smack as the pro-smackers always claimed would happen. These fear-mongers are pedaling this nonsense as they to want to perpetuate this campaign for wider political purposes. It gives Bob McCoskrie and his political allies (Kiwi Party and others) oxygen that they would not normally have.
Do you have kids Man for Some Seasons?
The anti-smacking law is another attack on the family – the traditional family. It is a ’smack’ in the face for a ‘patriarchal’ institution, that is where dad holds prisoner mum and the kids.
In true progressive fashion anything that ’smacks’ of male headship gets the fangs out – children need their safety guaranteed by the State, who is a better parent than blokes and down trodden sheilas……..yeah right. This is the lie lurking behind the apparent need for anti-smacking legislation. It is’nt about the safety of children, children are being used here as a progressive ‘human shield’ hiding the intent to weaken ‘patriarchal’ family models – aka traditional ones.
Sure better parenting means not resorting to violence, but the proof of the matter is that the traditional biologically related and married version are not violent offenders to children.
Children need marriage, dad and mum, to flourish. And without government benefits to suck the economic life out of them.
In fact I’ll go the ‘whole hog’! Let’s also say that children need mother’s at home to care for them as well. O NO… you might say, that means they will have to be dependent on a MAN…..yip, that’s right – the whole caveman act.
Then the State needs to bend the knee and say,”What can we do to help you?”
Brilliant.
Scary White Conservative with a Banjo: I don’t have any children. I’m not re-litigating the issue of corporal discipline. We’ve done that to death. My point is that the sky didn’t fall down as the doom-sayers said it would. Also, I’m suggesting that these doom-sayers have reasons to keep their campaign going no matter what the reviews and the facts say.
Benedicta: If you were being ironic then that was pretty funny (sometimes hard to determine in written word). If you weren’t being ironic then it is even more funny.
I’ll tell you what Man for Some Seasons, if you had kids you’d know that the parenting environment has changed for the worse in NZ since the advent of this law, and that good parents like my wife and I are now left wondering exactly where we stand when it comes to the use of physical discipline – especially when it needs to be used in public.
This law has had a negative impact, even if you are unaware of that negative impact because of your current state in life.
Oh, and on the issue of the review, surely any comprehensive review would include interviews with the parents who were actually prosecuted in the cases being reviewed?!
Without such interviews this review is nothing more than a repackaging and representation of police and CYPFs files, and PR on these cases, and that just isn’t good enough for a report touting itself as a definitive government ordered overview of the new law.
Did you see the recent expert legal opinion on the smacking law published in the latest NZ Law Journal by Prof Richard Ekins from Auckland University?
In it he states that:
- The 2007 Act makes it quite clear that parents who lightly smack their children for the purpose of correction commit a criminal act – contrary to the ‘sales pitch’ by politicians. It also criticises a number of MP’s for the way they have tried to present the effects of the new law
- Any Police policy not to prosecute light smacking is unlawful. ‘If the Government wishes to protect “good parents” from the criminal law then it cannot rely on s 59(4) but must instead invite Parliament to enact legislation specifying when and how reasonable force – a light smack – for the purpose of correction is justified.’
- ‘The Police guidelines for the new s 59 demonstrate a tension between the presumption that light smacking of a child is inconsequential – effectively the Government’s position – and the Police Family Violence Policy’ – namely zero tolerance
- The police guidelines indicate that a parent who lightly smacks their child on more than one occasion or who smacks more than one of their children should be automatically prosecuted
- ‘Reasonable persons accept a duty to obey the law and hence are concerned that the law be reasonable. Because the Act makes it unlawful – a criminal offence – for any person to act in this way, the prospect of being accused, convicted, and punished, while not unimportant, is of secondary interest.’
Well said Benedicta,
My wife would heartily agree
(m4ss) I do not believe the post was being ironic thus you can find it “even more funny”
I wasn’t being ironic.
Society needs to based on foundations which are stable, real, yes and true – when it comes to human society. All human societies everywhere and at all times have endeavoured to create a stable family unit of some sort.
The Christian symbolism is true and enduring and at its heart the human family – mum, dad and children within a loving and committed marriage is its best (God’s best) work of art.
Love is not sentimental, just feeling – rather seeking the good of the other.
In this way children and families flourish.
The State is an ass.
Benedicta,
The State is an ass
Wholeheartedly agree
But then we keep voting them in (well, you do, I’m not allowed to vote yet!), so to some extent we get the leaders we deserve. If you want to change it, get involved.
KA
good evening my good people
*bows low*
hope all is dandy on this fine fine night
man for some seasons,
maybe it didn’t fall down because people spoke out against it, and warned that the law could end up being used against decent families: have you thought of that “man for some seasons”?
there was so much hoohar about it, that everyone became very aware of the possible abuse and misuse of this law – and everybody was tuned into the fact that the coppas would have to use their prudence and discernment as to who would be prosecuted under it
also, it’s far too early to judge the effects of this law change – give it 5 years, then look at it. one can’t really say that it has or hasn’t worked out ok
benedicta and ox
i think that nz has a problem with violence; in principle, i think that parents absolutely have a right to choose what discipline to use when correcting their child (as longas it always respects the spiritual good and flourishment of the child) – and that may mean smacking – or some other form of corporeal punishment :-: restriction of a favorite food, grounding somebody so that they can’t go out, restriction of tv, video games, internet…these all effect the body and a child’s sensitivty, but smacking is a acceptable option IF YOU HAVE MATURE AND RESPONSIBLE PARENTS
however, in today’s nz society, as the family unit falls apart at many levels of society, and many incompetent and under-developed people are becoming parents, who themselves have suffered from bad upbringing and destructive human lifestyles, then there will be more and more parents who cannot control their anger and their use of corporeal punishment
and in this, there exists are VERY REAL danger of children being subjected to corporeal punishment of a severe, excessive, and dangerous nature. some parents, not all, are like this.
and this trend is growing, and becoming a big problem in nz. we all know this – we’ve seen the high profile expositions of child-abuse cases on tv, and seen the stats of the increasing danger to children – particularly in certain cultural communities
this is where the state, can legitimately legislate for the common good of children :-: when it begins to see that some parents are in fact, not a help for their children, but constitute a very real danger. therefore, the state, can indeed, put in place certain well-determined and just laws to protect the vulnerable, the weak, the innocent
i’m not saying that the anti-smacking law is just, or well thought out, but i’m laying out the principle, that in certain cases, when children are in danger, the state can indeed legitimately step in – and in fact, has a duty to do so if children are in real danger. not all implication into family life by the state is evil.
and the more our societies fall apart during these anti-religious and de-humanizing times, the more the state will have to step in – because it will see more and more abuse arising from badly formed and immature people becoming parents; and not being good or incompetent at it, and posing a real danger to their children
it’s a vicious cycle – because these bad parents will produce more undeveloped children who themselves will go onto become bad parents
considering the high rate of child abuse in nz in recent years, i can understand the over-reaction of some to want to put in place certain “tools” so that the state can indeed prosecute those who beat their children and misuse corporeal punishment
some people have even overreacted to the point where they see any form of “smacking” a child as abuse. it’s an over-reaction that one can understand, but it’s certainly not common sense, nor good law making. because they are not really getting to the heart of the problem
it’s not all because they are “anti” the traditional family that they want to have some say in family life – though that is part of this drive – but it’s also because people feel that they want to have a method of recourse to stop abusive parents (all good intentions) – and we have many of them in nz unfortunately
in the process, they have put in a place a law that has the danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water, and good parents could be placed in a situation where they face prosecution for legitimately using corporeal punishment
anyhoo, that’s how it see it
peace my dear cobbers, and cobberettes,
a small addition if i may my good men and feminine types,
in some ways, this movement at the level of corporeal punishment, could be lkened analogously to the church’s current stance on capital punishment
in theory captial punishment is always admissable, but the current stance of holy mother church, coming through the recent papal magisterium’s, and the ordinary magisterium of the college of bishops, is that, due to the culture of death that us so prevalent, the current modern circumstances, and the fight that the church has on its hands with respect to the pro-life stuff, then it has determined that, capital punishment is not neccesarry, even if it still remains licit – when certain conditions are present – because it cannot trust that states will use it with prudence or responsibility, and it won’t help the pro-life fight
it could be that we are in a similar situation here with corporeal punishment – that due to the phigh possibility that it could be abused, we, as christians, should promote another way? just askin?
do well formed parents have other options? that may actually be better to promote during these times? whilst always holding the in view the legitimate option of using smacking when things are a bit dire?
my dad used to hit me with a stick across the legs…i don’t think that should be done nowadays…but i do think a smack with the hand across the bottom would be ok
i can see a development here in my own thought
hitting with a ruler used to be considered fine, and at school we used to get hit with the sharp edge of a hard wooden rule, which hurt like anything and left big bruises…
i think it is good that that type of stuff is gone now. it’s not helpful, and there are better ways to discipline
i wonder if in family that parents should school themselves up better to learn other ways of disciplining, and only use smacking in limited situations?
just askin
ciao
Scary White Conservative with a Banjo: I think you are being a bit melodramatic when you say:
The parents I know, and I know a few, aren’t that concerned by the new(ish) law as they either never used violence against their children or have change their position.
I think the law is rather clear in it’s stance on corporal discipline – you can’t use it. Using force merely to correct is prohibited – other examples of force are allowed. Sue Bradford was rather clear on the matter (at least I thought so). But of course as Richard Ekins knows interpreting the law has never relied on the statements of the Members of Parliament. So it doesn’t actually matter what the then PM said or the new PM said (both who voted for it), laws are interpreted on the text. Any policy that the Police unilaterally proscribed not to prosecuted would be illegal, however, section 59 Crimes Act 1961 specifically states that the Police are to use their discretion in cases of inconsequential effects. If section 59 Crimes Act provides for the use of discretion then by definition it cannot be illegal. Also there will always be tension between government policies – a good example would be that the government has a disarmament minster but also maintaining a Defence Force.
Benedicta: I can’t disagree with your second statement at 7. The family is a great and wonderful thing and one that has to be protected. I also agree that the ideal family is one which has one man and one woman who are married and are open to life. However, I’m not sure why that automatically means corporal discipline. There is no connection between the two. I don’t see why reducing violence has anything to do with dismantling the tradition family. I have two brothers both married with children and whose wives stay home to look after the children. Both don’t use corporal discipline. Are they part of the “progressives” that are dismantling the traditional family?
Secondly, the idea that the traditional family is one where dad goes out to work and mum stays home is a recent invention. Prior to the industrial revolution everyone (dad, mum, the kids, and extended family) worked hard at home as best as they could. Families come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and the to label them as part of attack on traditional families is belittling and unfair, especially to the children who have no say in the matter. Similarly, why the attack on welfare. A number of families need it and without would struggle and be left destitute. Welfare is a complex matter no doubt and there are examples where it hasn’t been positive. However, for a number of families it has worked out well. The current Prime Minister would be a good example.
KA: I take it that since you are called kiwiatheist that you are a New Zealander but what you said at 8 means you are not yet 18 (or at least not at the last election)?
Dave Morgan: I would point out that most of the ruckus was post-amendment – the referendum and the march. The law passed with the discretionary provisions in it. Perhaps we do need more than a year to determine the effect of the law. However, we know what the position was before the passing of the law.
Also good point about the good of society. While I think violence should be avoided if one can, there is an argument that since society can’t handle corporal discipline, then it may be best if we got rid of it altogether.
And my wife and I don’t use “violence against [our] children” either, instead we use mild acts of physical discipline if, and when, they are required.
And no, I’m not being melodramatic at all, I’m simply stating the facts as they now stand for my wife and I, who are parents, and so we can speak from a perspective that you don’t yet have.
Oh, and Professor Ekins is just one of four expert legal opinions that I have seen published on the new law, all of whom state that the law is NOT clear, and it does NOT provide adequate protections for parents who use inconsequential acts of physical discipline.
Man for Some Seasons,
Slight problem with this reasoning – the state must never impose itself in a way that is unjust, excessive or, as in this case, interferes with the subsidiarity of the family.
Even if the end is a good one, that doesn’t justify recourse to any means possible, on the part of the state, to achieve that good end.
Yes, the state must protect the common good, but it must do so in a way that is just and not unduly excessive.
If we were to follow this rationale in other matters then alcohol would be illegal in NZ, as would driving, because both of those things claim many lives every year in NZ due to excesses and misuse.
The other three flaws in your approach here, and these are specifically related to physical discipline, are:
1. Reliable evidence shows that use of inconsequential physical discipline does not cause any harm to children – kids raised with mild physical discipline actually have the same life outcomes as children raised with non-physical methods.
So therefore, banning ALL forms of physical discipline is excessive and unwarranted on the part of the state, as mild physical discipline does not harm children.
And if the state has now decided that it’s just going to ban things merely because certain ideologues disagree with those things, then perhaps it could look at banning Christmas, or letting your kids eat sweets (after all we have a big problem with child obesity in NZ too).
2. There is no robust evidence to support the claim that banning all forms of physical discipline will do anything to reduce violence against children.
3. There is a huge difference between light smacking and beating, maiming or pulverizing a defenseless child.
This.
People don’t seem to be able to grasp this concept of having legal text that rules out the behaviour completely in combination with an enforcing body that uses discretion.
Key describes it well with the battery/assault legislation. Any physical contact is technically illegal, but the police are never going to charge someone for bumping into someone else.
Can’t wait till this blows over after another year or so…
fishe,
Bumping into someone isn’t actually technically an act of assault at all, more than just mere physical contact is required for it to be a technical assault.
The problem with the new section 59 is that it is so poorly written that it is literally a ticking time bomb waiting to go off on parents, which is why groups like Family First are right to continue opposing this law.
This is about more than just mere police discretion, John Key has actually instructed the police to ignore the law as it is written and instead follow a course of action which is opposed to the letter of the law as it is currently written.
Such an approach to the crimes act is just plain farcical, and it isn’t protective of parents because they now depend on the personal views of the prime minister (regarding the acceptability of physical discipline), rather than the letter of the law, as their protection from unjust prosecution – and this is a measure that is totally arbitrary and open to change at any time.
Scary White Conservative with a Banjo: As I said before, I’m not going to re-litigate the matter. However, the evidence is not as you say. Most of medical, psychiatric, and psychological organisations around the world argue for no corporal discipline. But of course I’m not a doctor so I just have to take their word for it. Perhaps you know better.
John Key has not instructed the Police to not follow the letter of the law. He is not legally entitled to. Section 59 Crimes Act 1961 states:
Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(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.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
It’s sub-section (4) that gives the Police the discretion not to prosecute. How many times does this have to be pointed out – it’s getting ridiculous.
It will always be tricky relating what to prohibit and what not to. Hence why we have politics – the process of compromise. Alcohol does destroy some communities and I don’t have a problem with the government’s campaign of alcohol education. Some times education is the best method and sometimes prohibition (with education) is the best method – that line may not always be clear. But in a society such as New Zealand we need to make a decision one may or another and we have a process for that.
As fische siad this matter will blow over.
and now a law is proposed that alerting authorities to abuse is mandatory for you and me.
on the face of it a good move to stop serious abuse but this will mean that any smacking will be required to be notified and the police will have to act and advise CYFS, parents get interviewed, traumatized, tainted and disillusioned………
Time to move Ox. The hyperbolic language of the pro-smakers turned out to be empty nonsense.
You have absolutely no idea.
So what is the time limit on effecting social changes? Three months? Nine months? Two years? Ten years? Don’t assume looking at ONE aspect of this law change sorts out the ramifications of the full effect simply because you say so. Add it to your “asbestos is safe, and smoking is healthy campaigns.
The report was indeed faulty. No deep investigation into parents alleging mishandling by CYFS for example.
How about the case of suspected child abuse, which went to court, the judge passed a “not guilty” sentence and CYFS removed the child anyway and two years later the couple were still fighting to get their kid back. Empty nonsense? You have absolutely no idea.
As for your simplistic argument:
Also good point about the good of society. While I think violence should be avoided if one can, there is an argument that since society can’t handle corporal discipline, then it may be best if we got rid of it altogether.
1. Get rid of driving first.
2. Then get rid of drinking.
3. Then get rid of rugby.
4. Then learn the difference between violence and a smack in discipline, before suggesting that since you cannot tell the difference we need to assume good parents cannot tell the difference.
Is physical discipline over-used or incorrectly applied by parents? I’d probably agree on that point. Just as verbal threats, incidence of impatience, berating children unnecessarily and general self control are issues most parents face, and parents are guilty of at some point in their lives. Should it (physical discipline applied sensibly) be outlawed? No, that is the wrong way to approach this issue, and the law as it stands is offensive to all good parents, irrespective of the perceived effects at this point on time.
Zen Tiger: The evidence against caporal discipline has been around for decades – this just didn’t come to someone six months ago. Schools haven’t been able to use corporal discipline for 20 years – how’s that worked out? Is that long enough? I suspect that no matter how the report was complied people would argue against it unless it came to their conclusion of course.
Calling my argument simplistic also doesn’t make it so. It is predicated on the idea that individuals at times have to forgo their personal preferences because others in society are incapable of handling those same preferences properly. It’s true that hundreds die from car accidents and alcohol abuse every year. I’m not sure if you should really be suggesting that car accidents and alcohol abuse are really the same as lightly smacking children. I know the difference between a light smack and abuse (both are violent just placed differently on the same spectrum). However, a number of parents do not and if we as a society can send a message that violence towards children is unacceptable then that is a good thing. I think a more apt analogy is the council by-laws prohibiting people from drinking on the beach. I’ve had a beer on the beach and didn’t cause any problems, however, others have caused problems. Therefore, we all have to forgo that pleasurable experience. Parenting is more than smacking your kids. It’s not necessary to raise your kids with corporal discipline and, therefore, the prohibition on corporal discipline. Is it a few spoiling for the rest, perhaps, but that is often the way. Also, read section 59(4) Crimes Act 1961. A light smack, if it’s inconsequential, will not be prosecuted – that’s simply the law. Also lots of good parents don’t use corporal discipline.
I haven’t heard about the couple who have lost their child. But if they haven’t seen their child for more than 2 years then that has nothing to do with the prohibition against corporal discipline since that has only been a law for year. However, I would point out the different standards in evidence and proof in courts and CYFS. However, since I don’t know the details I’m only speculating.
Hi ManForSomeSeasons
Firstly, Merry Christmas.
Secondly, two relevant posts here: Why good parents are criminals and Kiro On Parents
I’m not sure if you should really be suggesting that car accidents and alcohol abuse are really the same as lightly smacking children.
Actually, in effect you are. Because you think people cannot tell the difference between keeping to the limit and not keeping to the limit, you want to ban all driving. NZ is just not ready for it. Because some people drink too much alcohol, you want to make it illegal for even people who drink responsibly to be in breach of the law, and if police investigate, well, they will let them off. Because apparently, any alcohol consumption must be assumed to be evil.
It is not for the state to legislate our morality in this way.
I haven’t heard about the couple who have lost their child. But if they haven’t seen their child for more than 2 years then that has nothing to do with the prohibition against corporal discipline since that has only been a law for year.
I’m afraid it has everything to do with smacking. Even before the law change, CYFS can treat the issue as “illegal” given their ideology (all smacking is abuse, as per my link to Cindy Kiro). There is insufficient oversight of this organisation, to the point when a judge makes a court ruling, they can disregard it. That is very scary.
When this review excluded even consideration of looking into complaints from parents over handling of smacking cases where CYFS were involved, I realised the report was a political puff piece, and not an objective assessment.
John Key said “just one case…”
Yeah right.
PS: That is not to say I believe CYFS do a bad job – but like any large institution, it is possible for bad people to hide amongst the good work. We know this to be true.
Zen Tiger: I understand your argument – I just disagree with them. Have a Merry Christmas.
Fair enough, that’s the way it goes.
For all the other readers trying to figure this out, one comment on this point:
Schools haven’t been able to use corporal discipline for 20 years – how’s that worked out? Is that long enough? I suspect that no matter how the report was complied people would argue against it unless it came to their conclusion of course.
I don’t think it worked out particularly well, actually. This is because rather than just ban corporal punishment, the underlying ideology was that there was an issue with discipline, so it wasn’t replaced with anything better. It was one item among many that has seen a decline in general respect for others. In any case, bad teachers that resorted to the cane for the wrong reasons, switched to humiliation for the same wrong reasons, and I recall a couple of incidents in my own school days that would make me prefer the cane any day to the treatment meted out as the cane was phased out.
Also, when using the argument to suggest that banning corporal punishment in schools didn’t see the end of the world, then we need to wonder if the world would have ended if it hadn’t been banned. The answer – no it would not have ended. What would have probably happened is more controls on the application of any form of punishment (such as the teacher involved cannot mete out punishment, the issue is referred to a third party such as the principle etc)
The trend to ban discipline (which the s59 replacement reinforces) whilst preserving reasonable force for other reasons continues this mistaken belief that discipline (physical and mental) is evil, because bad people misuse it.
The measures used to assess whether the new law is working or not, checked the wrong areas. The impact of this change will be felt in different ways than people seem prepared to consider. Will society end because of this change? No, especially if the message is that people can break the law because it is designed to be broken, then that just reinforces the rot that is setting in when it comes to people’s perception of law, order and justice.
Zen Tiger,
Am I right or wrong in thinking that the worst of class discipline, attacks on teachers now included , began as a result of the withdrawl of corporal punishment ? Back when the Ritchies were pushing for that ban the idea of extending it to the home too at a later date seemed to be insinuated and planed in the humanist manifesto.
Hope that God showered many blessings on all the Being frank family.
Shallom
I’m not sure where you’re getting your info from, but I can provide you links to studies by ANTI-SMACKING advocates which show that light smacking and non-physical forms of punishment produce identical life outcomes in children, with no more harm to children from light smacking than from non-physical forms of punishment.
You’re missing the point MFSS.
If we applied your flawed reasoning regarding banning smacking to all areas of governance then it would be illegal to drive cars or drink alcohol, both of which cause hundreds of deaths and mayhem every year when they are abused and misused.
It’s terribly flawed and overly simplistic to suggest that the only way to deal with excess is to resort to outlawing all forms of the act, or thing, being taken into excess.
It’s actually a false dichotomy, because you’ve created an either/or situation when in actual fact there are other options which address child abuse without the imposition of the state upon families by outlawing smacking.
And therein lies your problem, you don’t seem to be able to differentiate between a light, loving act of physical discipline from a good parent, and an act of child abuse perpetrated with rage or hatred.
That’s not an apt example at all, because you can still leave the beach and have a beer at home, or at a pub, etc.
If you wanted to use the beer analogy then it would go like this – people cause problems at the beach after drinking alcohol, so NZ government bans all alcohol.
Of course it is, and no one here is suggesting that parenting is only smacking, so it’s a bit of a straw man to imply that thus is the position of those who oppose the anti-smacking law.
Spoken like someone who doesn’t understand the day to day realities of raising children.
Sometimes a light smack is actually the most effective and only option available to a parent.
There can be no blanket approach to this issue precisely because every child is different – some kids will never even need so much as a raised voice, while others require something a bit more direct and a lot stronger.
Every child is different and every situation is different, it actually makes parenting a lot harder when an effective and harmless tool like light smacking is removed from parents with excessive and pointless laws which will do nothing to reduce child violence.
Well, according to the legal experts, section 59 is a dog’s breakfast and it does not provide adequate legal protections for good parents like me.
Oh, and if you want to talk about the effects of this law, how about pondering the fact that child deaths have not abated since its introduction.
If you’re going to judge a law merely by its outcomes, then this one is off to a dismal start.
(Of course it is ludicrous to judge the quality and acceptability of something by its outcomes, because it also matters very much what means you employ to attain those outcomes)
What these continuing child deaths are proving is what myself and other good parents have known all along – people who beat, maim and kill children don’t care about over zealous and ideologically driven laws which see the state imposing itself upon families in a way that is unacceptable, because what those people do to their kids has nothing to do with physical discipline, or what the law says they can or can’t do.
SwWB
“Spoken like someone who doesn’t understand the day to day realities of raising children.
Sometimes a light smack is actually the most effective and only option available to a parent.”
The point of smacking whether light,moderate or forceful is to induce fear in the recipent and I have yet to see any parent smack their child with an expression of love on their face!
I find it amazing the strongest advocates of smacking always argue with the most vehemence in their writing.Speaks volumes
HB
Smacking is a technique to punish and correct bad behavior.
that is because proponents of the right to smack (as a means of loving correction), recognize that those who oppose it are more interested in attacking traditional family values than the actual welfare of children.
Your attitude to smacking reflects your spirituality, is there no place for correction?
God is all loving so will not punish us either for our wrongs?
What is purgatory and hell for you, time out in the naughty chair?
HB,
You may not have seen a look of love on the face of a parent when they have given their child a light smack but I certainly have… there was no fear engendered either but a reminder that what had caused the need for a smack was wrong in a variety of possible ways…. the message got through, where as I have seen parents in more recent times spend ages explaining in words to the ir children why what they had done was wrong without successful out come … time out in their room proved no deterent either in most cases
In my own childhood I was given an occassional smack ( no fear there either but I never went back for a second dose ) am grateful looking back for those smacks . Before I married I was a pre-school teacher for many years and saw the concerned love of certain parents who delivered a smack.
I have had two sons and , in early days I did smack a couple of times at least … the boys understood what it was for … now that they are in their thirties we have a very close relationship … neither they nor have become violent people as some anti-smacking people would claim that we would have become.
Shallom and Happy New year as of next Friday to all.
One point:
whatever happened to behavioral psychology?
Smacking is a form of presentation punishment, which is an unsophisticated approach to modifying behavior. It’s often a last resort such as with jail or speeding tickets. I think it is inadequate to draw child development and parenting practice purely in shades of smacking and non-smacking. The ’smackers’ act is if an entire realm of parent-child communication has been abolished and ‘non-smackers’ pretend children are far more rational and sensible than they are and never succumb to inexplicable behavior!
Wouldn’t it be more useful to report on the spectrum of successful parenting techniques?
The thing I don’t like about the whole pro-smacker argument is the implication, or perhaps it is rather obvert, that smacking your kids is done in love and that loving parents will smack their kids. However, my parents loved me and never used corporal discipline, and there are lots of parents who love their kids who never use corporal discipline. It’s funny, but it’s the parents that have the pre-conceived notion that parents need to smack that somehow it’s their kids that need to be smacked. As it has been shown over and over again that corporal discipline is not necessary then why use it – perhaps it’s because of parents pre-conceived notion.
Scary White Conservative with a Banjo: I’m not going to argue about analogies as we can be here all day. However, the analogy is that since drinking beer on the beach isn’t the only way we can drink, then it’s reasonable for it to be prohibited if it’s causing problems, even if the majority do it responsibly. Just as corporal discipline isn’t necessary and parenting has far more to it than corporal discipline then it is reasonable to prohibit corporal discipline if problems are arising, which they are. It’s not like banning all alcohol since no-on is banning parenting.
Perhaps section 59 Crimes Act could be written better – but that’s true for a lot of legislation. Have a look at the Income Tax Act and tell me what that means – and that affects all of us every day. The Courts have always had to interpret legislation and in particular the term “reasonable” so there is nothing new here. That’s just how legislation works..
Dei Verbum: You stated that those that are opposed to corporal discipline “are more interested in attacking traditional family values than the actual welfare of children”. That’s absolutely nonsense. Are you saying Caritas is interested in attacking traditional family values? I oppose corporal discipline and I very much support families. One shouldn’t demonize one’s opponents, as once that is done there is no chance for dialogue.
MfSS;
It is the parents who believe that smacking as a corrective measure is appropriate, who are being demonised.
If what you say about your own upbringing is correct then surely this means education is the answer. Instead social engineers have resorted to change by decree.
If you support families you should recognise the authority within them to decide the best means of discipline for their own family and not impose yours.
Dei Verbum:
Again you are making the same logical fallacy that all the pro-smackers appear to make – you seem to think that good parents have to smack. Supporting families has nothing to do with corporal discipline. I support families and I don’t support corporal discipline. And it’s not merely imposing for the sake of imposing as though I’m some busy-body with too much time on my hands. The reasons for against corporal discipline have be repeated over and over and I’m not repeating them here. Parental authority has its limits and I think the limits lay in one place and you believe it lays elsewhere. I do support parental authority but it’s not unlimited.
That may or may not be true – however, what you said above was hyperbolic and doesn’t help the discussion.
MfSS
it isnt a matter that good parents have to smack its that you are considered a bad one if you do.
Good parents dont say that smacking is good in fact they would nearly all say that when you have got to that point you have probably missed some alternatives, but it is important to children to know that their parents have authority over them and smacking is part of this.
lack of discipline can be a form of abuse.