56 Comments
19 April 2007
JK Video Journal #4
19 April 2007. Video Journal #4. John opens with a brief discussion about domestic violence and concludes with a discussion of developments on the 'anti-smacking' bill to repeal Section 59. He makes the point that there should be common ground between the sides in the debate since all want essentially the same outcomes. He notes that, despite statements from Labour and the Greens that the correctional spanking of children is currently illegal, it is not. For more on this, click here. |
#1 - Simon A 2007-04-20 09:00 - (Reply)
Thank you John. A great entry - nice to hear things laid out clearly and, as you say, there are bigger issues but this is something that is currently dear to the average NZ parent's heart as it affects them directly and immediately so it is good that you see the wisdom in getting it sorted properly first (if possible...)
#2 - Martin O'Neill said:
2007-04-20 19:21 - (Reply)
1 I agree with you entirely John on everything you have said. 2 What a breath of fresh air it is to have someone exhibit leadership qualities at long last. Let's sort this thing out and get on with the opther issues you mention. 3 Keep your present style. You always seem to have the initiative on most major issues. Let's work together to a change of government either before or at the next election.
#3 - Robert James Walker 2007-04-20 19:33 - (Reply)
Sue & Helen deny the majority opinion [ are they deaf ] but I agree with your stance , a law that does not work is a bad law . Are they just trying to waste Parliament's time or is it more State Control of our lives ?? Do they really know what is best for us . Their Bill as it is will NOT have any effect on the battered child problem and its a serious problem
#4 - John Sansom 2007-04-20 20:17 - (Reply)
I agree with your comments on Anti Smacking as set out in your Newsletter Keynotes #8
#4.1 - Brett Yeatman 2007-04-21 12:49 - (Reply)
This whole anti smacking has got nothing to do with protecting our children and everything to do with controlling law abiding good parents.This present government is not democrate and am shocked at how much they get away with.They are more like an African or South American stlyed government.We have to get them out at the next election or New Zealand is in grave danger!
#5 - Dr Stan Simpson 2007-04-20 20:23 - (Reply)
You are on the right track.It must be acceptable for a sentence as follows to be included. "A light smack in response to repeated unruly behavior by a child is acceptable within a generally wholesome family environment"
#6 - Ann Nolan 2007-04-20 20:57 - (Reply)
It is a very bad policy that turns good kiwi parents into criminals, if this bill is passed parents might as well just give birth then hand their children over to some state institution as we are heading that way.
#7 - donna cherry 2007-04-20 21:05 - (Reply)
I agree with everything John Key said. I and others like me are truly glad that John is standing up to Helen and we need that desperately and it is truly imperative that the public believe in John and the Nats. I am true blue and like others like me so look forward to the day that National takes NZ back. The Police are down in public confidence. they are lacking good training and are violent themselves or otherwise ineffective. Never trust the police and give power to them otherwise NZ will be an unsafe place for parents in relation to the anti smacking bill. NZ parents will be clocking up the criminal convictions adn running up costs taxpayer or otherwise to defend the charges the police will bring on the parents. Anyway the violent parents are few in number in relation to the great and wonderful parents out there. Yes it is agreed that the current government is corrupt. We have lots of law reform we need to do that is essential like the child support act and the ird act, both of which are draconian and outdated. Mums are screwing the dads and dads have no right to ask for a paternity test, and yet they are expected to pay child support when they are not sure it is their kid. We need you John for those laws that really need to be changed and the anti smacking bill must not progress otherwise Helen will get her MPs to vote with her. So much for the democratic process. Go John go...we are with you and we need to get rid of the MMP too otherwise the smaller parties are ruling the country, the tail wagging the dog. Keep up the good work John
#8 - Celia Frost 2007-04-20 21:31 - (Reply)
The repeal of section 59 really only is a concern for those parents who want to use the law to claim 'reasonable force' when beating their children. I do not understand why National are insisting on protecting and supporting parents who want to beat their children. It is not about smacking. Your argument that the Bill will criminalise parents who lightly smack and that the Police and judiciary will be obliged to prosecute good parents is simply a manipulation. Currently we have law that relates to speeding - it says that it is against the law to drive over 50kmh in a built up area - people often do - but Police only ticket those that exceed 10kmh over the limit of the Law - when the speeding is deemed excessive. The same principle will be applied to this - and you know it.
#9 - Collin Blackman 2007-04-20 21:36 - (Reply)
i endorse your comments on this video #4. We do not need more poorly drafted legislation which will not be enforced. There sould be clear differentiation between smacking with the hand and beating with a crop, whip, belt, rod etc. Perhaps the biggest hurdle is to get the media to listen to sense.
#10 - Mike Minogue 2007-04-20 21:53 - (Reply)
It is clearly a nonsense to introduce laws that are unenforceable it belittles the NZ Judiciary. Get on with some real management of this country please.
#11 - Bruce Pownall 2007-04-20 22:05 - (Reply)
Agree entirely with your comments John. The proposed change to section 59 is ridiculous law and if you are unsuccessful in altering the stance of Clark and Bradford, and the law change as proposed, is passed, I suggest that the reversal of such becomes an election issue and a priority for the new National government in 2008.
#12 - H.C.&S.Barton 2007-04-20 22:33 - (Reply)
We agree with your thoughts and comments relative to the anti-smacking bill.
#13 - Michael 2007-04-20 22:55 - (Reply)
The bill, once passed into law is intended to punsih those who physically abuse children and I suppose it is meant to be deterrent and prevent adults from smaking their children. The trouble is, those who abuse their kids does give a toss about the law. The people who will now be prosecuted will include loving parents who are trying to keep their on the straight and narrow. I think Helen and Sue could do with a light smack for thinking that this silly Bill will make one scrap of difference to reducing child abuse. In summary, flawed thinking, flawed bill, flawed law will lead to flawed jutice. Sounds like the worst of all worlds to me.
#14 - Martin Tyrrell 2007-04-21 06:47 - (Reply)
I agree that what is needed is to define "reasonable force" in S59. e.g. For the purposes of this section reasonable force shall be defined as not exceeding (say) six smacks with the open hand on the legs or buttocks of a child It seems an irony that the promoters of the changed law do not have children!
#15 - Duncan Lennox 2007-04-21 08:16 - (Reply)
I have yet to see compelling evidence that Section 59 has enabled people to get a way with beating up their children. Twelve ordinary citizens having heard all the evidence of each case have concluded either that the force used was reasonable in the circumsatnces or not. At issue here is not the kind of child abuse that, quite rightly horrifies us all. Repeal of Section 59 will do nothing to prevent that kind of abuse. Deal with the true cause of child abuse which is the breakdown of the nuclear family and the abandonment and undermining of the basic values on which our society was built - the Ten Commandments. Bradford's bill is an attack on ordinary, decent citizens who love thier children enough to discipline and train them. OUr children do not turn into criminals - violent or otherwise.
#16 - Alan Brown 2007-04-21 09:29 - (Reply)
John, If only the majority of us Kiwi's were given the education on how to use psychological warfare on our children(and some use this now which can be more abusive than smacking) then repealing section 59 would be the right thing to do but like most societies world wide most of us do not get to learn from our parents or the state the correct way of doing this and many will have their opinion on which is the right way.If we start now it is going to take many generations before we can come close to repealing section 59. Alan Brown.
#17 - Doug Withers said:
2007-04-21 09:35 - (Reply)
I am fedup with being lied to by Helen and Sue about the smacking issue, and this is certainly not the first time either of them have been caught lying. After watching the "Timaru Woman" involved in the "riding crop case" on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD1Tvu206Nw I am angry that the CY&F department are still treating this woman as a criminal and have not given her children back when she has been found to be innocent. Why does this government department think they can interpret the law better than the courts? Why do Sue and Helen think they can lie to us about the facts of the "riding crop case"? Why do the family courts discriminate against parents who believe in occasionally using reasonable force to discipline their children? National has so much work to do (and not just in this area) when you get to take over after the next election!
#18 - BJ Dooley 2007-04-21 11:07 - (Reply)
Great idea to share your thoughts on the Web this way, and I generally agree--but would go a step further, perhaps. I believe the "conscience vote" needs to be abolished. This is an anti-democratic construct that permits individuals with strong views or back room negotiation skills to legislate against the will--and the collective conscience--of the people. Thus we get both Free Whoring and Anti Smacking. When more than 80 percent of the population objects, supporting such measures as a representative of the people is unconscionable, and makes of the legislator a perjurer. Remember, Hitler came to power with an equivalent construction! End of thought.
#19 - Tom Johnson 2007-04-21 11:22 - (Reply)
Hi John, I agree it is bad law. It also is another example of a conceited Government that thinks it knows best and interferes with my individual freedoms to make decisions within the law. Reasonable force as a form of discipline can establish boundaries for behaviour. This should not be criminalised. Violent behaviour should be punished. This Bill does nothing to focus on the causes or results of violent parenting and is therefoe dangerous legislation. Regards, Tom Johnson
#20 - Aileen 2007-04-21 11:46 - (Reply)
Thank you John for your commonsense discussion re the smacking Bill - we are already being over legislated in many areas now and this is an area where we as parents should be left to use our good common sense with our children that we know best, and therefore how each of them needs to be disciplined. What needs to be looked at is why we have so many angry parents and in turn angry children who are lashing out in a way that is not acceptable and while discussion of this matter publicly does we hope highten the conscience of people it is not for the government to be making laws about the way so many good parents take care of their children on a day to day basis. We all need to be careful to be appealing as often is the way to the minority of people who don't do things well and forgetting to applaud the many wonderful parents an extended families that do a fantastic job in raising fine citizens in New Zealand. I personally live and work with some absolutely wonderful parents and have raised four children with my husband, who are now contributing some great things to society. The parents I know are a cross section of the socio economic group who are just simply doing the best they can. We have some very important issues as you say John to be addressed a most especially in our Health system and Education system. May you and your thoughts be supported by your fellow colleagues.
#21 - Ray Pond. said:
2007-04-21 12:22 - (Reply)
Smacking our children is not violence but discipline. This is setting boundaries for our children from an early age. God (Jesus). He discilpines the ones He loves. My father and mother disciplined us this way(They loved us), and we also did with our children and they have a healthy respect for others and are not violent in any way.Emotional abuse is locking our children away calling it time out.Sue Bradford is mixing up these words(beating children is not smacking) to suit her own agenda. Children are not another gender but young adults and we must train them up in the good ways and discipline is a tool to do this.Her agender will bring more violence and unrulyness into the home,schools and society, which we are already seeing. We will reap this if this law is put into action.
#22 - Graham 2007-04-21 13:48 - (Reply)
I think an early outcome of this Anti-smacking Bill if it becomes law, will be in the area of split families. One parent will report smacking by the other parent. CYFs will react and the Police will be involved, and charges could be laid. It is very bad law, and further reduces the ability of parents to discipline their children, and influence their up-bringing. There will be a growing need for correctional institutions as the children reach adolescence. Graham
#23 - Max Percy 2007-04-21 13:51 - (Reply)
John, your video comments on section 59 makes so much sense and you have eloquently put what I believe most ordinary Kiwis are wanting. I would not hold my breath in making any headway with the likely girls, Sue and Helen. I can't see them giving an inch on their stance with this bill. If this bill goes through in its present state then I am hoping come the next election you make an issue of it. And as for the Exclusive Brethren I hope you are going to turn up the heat on Labour given yesterdays revelations that Helen had meet with them. You can't blame them for wanting to support winners and a party with values and so getting behind National. For the first time in years Helen has meet her match. No wrong has meet her "better" Go for it Prime Minister in waiting. Best wishes Max Percy
#24 - Nicky Sowry 2007-04-21 16:35 - (Reply)
Our son was very difficult right through his childhood, we tried all the 'positive parenting' courses, we tried bribes, threats, withdrawal of privileges, etc., and at times we resorted to smacking, as all the wonderful modern methods of childrearing were not working! If he was still a child, he would be the first one to ring through to the police with a complaint if we tried to take him to his room for time out or anything. The current bill will ensure that children like him would clog up our police resources. This will not change child abuse at all, so is no quick fix answer to a much greater problem.
#25 - peg Howard 2007-04-21 17:47 - (Reply)
I am absolutely against the anti-smacking bill. In fact I'm dead against Helen Clark and Sue Bradford assuming that they know more about parenting than I do, and can interfere with the rearing of children in my family! Why doesnt the labour party get on with governing the country?! Instead of throwing out red herrings and thus wasting everyone's time and money!
#26 - Berwyn Hoyt said:
2007-04-21 20:23 - (Reply)
John, I admire you for listening to us and going to talk sense to Clark and Bradford about this. I have a way forward for you. You are not on a winning tack by saying only "light smacking" should be acceptable. In reality, it is not the amount of force that is the key issue, or a rugby tackle with my son would be out of order. No, it is the motivation and circumstances that are key to determining whether it is smacking or abuse. The law could be fixed very simply by saying that in determining whether the the corrective force is reasonable, the judge should take into things like: - Were angry or loud words spoken? - Was it a loving reproof? - What was the parent's intention? - Was a loving relationship restored by the correction? - you can add to this list. This would easily distinguish good parents from bad, as in every abuse case there are really obvious clues that the parent's motivation is not right. You've got to admit that it does get at the heart of the issue: whether the parents are good parents. See if the anti-smackers really care about improving parents. Or have they gotten their blinkers on and can't see the big picture? My suggestion would solve the issue that really counts. Namely, *improving parents*. Thank you, Berwyn Hoyt PS. Let Bradford answer this one: if the child is really to be treated like a responsible adult, then is he also acting like an adult? Is the child acting like an adult if he is throwing tantrums, putting needles into hot-points, and hitting others?
#27 - Craig Stuart 2007-04-21 23:46 - (Reply)
One thing has not been said and is crucial in this debate. The desire to change section 59 is because the proponents have a religious view that all smacking is violence however light! Their hope for the future is based on a belief that children will grow up to express their true selves if Parents do not inhibit their self expression by imposing their views upon them. Like Hitler they seek to impose this view on everyone else because they see that as the hope for a future utopia. We don't need a compromise with this tyranny we need freedom from it. Please offer the voters of New Zealand a clear choice Freedom or tyranny not some compromise which gives more power to the CYPS et al than they already have. The religious minority which sees all smacking as abuse already control CYPS and enforce a policy of vilifying anyone who smacks a child. Any compromise legitimises the actions that they currently do even though the law does not ban smacking. Stand firm against this government and its Gestapo (CYPS). We need protection from their religious bigotry!
#28 - David McKenzie 2007-04-22 06:47 - (Reply)
People know the difference between violence and discipline. The intentions and desired outcomes behind each one are entirely different. One seeks to destroy the other seeks to build up. That Sue Bradford seeks to say they are the same is what parents are finding insulting. That Sue Bradford wants the State to enforce one style of parenting upon all is what the opinion polls are resenting.
#29 - Peter Burns 2007-04-22 07:57 - (Reply)
As a father of four whom lightly smacked my children in their early childhood nurturing years I am appalled at the spurious derogatory comments made by a government that fails to recognise this as bad law.
#30 - Darran Roberts 2007-04-22 10:48 - (Reply)
About time someone with common sense!!! Lets actually focus on what really matters and first things first, lets get Labour out!!!
#31 - ed van son 2007-04-22 13:53 - (Reply)
dear john i was never smacked as a child and i turned out just fine with lots of love and caring, except for ONE smack when i spilt paint all over the neighbours couch aged 4, which i probably deserved-and that was by my eldest brother. Maybe you are suggesting fear and rebellion against parents are strong allies for the life of intimidation ahead. re labour over spending, my understanding is that our national debt has been dropping steadily with labours repayment policies and that we have had a budget surplus recently to help our position. is this wrong? or should we continue increasing our debt setting the example as a nation while continuously asking why our citizens are going into debt.
#32 - Gordon Walker 2007-04-22 15:59 - (Reply)
Hello John, I agree with your anti-smacking law. I think if this is passed in its present state this is going to be used in the courts against Husbands and Fathers so that they do not have their Children to unsupervised or in some cases not at all. I fell that this law will not stop the child beaters. I wish this Government would do more for Transport structure, health ans Education in stead of wasting Tax payers money on this silly ant-smaking law. Regards Gordon
#33 - John Munro 2007-04-22 17:22 - (Reply)
If we are "to rely on the Courts" the surely the present situation is OK as the Courts hear the facts and act accordingly. For Bradford to keep quoting the Timaru case without revealing (or perhaps even having a knowledge of) the facts presented to the Courts is at the very least misleading.
#34 - lin 2007-04-22 17:29 - (Reply)
As a youngster I was warned twice if I misbehaved then a couple of smart smacks to the rear end. For a major offence a leather strap applied same area or on legs (would leave red marks). Reared 5 children on same principles. good solid citizens. We all have to be afraid of something or Society cannot function. Personal freedoms MUST have limitations for the greater good
#34.1 - Paul Robinson 2007-04-22 19:46 - (Reply)
I agree it is bad law. I sent an e mail to Peter Dunne and he felt that the amendments that are in the bill eg safety would allow parents to smack their kids. We have smacked our kids between the ages of 2 and 8 especially at the younger ages or so with a 2 inch wide bit of conveyor belt on the bum which causes no long term effects, just a bit of redness. It is amazing to see how in making up afterwards the love and teaching are very beneficial. At the toddler/ preschool age you can't reason much with kids so it is so important parents can train kids. It is not appropriate for anyone else to smack kids - even grandparents. What will happen to good parenting literature that discusses how to smack safely - will it be prohibited. My final thought is how can political parties vote as a party on something that was not in their election manifesto. Labour's website/policy stuff on family is about welfare and must come from some ideology. There is all the Rainbow Labour policies too. NZ families, even lower class and maoris are quite conservative socially, not that liberal. So National has a good chance at the next election if they don't come accross to extreme on economic/ tax cuts stuff.
#35 - Andrea 2007-04-22 19:22 - (Reply)
As full time working parents, we believe that all Sue Bradford is doing is removing one of the 'tools' from our parenting toolbox. When we leave the house with our 5 yr old and 2 yr old at 7.20am each morning, and Miss 2 is throwing a tantrum over wanting to wear her party dress to childcare rather than practical clothes, the mere threat of a light smack will bring her in line with family requirements quicker and more effectively than time out (which we don't have time for at 7.15am!!) or other 'adult' options. Last year we also fostered an 'at risk' child, and I would dearly love to see NZ become a safer place for all children, however I don't believe Sue Bradford's bill makes a dent towards this goal. It only makes life tougher for parents who are already trying to do a good job.
#35.1 - Nathan 2007-04-23 09:09 - (Reply)
I agree with Andrea. I would add that if the government wants more 'adult' parenting, it should be looking for ways to ensure that only one parent needs to work to make ends meet, thus allowing more time for alternative parenting techniques and reducing stress in families which are pressed financially to provide the necessities for their families just to prevent other inadequacies such as lack of good food, suitable accommodation and clothing etc. However, it should be possible to specify more clearly in law what is acceptable and what is not in terms of physical reproof for children. Surely prohibiting in legislation the use of a closed fist or implements, for example, could make an application of the law reasonably clear, thus addressing issues of real physical abuse while not undermining the kind of parenting Andrea illustrates.
#36 - Pat Kuhtze 2007-04-23 04:49 - (Reply)
Thanks John for the chance to comment. I have four sons. 3 teenagers and a 5 year old. My teenagers are hard wokers do very well at school and their part time jobs, they have a huge respect for me, for property, other people and life. My five year old is just amazing he's hardly ever had a smack and thats how I like it, he seems to listen to the rules in our house well, his older brothers are good role models for him I suppose. I get coments all the time asking why my boys are so polite and respectful, from friends teachers strangers and so on. Kids right from birth will take things to the edge to see how far they can go before the parent is firm in what they say and mean. Kids want rules, they need rules and they need to know that when you set rules its for a reason whether it be to save them from harm or to show respect for property or just being polite and thankful. I'm not saying you phisically discipline a child for not saying thankyou. With my boys they got a warning and an explanation as to why I said don't do something and if they disobeyed that and carried on then they got a smack on the bum with my hand and reminded why they got that. It tells them you mean what you say and they understand what the rules were and why they got punished. Its no good having rules when they know you aren't going to stict to them as a parent. There is a huge difference between disciplining a child and bashing a child. Sue Bradford is wrong on this. Its already proven that most kids today have no respect, or have the attitude "what are you gonna do to me"? About 2 years ago I bought my teenage sons a mobile phone each and said to them if they abuse the phone and don't use it properly then they lose it. Well call me hard but 10 months ago 1 of my sons was abusing it and using it for the wrong resons so he lost it and now he says to me you taught me a good lesson Dad. I hav'nt had to smack my sons for years because they know when I say something it has a reason and I will stick to the rules I have laid down. When they leave home and go out to the world they know that Dad set rules that they had to live by at home just as the Governments and Police set rules all around the world and if you don't live by these rules then you get punished. Prison, fines, etc, so physical disciplining to a degree should be left up to the Parents discretion. I don't believe in using items to disciplin with, just a good smack on the bum to show you mean business, not on the back, not on the legs or head but the bum or hand. Sometimes theres just no time for time out or when they are too young they don't understand reasoning, they don't even understand the words to reason with at a tiny age. I bet my last dollar that if this no smacking law goes thru there is gonna be kaos to the point of no return in our country with kids attitudes towards laws and kids are gona be just out of control. People will be saying "whats happening with the youth today they are out of control", I wonder why. Does Sue Bradford get held responsible if things go to the pack with this law? Or can she just slip away and say nothing. You mark my words on this its a no go, no idea law. So I am so against this law coming in. If kids do things wrong I fully believe the parents should be held accountable. Look at Boy and Girl racers, 1 example. All hours of the night, do their parents let them sleep all day so they can spend all night racing?, I really don't understand the parents of these kids, do they like seeing their kids crash and kill themselves? Now is that not abuse or do the parents just not care? bad parenting. I would rather give my kids a smack than let them break the law with a car and the chance of them killing themselves or others. I would rather see my kids alive with a sore bum than dead or being responsible for parallising or killing others. For the Parents that do care what their kids are getting up to, this is now being controlled by Sue Bradfords theory to let the kids be free and run wild, who are we to dictate to our kids what they can and can't do cause our kids wont be punished for doing wrong things, cause thats wrong to punish your kids for doing something wrong. There will soon be a prison in every suburb if this goes thru. Bet ya! Thanks for the chance to voice my concerns. Is there something I can sign to vote against this law? Please let me know.
#37 - Kee Fui Kon 2007-04-23 08:45 - (Reply)
Sue Bradford is barking up the wrong tree. The greatest child abuse is, in fact, abortion -- the act of sucking the life out of i.e. terminating the life of an unborn child. If Sue Bradford can tolerate abortion, she should be able to allow parents to use reasonable force to correct and discipline their precious children. Please do not let the Labour and Green Party hijack the tool of good parenting.
#38 - Pam Durham 2007-04-23 09:46 - (Reply)
Thank you, John, for taking a leadership role in this 'anti-smacking' debate and attempting to find a way towards a law which reflects the will of the people - that is democracy
#39 - Dolf van Asbeck 2007-04-23 11:23 - (Reply)
While I have never thought it necessary to beat a child, if you cannot get beyond "lightly smacking" then any ammendment will need to be specific about what is and what is not light. New Zealand is a violent and punitive society. Beating children with sticks and straps is accepted enough for a judge to let a woman off for doing just that recently. The move to outlaw corporal punishment in schools lagged European schools from the end of World War 1. United Kingdom excepted. Outlawing corporal punishment in the home is the next step.
#40 - ScottL 2007-04-23 12:24 - (Reply)
I don't agree with John Key at all. I believe that parents have a right to smack their children and indeed a duty to do so. The Bible says, "Spare the rod and spoil the child". That is ancient wisdom that has served us well over the centuries and is our best indication of the mind of God on this issue. I believe that is authority that is far superior to scientific studies and certainly the wisdom of the Liberal/radical/atheistic left. The use of section 59 means that judges and jury's get to set precedents through common-law as to what the use of "reasonable force" means. The Burrows amendment will just shift the ground to what "light smacking" means. It will still send a message that smacking is unacceptable in my view. Unfortunately the unintended consequences are likely to be a continued lowering of parental authority, the continued intrusion of the State into families lives, the moving away from well-established Christian principles and our children will become less manageable than they are already. We may have a problem with abusive parents getting away under section 59 -- the riding crop cases and the plank of wood case when you hear both sides of the evidence, are highly contestable as to whether they constituted abuse or not. But what is incontrovertible is that we have a huge problem with teenage violence. We seem to be raising a generation of children with little self-control, who do not respect others boundaries, who are violent and foulmouthed. As the Bible says -- they are spoilt children. The courts are full of violent teenage offenders who show little or no respect for authority. So I would suggest the following policy settings -- no change to section 59 and indeed re allowing our schools to use corporal punishment. 50 years ago that was how the law stood and interestingly enough we were a much less violent society than we are today. The crime rate was much lower and you could count the number of murders per year on your fingers.
#41 - Errol E Singer 2007-04-23 12:28 - (Reply)
Nobody who is a moral & a good parent supports violence as a means of solving societal & parental problems. But is prudent smacking to bring correction, violence? I'm sure a parent though can for a number of reasons move beyond the prudent. Therefore, for everybody concerned the definition of smacking to differeniate it from violence seems the way to go. If this path has worked in NSW for 4 years, I'm sure this can work here.
#42 - Courtenay Anderson 2007-04-23 12:30 - (Reply)
I'm a great believer in learning from other peoples mistakes and urge people to read this from the UK which has gone down this road many years ago: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=449996&in_page_id=1770
#43 - Adrian Wilson 2007-04-23 17:18 - (Reply)
I was in the Police 21 years and a Court prosecutor for 4 yrs. Section 59 was never raised as a defence to my knowledge. Cigarette burns, broken bones and injuries causing bleeding were always treated as assault not discipline. The offender, if known was always prosecuted. Why reinvent the wheel?
#44 - wilton gray 2007-04-23 20:05 - (Reply)
We already have the rule of no smacking applied by Government agencies. We have had foster children under Open Home and CYFS where we have agreed to this. For foster children where relationship is not strong this is probably right. But what of the outcome. Many children run away from home and the Social worker will tell you that you can not physically bring the child back and you must contact the Police. The problem with the Police is that they delay two days as their experience is children return in that time! But what have they been up to in the meantime. A fourteen year old girl who requested she have timeout from parents and come to us went off witha young lad for two nights and she lost her virginity but also got pregnant with a miscarriage to follow. This is where we are heading if the boundary setting of a smack for correction (not punishment or abuse) is removed from parents who apply it in a loving manner especially to 2 toi 5 year olds. Most of our problem, anti social, anti authority children is because they have not been disciplined. A smack applied for the 4 D's (dis-honesty, dis-respect, disobedience, distruction) works wonders. Otago research is tops and clears smacking. Sweden's law has not worked and we will get the same result. Wilton
#45 - Deb Whytock 2007-04-24 09:11 - (Reply)
Crikey are we turning into a Police State or what - the anti-smacking bill is a joke and will not rescue those poor kids out there that are getting beaten and abused constantly behind "closed doors". Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that the crux of the abuse problem we have in New Zealand. Example: I feel sorry for the parent that gives their child a twack on the backside for trying to run out on the road in front of a car and is then prosecuted because somebody has perceived this to be "illegal". Squashed child against a smacked bum - hm - I wonder?
#46 - Bryce Hill 2007-04-24 13:07 - (Reply)
Hi John, Thank you for your stance on this matter. I totally disagree with Sue Bradfords bill. I have three teenage children and make the following comments. 1/ Children must understand that no means no. A smack on the bum for a three to seven year old is the full stop behind NO. I dont believe smaking before or after this age is of benefit. If a child does not understand NO by the age of seven you are going to have issues down the track. 2/ If this current bill is passed I am afraid it will be abused by separating parents and used in the family courts in custody disputes. 3/I think the bill that was finally successful in NSW has real merit. It defines smacking , this gives parents, police and the courts parameters to work with. Good Luck. Regards Bryce Hill
#47 - Kee Fui Kon 2007-04-24 13:41 - (Reply)
George Bana, a well-known researcher just published his years of findings in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre. An extract from his website is attached here [text snipped, replaced with link, below - admin]. Children growing up without boundary and discipline can end up killing more people. Virginia Tech Tragedy is a Wake-Up Call to Parents http://www.churchexecutive.com/Page.cfm/PageID/9083
#48 - Graham Halstead 2007-04-24 15:17 - (Reply)
Best to leave Sec 59 as it is. There are no votes in it for changing it. Labour is losing votes over it. Perhaps that's a good reason for letting the Bill go through !! All the experts seem to agree that the Bill will not stop child abuse. That is where the problem is but no law is likely to stop it. We are now seeing young children and babies seriously injured or killed by parents. This was unheard of 20 plus years ago. Child abuse is taking place in disfunctional families. We don't have a smacking problem, it is a child abuse problem. Whatever changes are made, parents are still going to smack their kids so why why make crims out of them. However, I believe that there is a lot less smacking of children these days. Most families are smaller and there is less stress. Parents are trying other ways to correct or discipline their young children. There needs to be more assistance to parents in the form of practical programmes and instructional booklets . But there is a small hard core group of disfunctional families out there in need of identificational and drastic measures taken to ensure the safety of babies and young children.
#49 - Maria 2007-04-25 08:27 - (Reply)
Section 59 does not need changing. It just needs to be enforced. Juries know what reasonable force is and so do the majority of parents. The definition of reasonable force will change with the times - a jury today will be less tolerant that one 50 years ago. It has been used to convict people recently so it does work. Children need to be corrected if they are to grow up to be responsible law abiding adults. The currrent bill, if made law, will make parents scared to train their kids properly as they could be prosecuted for even smacking their child. Assurances that this won't happen are a farce - the law should mean what it says and police don't have the discretion Sue Bradford likes to lie about. She has every intention of pushing her idea that a smack is a violence act. Most NZ parents disagree and should be left alone to keep doing the good job they are with their kids. We don't want to be part of a social experiment and end up with rude, badly behaved kids like they have in Sweden. Please stand up for NZ families and support good parents. The child abusers already have adequate laws to convict them.
#50 - DANIEL SIAW 2007-04-25 15:05 - (Reply)
Thank you John for the opportunity to express my view. This is what is expected of good governance. Firstly, Sue Bradford and the labour govt have failed to distinguish between "smacking" and an "abuse". Secondly, they have failed to respect the views of majority of our beloved country and are therefore acting irresponsibly regarding the repeal of section 59. They have lost sight of the Biblical admonition: spare the rod and spoil the child. Clearly, those abusive parents will always end up facing our courts. However, to pass a law that will require the police to use their good sense of judgment as to whether to prosecute or not to prosecute is not only irresponsible but also myopic. What about those parents who are killing their children through non-violent means like smoking in their cars with their kids onboard? This is what is pressing and warrants parliament attention. There are enough laws there already to deal with abusive parents.
#51 - Barry McInnes 2007-04-26 18:18 - (Reply)
Trust the police and the courts - "to be reasonable". These are the same police and courts who from time to time historically, brought succesful prosecutions against Dairy owners in dry areas of West Auckland for selling "liquer chocolates"
#52 - Matthew Webster 2007-04-26 21:33 - (Reply)
Hi John, I agree with you that what you suggest should be the minimum. You are actually showing common sense and ethical leadership in a Parliament that is unfortunately ruled by parties, some of whom have leaders that are lacking these characteristics. Will the Burrows amendment or similar be National Party policy if it were the government? Remember when you answer that question that you are right and 80%+ of the electorate agree with you. Stand for what you believe in as a policy or tell us why stating that position as part of your election manisfesto has negative consequences in (possible) post-election coalition negotiations. best regards, Matthew.
#53 - John Winsley 2007-04-27 11:56 - (Reply)
Is the bar too high? Reasonable force by way of correction is not to high or too low. There are difficulties in defining reasonalbe force further as there are too many variables Judgement will always be made by the courts regardless. The bar is in the right place so why move it. It will just create more problems. Section 59 has never been a defence against abuse and politicians should busy themselves looking at the real issues.
