No smacking please, we're Kiwis.
Sue "Badass" Bradford, who, incidentally I think is bloody wonderful,
has got the no smacking bill read in the House.
Who here has bothered to look at this prospective piece of leg?
Some people say "I had 8 shades of shit kicked out of me as a kid and it never affected me" but we then find they vote NZ First and worse still, believe what they read in the T.V. Guide letters page.
A possible solution could be, supply all children with B.M.X.'s to
keep them out from under my feet.
Is it realisatic to legislate against violence ( or phsyical discipline). We got rid of the cane, and we soon found out detention was worse than bamboo.
Comments
I don't think it's necessary to spank kids, but I also don't think it's harmful. People who beat up their kids should be put away, but banning smacking altogether is the same as reducing the legal alcohol limit even further to try and stop drunk drivers (you know, those that are already over the existing limit anyway). I guess I can understand that some people think even a little smack is inhumane, but in general I think it's just an unproductive piece of legislation designed to make the government feel good about tackling child abuse.
I also think enforcement will be so lax and problematic that it'll never end up being used anyway, so why even bother going to the trouble and cost of legislating?
They aren't legislating anything. They're removing the "reasonable force" defence from the legislation.
So right now if the police/cypfs/whoever deem that some kind of discipline actually constitures assault, they prosecute. The person can being prosecuted claim they used reasonable force and a jury gets to decide whether it was or not.
In practice, you probably won't see any changes in the enforcement of the current law. There won't be any new smacking police taskforce. Parents who beat their children will have less legal protection than they do now.
Personally I have absolutely no confidence in juries to rule consistently on the "reasonable force" point, so I'd be happy to see that piece of legislation removed.
An additional comment: there was a guy on morning report the other day who claimed that smacking isn't violent. This included the example of where a child was repeatedly struck with a riding crop.
I might be on crazy pills but I think that opinion is deluded. Smacking is violent no matter how worthy your intentions when you employ it. I don't have kids and I don't have a strong position on the merits of physical discipline but people who think that hitting kids is non-violent are dreaming.
// Smacking is violent no matter how worthy your intentions when you employ it.
try arguing with the right-wingers on that one. It's fuckin' infuriating...
[ external link ]
What's the point of arguing? If someone takes the position that hitting isn't violent then they aren't interested in rational debate. It's clearly a variation of the chewbacca defense.
You gotta keep fighting the good fight, man!
of course is violent. So what?
//so what?
can you read? one of the justifications for smacking is that it is non-violent
Er I still don't get it, the intetnion is not cause physical harm. So so what if technically it's violent?
If it isn't obvious they we're probably going to be talking past each other all week.
If nothing else, it will make all parents think twice before raising their hand against their kids, and provide the police with a means by which to round up the 1% of genuinely abusive parents and hold them to account. But generally I'm with Heather on this- is there anything in this legislation that isn't already covered under existing assault/GBH legislation? I'm off to try & pull in some facts...
//is there anything in this legislation that isn't already covered under existing assault/GBH legislation?
I didn't believe it a few years ago (Aka was very patient trying to convince me), but there is a specific bit:
CRIMES ACT 1961
PART 3 - MATTERS OF JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE
Powers of discipline
59. Domestic discipline—
[(1)Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.]
(2)The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.
[(3)Nothing in subsection (1) of this section justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.]
NB, The third clause is to explicitly define that teachers, while they may at times act in the place of parents, are not allowed this defence. My understanding is that the aim of the private members bill is to repeal this section.
someone shoulda smacked Sue "Badass" Bradford on the bum when she was a kid . . . . .
I think smacking should be illegal.
If you smack an adult you can be convicted of a crime. If you smack an animal you can get convicted of a crime. If you smack someones car you can get convicted of a crime. Why is it ok to smack a child?
cause children are evil
It's not specifically smacking - it's any form of 'force'.
So, say, you had to pick up your kid to take them to time-out. Without S59 that (according to the naysayers) qualifies as physical abuse.
Nobody gets prosecuted for that now and it's certainly not because of the existing reasonable force clause.
S59 doen't magically turn "abuse" into "non-violent discipline". It's a legal justification for violence. The naysayers can't have it both ways.
I completely agree. But again, there's a whole bunch of people out there who, for whatever reason, believe that repealing S59 will lead to every other parent being in the courts on child abuse charges.
//So, say, you had to pick up your kid to take them to time-out.
Yeah, except following that logic, every dominatrix in the country would also be guilty of assault...
So if you can tie someone up and spank them without being arrested for assault, it ought to be fairly clear removing that section isn't going to see police going round arresting people willy-nilly...
//every dominatrix in the country would also be guilty of assault...
Is there such as thing as consensual assault?
// Is there such as thing as consensual assault?
yes. it's called rugby.
consent is at the heart of it. grown-ups can consent to being assaulted, but kids can't.
//So, say, you had to pick up your kid to take them to time-out.
//Yeah, except following that logic, every dominatrix in the country would also be guilty of assault...
Umm, how does that follow? Kids get a kick out of being punished?
// Umm, how does that follow? Kids get a kick out of being punished?
tell you what - outlaw smacking and I reckon the S&M market would probably suffer a massive downturn in, oohhh, about 20 years time?
//yes. it's called rugby.
haha, I remember hearing about a club game where a player threw a punch (as you do in club games) but one of the other team members (or maybe it was a spectator) was an off duty copper and after the game duly arrested the puncher . . .
yeah - there you go. when you play rugby you consent to getting tackled, pushed, shoved and if you land on the wrong side of the ruck, rightfully stomped on, but you don't necessarily consent to someone taking a swing at you (although, having watched some club games recently, some people do indeed think this is part of the game - probably got smacked as kids, those ones).
//consent is at the heart of it. grown-ups can consent to being assaulted, but kids can't.
Consent isn't a legally defined justification/excuse for assault. I think it boils down to a common-sense interpretation. Which is why I'd assume that a parent putting their kid in time out wouldn't be charged for the same reason why a dominatrix or a rugby player wouldn't be charged. Consent obviously forms a common-sense part of this interpretation, but it's not explicit. Although perhaps one of our legal residents can shed some more light on this.
``Assault' means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose.
Interestingly, there is a clause which specifically says that a person cannot consent to be killed... (which is what makes euthanasia illegal, presumably)
//haha, I remember hearing about a club game where a player threw a punch (as you do in club games) but one of the other team members (or maybe it was a spectator) was an off duty copper and after the game duly arrested the puncher
Yeah I heard about that too, did it actaully happen or is it just an Urban Legend?
I have heard of players punching refs etc, and in a few games I have been in, I have coped a few, seems that the teams I play against dont mind throwing out head high tackles left right and centre but when you subject them to a bit of ole fashioned rucking their tune soon changes,
Maybe as a punishment parents should take the kids out the back, stick the old rugby boots on and giving them a bit of a rucking... it sorts out the opposition players and where's the confusion with rucking? Its legal as long as your going for the ball...
"(although, having watched some club games recently, some people do indeed think this is part of the game - probably got smacked as kids, those ones). "
Yes alot of people think that big hits and high tackling is part of the game too, and most of these people usually end up in jail in later life...or go off injured from some unexplained incident usually involves many cuts and stitches the ones back from what looks like sprig markings... But I guess we will never know
//
If you smack an adult you can be convicted of a crime//
that's idiotic, that's exaclty why the defence should stay. Children can be naughty, conciousely doing bad things to test boundaries. There are laws that govern adult behaviour that adults can be convicted with ( and the police can use force to arrest). Children cannot be convicted of crimes, so parents need some last resort to limit their actions/behaviour, whether that involves a small smack or forcefully removing the child from the situation, both are reasonable if their is no othe choice. How can parents have any ultimate control if they cannot 'assault' their children?
//Maybe as a punishment parents should take the kids out the back, stick the old rugby boots on and giving them a bit of a rucking... it sorts out the opposition players and where's the confusion with rucking? Its legal as long as your going for the ball...
Perfect dantheman, that is brilliant
//I have heard of players punching refs etc
this happens quite a bit I think, but your punishment depends on your standing in the rugby pecking order, if you are say a playing a club game and waste the ref you can basically get off scott free if you are also part of say . . . um, the Taranaki NPC squad, but if you do it when you are a 14 year old playing school boy rugby, you can get in the sport headlines and face a lifetime ban . . . . . . .
// How can parents have any ultimate control if they cannot 'assault' their children?
take something away that they use all the time.
while I do agree that some kids need a good kick in the ass sometimes especially those little shit on that british nightmare kids show, simply taking away a PS2 or favourite toy or something works well, for kids with cell phones take that away and dont give it back till they are behaving,
This way you get the results without the slightest motion of physical abuse and this might teach them a way of disciplining their children when they have them also.
Pretty simple technique but effective,
nah dan you were on the button with your rucking punishment,
haha can you imagine a kid testifying against his dad in court
"when I was bad my dad would give me a rugby ball and take me out the back and ruck me till i was sorry"
*jury gasps"
Father stands up and shouts "ITS LEGAL IF IM GOING FOR THE BALL!!!"
I think regular or excessive smacking dimishes the authority which parents hold over children by creating a sinister, begrudging respect and a negative association with the relationship. Surely the best form of punishment is to encourage good behaviour.
//I do agree that some kids need a good kick in the ass sometimes especially those little shit on that british nightmare kids show ...
Having watched that show, Little Angels, it shows how parents can gain control over their children by understanding the reasons behind misbehaviour and by changing the culture of the household. Its worth watching, if only once, to illustrate how it might be possible to raise a child without striking them.
//for kids with cell phones take that away and dont give it back till they are behaving,
Don't you watch Shortland St.???? It just DOESN'T WORK!
Lordy, don't bring up Shorters. Much as I adore dear Sarah Potts, she's the worst mother ever.
Before saying anything, I'd like to note that my female flatmates watch SS and I'm just too lazy/warm to leave the room.
I just wish I was a character in SS because I would give one or two the meanest right hook (Jake, Clare, Daniel), tell Maia and Jay that just cos you're lesbian you don't have to call each other 'babe' every second fucking word, and tell Toni (admittedly she's already done this) to sort her shit out and stop being such a bitch. Also I would make Huia put on that saucy lingerie and tie me to a bad.
God, I hate Daniel.
//Also I would make Huia put on that saucy lingerie and tie me to a bad.
It looked like she was wearing bike shorts under her slip didn't it? What's up with that? And what's up with her skinny ugly brown belt? And what's up with kids and belt buckles off to the side? And what's up with belts in general unless they exist only to hold up your pants?
//Don't you watch Shortland St.???? It just DOESN'T WORK!
Sorry I dont subject myself to the painful torture and mind numbingly boring television that is Shortland Street
[ external link ]
heh.
and again . . . . boy we're a nasty lot . . . . . but not as nasty as those evil kids though
[ external link ]
If the authors of this bill aren't against the use of a light smack, then why don't they just redefine reasonable force. So simple. Why not? there has to be anothe agenda. It's crap legislation made by nieve people who wither have no children or get other people to tqake care of them.
Picking your child, putting them in the car, dragging them out of the supermarket, timeout, these are all examples of what is assault when the reasonable force protection is removed form parents. Children are not adults, yet the assault will be no different for them than for adults. Sure police may not prosecute, but that makes for a hypocritical law that could still see some parents in hit water cause little johnny decided to report mum and dad for 'abuse' when they picked him up and put him in his room.
re-post cause I suck
If the authors of this bill aren't against the use of a light smack, then why don't they just redefine reasonable force? So simple. Why not? there has to be another agenda. It's crap legislation made by nieve people who either have no children or get other people to take care of them.
Picking up your child, putting them in the car, dragging them out of the supermarket, timeout, these are all examples of what is assault when the reasonable force protection is removed form parents. Children are not adults, yet the assault laws will be no different for them than for adults. Sure police may not prosecute, but that makes for a hypocritical law that could still see some parents in hit water cause little johnny decided to report mum and dad for 'abuse' when they picked him up and put him in his room
//It's crap legislation made by nieve people who wither have no children or get other people to tqake care of them.
Hey rdor, do you have kids? Or are you planning on having any?
// So simple.
I don't think it would be that simple at all. It would depend on circumstances wouldn't it?
The "other agenda" is quite plain actually. They don't think anyone should smack their kids.
Your example of little Johnny reporting his parents doesn't hold water. Parents aren't being prosecuted for those reasons now and there is no evidence to suggest they would in the future.
re the people making the law:
1. 100% of them have been children so are quite qualified to talk about childrens rights
2. NZ is a democracy and our elected representatives are entitled to propose bills and if you don't like the bills they propose you should make a submission in opposition
//why don't they just redefine reasonable force.
Because most of our worst legislation revolves around trying to define every possible circumstance. The law works best when there is room to consider the circumstances. Clearly, at the moment "reasonable force" is being interpreted to include things that most people find at the very least distasteful.
In case you hadn't noticed, out court system works on precedent. Currently, the precedent for "reasonable force" includes things that would otherwise be considered assault. Not your scare-mongering assault, but actual assault. Thus, rather than trying to write an idiot definition, we need to revise the precedent down. Which either means we need a greater degree of judicial activism, so the judges do it themselves, OR, we change the law, so a new, more reasonable precedent can be set.