Salient

I’d like to know the statics from when caning was abolish from schools. Has voilent crime risen since that time.

A major problem in the anti smacking debate is that the politically correct set of ideals appeals to the majority of NZ parents (dont ask me why). Sadly it is for this reason that a red neck peice of literature such as this only adds to the ammunition of large-mouthed, small-minded members of the PC crowd.

For all that Sue Bradford claims that it does not, this bill makes the slightest growl and pat on the bum a criminal assault. It would also be criminal assault to drag your child out of the shopping mall to the car by the arm when it throws a screaming tantrum because you won’t buy it an ice-cream. Sue Bradford assures us that the police don’t care about things like that. With respect she does not speak for the police. The police are obliged to enforce the letter of the law and are also obliged to investigate any complaint. Sue Bradford suggests that the police will use their discretion. She ignores the fact that it is precisely the `reasonable force’ wording of the current legislation that provides the police with the opportunity to exercise discretion. If this is removed the only plausible grounds the police have for exercising discretion goes with it. If a complaint conforms to the literal wording of the law they will have no option other than to prosecute. Even for a light `pat and growl’. They’ve said so - repeatedly!

It is embarrassing enough as a male when your kid throws a tantrum in the supermarket. All you probably did was say `no’ to the idea of an icecream, yet it feels like every granny in the place is staring at you accusing you of doing TERRIBLE THINGS to your nearest and dearest who is screaming fit to be tied and thrashing on the floor. If you think kids don’t behave like that you haven’t had to deal with a 2-year old. It is hard enough to cope with this kind of thing under public scrutiny without the added pressure that some possibly unbalanced bystander may lay a nasty charge of assault on you if you touch the kid in the slightest way while dealing with the problem. This bill is a nuclear weapon! This is the kind of thing that destroys families and lives.

Any charge no matter how minor is probably going to result in the kids being taken away from the family while an investigation takes place - horribly horribly traumatising to all concerned most especially the kids - and it may take YEARS - a lifetime to a child - before what is a likely CONVICTION (and hopefully discharge) under our painfully slow justice system finally happens. And then you’ll have to fight to get your kids back. That is SUCH a destructive process. You could NEVER put a family back together after putting them through something like that.

Sue Bradford asks us to trust the authorities to never make a mistake with this … nuclear weapon … to always get it right - to never mangle a single family in the heartless machinery of the justice system out of some ghastly mistake. She can’t promise that! I simply don’t trust the authorities with that kind of power. This bill leaves every family in the country completely vulnerable to being destroyed on a whim. Yet it will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on cases of serious violence against children, which is the purported excuse for inflicting this on us.

When my kid throws a screaming tantrum in the shopping mall I want to know that I can deal with the situation as a reasonable parent without the danger that some onlooker will have me carted off for assault. Which means I want to be able to pick the kid up by the arm and drag them out to the car forcibly if nothing else works … and I would also want to be able to give the big growl and pat on the bum to engineer the change in mood from screaming defiance to sobbing feeling-sorry-for-self if I have to.

As a parent you try to use such tools sparingly. I’ve brought up 3 kids, and I very very seldom have ever spanked them. Almost never. When we were learning how to cope with the first one we spanked a bit more. The third one has hardly been spanked at all - maybe twice in his entire life. You learn more effective tools as you get better at the parenting game. There are better ways than spanking. However I’ve dragged a few kids off to bed in my time. I’ve also tapped a few bums and growled to get the point across when things have gotten drastic, and I wouldn’t like to tell any other parent that they absolutely cannot smack their kids (under penalty of a charge of assault no less) because parenthood definitely isn’t an easy thing. And while I personally don’t think smacking is a great idea - I am also not arrogant enough to try to tell other people how to bring up their kids.

By the way - if Sue Bradford has her way - the previous paragraph is effectively a confession of assault which could see me arrested and charged. Read what I wrote. Do you think I should be arrested for writing this? Should I have to trust that the readers of this piece (if any) will all be sensible people who will use their discretion and let it go as Sue Bradford suggests will happen? All it would take would be a single atypical individual - perhaps someone like `survivor’ looking at the world through the lense of their own personal demons -to bring this to the attention of the police and I’d be in serious trouble. Fortunately the proposed bill isn’t retrospective else I wouldn’t have dared voice my honest opinion on this issue - such is the society of fear proposed by Sue Bradford.

Those often religious types who argue that frequent smacking is a great way to raise kids make me uncomfortable. In my opinion those attitudes are outdated and on the decline. However I conceed that most such parents do love their kids and whole generations have been raised successfully using that philosophy in the past. So while
I disagree with them, I’m not willing to impose on them by force my ideas of parenting as Sue Bradford seems to want to do. In any case it isn’t just the overtly disciplinarian parents who are threatened by this bill. The majority who would see smacking as a last resort are also impacted by it. Almost all parents smack a child at some point in the tortuous process between birth and adulthood. Sue Bradfords bill would lead to pretty much all parents being guilty of assault. The fact that we might manage to escape prosecution for our crime doesn’t remove the fact of that crime. Sue Bradford wants to make us all criminals!

Children differ. They get up to all sorts of mischief. They throw tantrums and screaming fits. They are willfully disobedient. They throw food at you. They hit their siblings. They run away and ride on the baggage conveyor in airports. They steal the chocolate at the checkout in the supermarket. They torture the cat. They try to drown one another in the swimming pool. They run on the road. They bite other kids. As a parent you have to deal with all the horrible and unexpected things they throw at you. And you need to be able to do it without fear that your family will be totally destroyed if some peculiar and obsessive stranger observing takes a dislike to how you do it. That is what the defense of reasonable force is there for.

If it has been abused (and there seems to be precious little evidence of that) then tighten it up. But you can’t remove this defense altogether and pretend that you are doing anything other than equating spanking to assault. Not if you are honest. Sue Bradford is dishonest. She is lying about the effect of this bill. She knows that it will equate spanking to assault yet she pretends that it does not. If she were a stupid person one might almost believe she was honestly deluded about this. Alas she seems to be moderately clever.

ok i was actually arguing in favour of the smacking bill with this piece of writing, or maybe i was just being too subtle. I’d like to think this wasn’t a “redneck” piece of writing.

ian, how do you know the police will prosecute? technically rugby, cricket, soccer, league, basketball etc. etc. all contain assaults (eg a tackle, a bouncer, a block), and i don’t see the police running after sportsmen and arresting them. why would they do it with parents?

to me this whole smacking debate is about parents’ rights v an individual’s right not to get hit (and if you know anything about family law, the basic foundation of it is that the children’s rights are paramount over and above any sort of parental rights). Basically a smack on anybody else is an assault, why shouldn’t it be so for kids? The bill’s not intruding into parents’ rights, it’s protecting an individual’s rights (if people complain about nanny state knowing best and legislating against smacking - even though it’s repealing a law - aren’t they guilty of doing the same thing and complaining they know best). As for claims that dragging some out is assault, I think there has been an amendment to the Bill submitted by academics in the Law School to allow parents to pick up their kids and remove them from situations.

Also kids will rarely know why they’re smacked. Not only have childhood psychologists shown that children don’t really retain memories, but would kids seriously remember why they were hit if all they can think about is the pain they are feeling or simply fear violence? How many parents calmly and rationally explain why they were hit?

As for claims it’s done by a caring, loving parent, let’s be serious, how much smacking is actually done with careful consideration, and not in anger/frustration?

i dont agree with anyone so far, from the arguments ive heard from both sides everyone is missing the point. what it would appear sue bradford is trying to do is abolish child abuse, that is abuse of individuals who do not have the abillity to defend themselves and the law fails to defend when they’re lives are threatend, can a kid of say 6 fend off an adult who is beating them half to death for something as stupid as wanting an ice cream? in that sense i agree with her. but at the same time she is going the wrong way about it. targeting the wrong people. its like when trying to stop people from drink driving you ban alcohol. the way she must see it is that you stop the problem at its root. but the direction she is going in is wrong. if you want to stop people from abusing their kids you have to figure out why it is they are being abused? and she has no line between abuse and dicipline.

i was never smacked as a kid, but i still recieved the harshest of dicipline. no smacking but im dicaplined…….. are the alarm bells ringing? im not saying that a kid getting a smack on the hand or where ever for acting up is a bad thing, not at all, if thats how parents dicipline their kids so be it. let them eat cake, all im saying is i find it extremly unnecessary to beat your children half to death for the slightest wrong doing. how often does someones boss beat the shit out of them for being late? we live in a day and age where the religious morals of yore, an eye for an eye and all that sort of thing are out dated and unnecessary, do we really need to resort to beating the living shit out of our kids just becasue its easier than talking to them, on a level they can understand? using pain as a deturant may be effective but its not the only way.

sadly i think its the only way some people can understand. your no better than people who blow up buildings because an army from that country marched across your deserted peice of land 300 years ago. is it to difficult to explain to your kid that what they are doing is wrong and that if they do it again they will be punnished? or are you to uneducated to make a concious effort not to beat the shit out of a child who cannot defend itself? i bet the people that do that sort of thing are the same ones that tourture small animals. i hope your abused kids end up like ed gain you sad peices of shit.

I completely agree with this bill and I will be very happy if it goes through.
Section 59 is an exception to the law of assualt, the last of a host of revolting laws which used to include apprentices and school children, and (I think) wives. I know that this law chnage won’t stop many parents who think it’s a good idea from hitting their kids, we need a whole lot more to do that, but I think it needs to happen to make the point that children are valuable individuals with rights. This is the first step in the campaign against physical punishment, which is sorely needed.
I believe that physical punishment:
-can escalte to physical abuse
-is psychologically, as well as potentially physically harmful
-is demeaning
-is violent
-is morally wrong
-is damaging to the parent-child relationship
-is the basis for socially unacceptable types of violence

Hey Gina,

Are you a lesbian? Hitting your kids is fun.

Fuck off.

Danielle,

You obviously cannot read. Go to the article posted above:

January 2007
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT TO SELF INJURY
A true life story

And see the harm caused.

Also go to:
http://www.angelfire.com/sk/abuse/index.html

As a teacher, you may learn something worthwhile which may help you become a better teacher.

this whole problem of sue freaking bradford wanting to ban smacking is just another in a long line of things that are turning this country into a nanny state. the whole reason we are like this is because of the minority of people who have no idea what the hell they are doing, be it raising children controling a vicious dog or driving a car, so some one has to step in and tell the whole country what to do. im sorry but this shitty god damn mess of a country is no ones fault but our own. dont blame the poloticians, dont blame “the system” or what ever. believe me i dont like it either, i dont like being told what i can and cant do in my own fucking house or car, but who ever the fuck had the bright idea of getting drunk and driving home or letting their dog attack the mail man or beating their defensless children half to death has done this to this country. why the fuck are we blaming the people trying to do something about it? atleast they are doing something. sure they’re doing a shitty job of it but atleast they are doing something. what the fuck have you done lately? have you not driven home drunk? not beaten you’re children half to death? not let you’re vicious dog maul the mail man?

grow up new zealand. take your balls out of you’re P.C hand bags and ytake some fucking responsability for you’re own actions.

The main intention of this bill is to eradicate the abusive nature some parents have towards their children. And although that abuse is far reaching and widespread, this bill will do nothing to change that mentality. Are abusive parents now, going to be so terrified of this new law change , that they are going to change their ways? There are already sufficiant laws with adequate penalities in place to protect children and also society from these lowlifes. The only parents who will be terrified of this law are those who know that good parenting is balanced within the parameters of love, bond, support and discipline.
Some people commit the hideous crime of rape. So in order to stamp this out totally should we be considering outlawing sex in our homes?…..ban cars incase you drink drive….have empty shops so people can’t shoplift. Of course not. Because there are laws in place right now to deal with these things. And we now need to tell the law makers of this country that we have had enough of this crap and that if they stopped breaking down the values of our society we wouldn’t have alot of these sad statistics.

sonny, finally another rational voice.

i take it you dont agree with anyone so far either? every one wants to be heard on this but no one wants to listen. its just another in a long line of a minority cant do something with any degree of rationality so the majority (who are decent people) have to suffer.

jerks

I believe that passing a law which bans smacking is going a bit too far. You only need to look as far as the youth probelms in auckland, in schools and on the streets to realise that children are becoming more rebellious than what they were 20-30 years ago. In South Aux, there are now incidences of youths roaming the streets at ungodly hours, doing whatever it is that youths end up on the 6 o’clock news for (murder, manslaughter, theft, car crashes, under age drinking incidences). Children in schools are more abusive. There is one school in manurewa that use to and still does go through a regulation drug check, before the start of the school day. You have children wearing gang colours to school, and bringing in truoble from outside the school perimeter. Teachers in secondary schools especially, have been known to quit teaching because of constant abuse, and threats from their pupils. Can they do anything about these kids? not really, a time out doesn’t work on them. This behaviour is due to ill discipline, is due also to the fact that children know that they can do certain things without, incurring any real consequences. This is why we also see in extreme cases, parents having to seek professional help with their kids, which in turn can make for interesting reality tv programming. Has anyone really looked at the consequences of passive methods, and what might result. I believe this might lead to another extreme….ADULT ABUSE. A lthough I am dead-set against child abuse of any kind, I don’t believe that illegalising a very small, disciplinary action such as smacking, is the answer to the eradication of abuse problems. Good balanced, and consistent disciplinary measures are a good way to go. A smack never hurt anyone, in fact it might even save kids from a life of crime, and even instill in them a little bit of respect. Smacking your child is a far cry from giving them the bash. Giving your child the bash only really achieves and instills a rebellious nature as well, and can also lead to extreme cases of abuse, which can turn fatal. Anyway the moral of the story is, that we tread a fine line between good discipline and abuse, which is why I believe that good parenting is a tight rope that parents walk, now with a balancing pole that has recently been heavily weighted on one side. Sure there have been incidences of child abuse, and smacking a child isn’t one of them.

Quote Ben
“There is one school in manurewa that use to and still does go through a regulation drug check, before the start of the school day. You have children wearing gang colours to school, and bringing in truoble from outside the school perimeter. Teachers in secondary schools especially, have been known to quit teaching because of constant abuse, and threats from their pupils. Can they do anything about these kids? not really, a time out doesn’t work on them. This behaviour is due to ill discipline, is due also to the fact that children know that they can do certain things without, incurring any real consequences.”

I think this is due to neglect, and I certainly don’t think that a strategy which will only further damage their relationship with their parents (smacking) will make any difference to the behaviour of these children. Besides, I’d be willing to bet that the parents of these children are over-represented in physical punishment use.

Sonny.
My personal view is that infliciting pain on children is abusive. However since I know you’ll disagree with me on that I’ll present a different agrument.

I think that this Bill is the first step in acknowledging that NZ parents need to develop their parenting. There number of parents who already don’t use physical punishment is growing and will continue to grow with the encouragement of this Bill. I see it, not as an implementation of a law to make parents criminals, but as the removal of a law which allows adults to assualt children. Section 59 is an exception to the law of assualt; the only members of NZ society who can legally be assualted are children.

By far the majoirty of the research suggests that physical punishment may be harmful, but even if it isn’t, it is unnecessary. Why should NZ parents continue to use a technique which may well be harmful or potentially harmful when there are more effective alternatives?

Section 59 has never been an exception to assault children as you state. The law in question allows parental guidence and discipline with the use of reasonable force. A smack on the bum or the back of the hand is reasonable force. Child abuse is another issue altogether. You are trying to blur these two very seperate scenarios as one. Responsible parents do not smack their child on the bum and then fly into wild fit of rage and beat the living daylights out of the child. That domain belongs squarely and solely with the abusers.

Gina and sonny,

you both seem to be arguing the same basic point. you are both saying that this bill is mearly a bill to remove the right of the parent to abuse their children, it is not a bill to ban smacking, it mearly changes the defenition of abuse vs dicipline, not nesecarily a bad thing, what sonny is trying to point out is that the law states, the use of resonable force. but what is the definition of resonable force? how can you resonably force some to do your bidding? this amendment is not aimed at taking away the right of a parint to dicipline their child using resonable force, it is mearly amending the definition of resonable force so that the parents who beat their children within an inch of their lives arent protected under law,

what constatutes good parenting is neither here nor there in this argument, you could argue it for month and youd still be saying the exact same things based on your own opinions. the entire basis of the argument is the fact that some, not all but some parents abuse their kids and get away with it.

a good example of theuse of “resonable force” was the rodney king beating in america, its old news granted but it has relivance, the police in this case have the right to use resonable force, they abused that right by beating rodny king nearly to death, and then they got away with it, all because it was deamed as the use of resonable force, which is protected under the law.

Does Mz Bradford Really think that a law change WILL STOP KIDS GETTING ABUSED. like the new law changed for dog owners has now got ALL the unregistered dogs Registered.
There is a Massive difference between Abuse and Discipline
What Would Mz Bradford reccomend to stop kids running
out in front of a bus ,truck or car.

GET REAL MZ BRADFORD

In a true democratic society this would be settled with a referendum. Let the people speak and be heard. Why should a miniscual portion of our society decide for the vast majority. Answer, they shouldn’t. Wasn’t it Sue Bradford who was protesting and resisted arrest and when asked why she resisted said something to the effect of “Sometimes words just aren’t enough.” But hey don’t blame poor old Sue. After all she is just trying to help the UN impliment another item on their global wishlist. Watch this space as they also want a global mandatory vaccination program. That will be interesting !! Wake up people, don’t give up what rights we have left so easily. Remember, once Hitler took the freedoms of the german people it took them over 20 years to get them back.

Gina, I was refering to parliment. As for “every child focused organisation”, why should they decide for every other parent ? What’s wrong with a citizens referendum ? Look at these links I just googled. Seem to me that the majority of NZ parents aren’t the slightest bit interested in some PC politician telling them how to bring up their children. http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425825/999889 Unfortunately no number of respondents listed but maybe still quite telling. 82% at this stage said they will still smack their children regardless of the law. http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-2-21/38513.html Read it and weep Gina. This is reality. http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_no_safeguard.htm & http://spcs.org.nz/content/view/102/ Gina I think you are fully aware of the difference between hitting someone or smacking someone. So why make it sound worse than it really is by using the word ‘hit’ ? So tell me Gina, should this law work both ways ? If a child hits, smacks, bites etc a parent, should there be legal consequences ? If not why, what’s the difference ? Maybe TV was trying to condition NZers for this bill by playing all those trashy reality TV series like The Nanny. This PC world has got to go !!

Section 59 permits reasonable force to be used for corrective purposes. Anything unresaonable, such as beating, is clearly out.

The law is not broken and does not need fixing.

Most people are well aware of the difference between correcting and child abuse. Polls consistently show that 85-90% of the population opposes banning smacking, and it is interesting to note that a high proportion of those who want to ban smacking have never had children of their own.

Banning smacking will do nothing to prevent real child abuse. Banning smacking will not save children like the Kahui twins, just like homicides are not stopped by murder being a crime.

If t Bradford’s bill is passed, most parents will become criminals.

Meanwhile, real child abusers will go unchecked, while CYFS targets those parents who dare to discipline their children

It doesn’t take a village to raise a child. It takes two parents who are prepared to set boundaries and have the courage to stick to them.

Quote: Darryl Ward
“Anything unresaonable, such as beating, is clearly out.”

See that’s the problem, beating is not clearly out. All some parents know about the NZ law on smacking is that it’s allowed, which was the case with James Whakaruru’s parents who beat him to severely that he died from his injuries and were shocked when they ended up in court. They said he was naughty and they were just giving him normal punishment.

I’ll say it as many times as I need to; most parents who smack don’t take it to the level of physical abuse BUT SOME DO. We need this law to say to all parents that violence against children is not ok, at any level. This is how clear we will need to be if we want to reduce physical child abuse in NZ.

My comment was directed at the subject letter at the top of the page, not to the comments thereafter.

MC Dr Doogie laughed his arse off… keep writing Brannavan Gnanalingam. You’re hitting the point so good. Good shizzle

Doogie Howser M.

I believe in you, Brannavan.

ummmm.
I am one of Sue Bradford’s children. A recent Vic graduate. Some Salient staff will know me. Including Brannavan, who seems to have a better grasp of irony than the bulging-vein school

There are reasonable people who contest the desirability of the bill. Fair enough, if they do so with reasoned arguments. Not with lies. Grant, who posted above, is a liar. It’s that simple. My mother did not assault me as a child. Nor is she homophobic.

Perhaps us unsmacked Bradford kids did ‘run wild’ - actually come to think of it, we didn’t- but…
somehow, we are all well educated and successful. and we don’t resort to lying on internet forums, because we have real achievements to our names.

Strangely enough, I remember the naughty kids at school… the ones who you suspected would end up in jail, and did… were the ones who were most frequently smacked. Did it help? obviously not.

I’ve never met a violent thug with liberal, PC, wishy-washy feminazi parents.

To those of you wishing violent harm to my family for trying to protect others via the democratic process…
channel your macho bullshit energy into something more useful, like watering those magic beans you bought off Ian Wishart. Then think about how stupid those who agree with you must feel when they read your comments. Most importantly, fuck off. Nothing gives you that right.

Sam Bradford.

Hey Sam Bradford. Nice to see you here. I went to one of the select committee hearings and I was really impressed with your mother. I think that for a politician to do something like this, which has been so vocally opposed is quite brave really. I mean, we haven’t seen Labour have a go at it, despite the fact that Helen Clarke so clearly supports it. If you’re in the habit of telling your mother what people think on internet forums you can tell her congratulations from me. Hope it all goes through.

What happened to the freedom of the people of New Zealand?

Why is this government taking away OUR freedom?

We are moving (slowly) to a communist state where the government will tell us what we can and can’t do. If you are a smoker you are not allowed to smoke in a bar. If you are a parent you now have become a criminal if you issue your child with a corrective smack on the bottom.

My main issue is that this takes away the freedom of good Kiwi’s and this effects us ALL. What’s next? No more Beer, wine and spirits? No more fish and chips? The government giving us jobs instead of letting us choose? I’m sure there is an agrument to support these 3 samples, but it all takes away freedom.

Why turn parents into CRIMINALS? It doesn’t make any sence. The more I look at this the more I think this kaw is about Sue and not about NEW ZEALAND. Please also keep in mind that this woman has been to jail and has a very dark past. Now Sue is involved in government to make herself feel better.

If we want to keep our children safe we need to EDUCATE. Don’t take away our FREEDOM! As of next month I will be a criminal here in New Zealand thanks to Sue.

New Zealand is a great country and lets keep it that way. Don’t let a solo mum who has been in prison change the KIWI way of life.

Just to clarify because I was confused by Harry’s sensationalist accusations of prison above, this in Paul Holmes’ profile of Sue Bradford in today’s Herald:

“She’s long ago forgotten exactly how many times she’s been arrested [at demonstrations]. “30 or 40 times,” she thinks. She once spent “4 or 5 days” remanded in prison.
“Both times I was there, it was fine. I had some of the most interesting conversations in my life in Mt Eden Women’s Prison.”

Obviously the charges of being a solo mum are entirely indefensible. (Does sarcasm work in this forum?)

I would like to pick up on a point made by Adrien, in his reply to Sam Bradford, in that many parents do not know any way, other than smacking, to make a child understand what is acceptable behaviour, and what is not. Tthis is because I truly believe smacking, the use of force in a loving, guiding way, is an instinctive, natural method of parents educating their young. They dont even have to think about it. It is an immediate, natural reaction to a sitution. I am sure you will find It is used throughout the animal world, by all higher intelligent creatures, in rearing their offspring. When a child does something wrong, or is getting itself into a situation of danger, the average parent, who lets face it, certainly knows better than the child, instinctively wants to impress upon the child the error of their ways. This is probably verbal in the first instance, and if that doesnt work, then a smack is used as a stamp of the parent’s authority, in a timely, and relevent manner. They dont stop to think about section 59. I bet 99% of people had never even heard of section 59 until this bill came along. Only the smart-ass lawyers knew about it, and tried to use it to get the real criminals off.
In making smacking a crime, I believe the government would be going against Nature itself, which would be totally wrong.
I also take exception to a statement made by Sam Bradford in defending his mother, for trying to ” protect others via the democratic process”. When 80% of the population is against what you are doing, then that is not the democratic process.
What we want is changes to section 59, which categorically spell out, exactly what the limits of reasonable force are, and a judicial system, willing and capable of enforcing those limits. Failing that, at the least, a referendum is required.

this bill is the ’state knows best, and takes away rights from parents’. How dare the state do so… if we want to have sex with our children, how dare the state get in the away.. oh hang on…..

Go al!
There are plenty of things that are law to provide for children’s safety, even other than the one that al used. We are legally obligated to fence swimming pools, children must wear seatbelts (or be in child seats) in cars, children must wear bike helmets etc. These are things that we all do, not because we think that our own children are in danger of drowning in a swimming pool, but because we know that if all of them aren’t fenced, a number of children each year are likely to die, and we value those few children enough that we think it’s reasonable that everyone should have to fence their pool.

Hal.
I can tell you with absolute honesty that discipline can be achieved without any use of physical punishment at all. My mother and her brother were raised without it, and so were my brother and I. Further, I’ve just completed research into 20 other parents who don’t use it. During the course of which, I found numerous NZ studies that confirmed that about 20% of NZ parents never smack their children. I can already hear you saying that these children are running wild, but this is not the case. Study after study has found that children who are not smacked are generally better behaved, which is probably because alternative discipline techniques require a lot of explanation and are often better related to the mis-behaviour, which means that the child is much more likely to learn about why the behaviour is inappropriate. This learning facilitates the development of morals, which is obviously important for children to behave well in the future.
However, I think the most important reason that non-smacking results in better behaved children is that smacking damages the parent-child relationship. And the better relationship one has with their children, the better behaved their children will be.
I know many of you will say that you smack and your children are very well behaved, and give anecdotal evidence about people who don’t smack and whose children are very poorly behaved. But the preceding statements are based on my reading of studies that have looked at many hundreds of children. Also, I’m not suggesting that people use no discipline at all, which would obviously result in very poorly behaved children.

And agent0, nothing makes me sadder than reading about how traumatic it is for you to smack your children when I know that you don’t have to do it. I understand that you feel that there are certain behaviours which are so serious that you need a very serious punishment, but what you really need is to teach your children why they shouldn’t do it, am I right? The best way to ensure that they don’t do these things is to teach them not to in the most effective way, and that is talking to them about it, as many times as you need to. As far as punishment is concerned, An appropriate one for leaving the section without telling you would be that they have to stay in the house until you are satisfied that they can play outside unsupervised without leaving the section.

Gina, as nice and idealic as your world sounds, your research has only relvealed exactly what you wanted it to. I’m sure that if you did research on parents that do smack their children and have positive outcomes you would find alot of evidence to back that up also. The interesting figure in that exercise would be a comparison in the ratio vs ratio. In saying that, I don’t need figures to verify my conscience and what I believe is right. If you have listened to or researched the implications of the bill thoroughly, you would realise that the comment you made about ‘not suggesting parents use no discipline at all’ would be null in void..because they are saying that the likes of time outs or naughty mats would be constituted as ‘reasonable force for the purpose of correction’ therefore making this too an illegal offence. (United Future MP Gordon Copeland has clarified this as being true and correct.) The thing that makes me so incredibly sad for the likes of someone like you, is that if this bill is passed (which it definately is looking like the most likely outcome), and you realise the reality and severity of its consequences affecting our kids, our parents and this nation, how are you going to sleep at night? The fact that you and your mother have never been smacked is great..good on you, but there are a TREMENDOUS amount of parents out there that have, and that do smack their children. Are you really going to think its a great idea when your friends, partners friends, cousins, auties, uncles, co workers etc, when ANY of them get their families torn apart for offences that in their mind and experience was not wrong or out of line. When giving their child a time out, or pulling them off the road to stop them from being hurt, or making them sit on a naughty mat till their child is ready to apologise to the brother or sister they have just hurt, or even ‘threatening’ them with being grounded for destructive behaviour, or for smacking them on their bottom or hand for continually displaying disrespectful or hurtful, or cruel or purposefully destructive or dangerous behaviour makes them a criminal, that SIPS has the right to not only take their children off them, but to enforce being jailed for up to two years?!?! How can you possibly support a leglislation that has ’supposedly’ been ‘passed’ because it will protect our children, when the reality is that the WORSE affected parties are going to BE our children? My parents seperated before I was two years old and both remarried so effectively, I had four parents. I have been smacked by every one of them, and in MY experience, I would rather have doubled, tripled, quadrupled the amount of smacks I got if it meant not being taken away from my parents, or having them imprisoned. This bill is again ’supposedly’ is suppose to lessen the child abuse in New Zealand, when the reality is, that there is ALREADY a law that parents that abuse their children are to suffer serious concequences. This bill being passed is not going to stop child abuse, the old law hasn’t so far so why would this make any difference at all?? Abusers will still be abusers. All this law is going to create is fear in the rest of us parents who are NOT abusing our children, but is held ransom by any other person including our children, our neighbours, friends, collegues, unknowing by standers any new zealand citizen that for whatever reason decides by their standards or MOOD that could pick up the phone and get us arrested or our children taken off us, they are not even going to require proof..and this is something that you support? Todays’ children are Tomorrows leaders..doesn’t that frighten you that under this legislation, our future leaders are going to be a generation that grew up in a society that has legalised prositution, that it is legal for men to marry men and women to marry women, that have never had to respect or honor authority if they didn’t ‘feel’ like it, because they had more rights than their authority figures (parents, teachers, elders) had?? Legalising marijuana is next on the ranks isn’t it? So lets just say your 15 yr old comes home, he will be able to LEGALLY marry his mate, have sex with prostitutes and smoke marijuana in your home, and you STILL can’t raise your voice, threaten him with kicking him out of house, ground him or forcefully take anything off him without YOU being arrested or reprimanded?? As far fetched as that scenario may sound, the reality of it happening is getting quickened by the appallling choices our government keeps imposing on us as a society. We that respect the law, have only learnt to do so, by learning that our actions have consequences, and that we have respect for authority which we learnt from having to respect for our parents and suffered consequences (smacking or not) enforced on us by them. My parents loved me, and the odd smack never made me think they didn’t. I was rebelious by nature as a child and a teenager, had I not felt the consequences of my actions, I do not think I would be here today. I have said more that I intended, though could carry on for alot longer. I won’t though, because my only intention for writing anything at all, was that I plead with you and others like you, to SERIOUSLY consider the implications that this may have before you get behind and support such a hurrendous law, that I can ASSURE you, WILL affect you in a way that will be far from positive.

I have 3 Children who have been smacked in their early years to protect and correct.Not abused ,how dear these people running our country think they know it all,I dont want to bring these people into my famlies lives,they are worst than a smack they are liers and have no respect for the parents of New Zealand.This is my first time online discussion to but as most people who want NZ to be a better place to live ,I feel very strongly on this.I have written to my mp and because of public feeling he has changed his vote so write letters join the petition.You can acess this online on Family First website or Morefm.

Nigel.
As I mentioned above, there are bound to be anecdotal accounts which differ from averages which are found in studies. The assertion that children behave better when smacking is not used is based on samples of many more than just the one child.
I am in no way advocating that parents abandon discipline altogether. If alternative discipline techniques are used properly and consistently they are bound to be more effective than smacking. But I have to stress that they must be used consistently. It can be challenging at first to follow through on not letting a child watch tv for a week, for example, especially when a quick smack or three would be so much less effort. However, it is my belief that the possible risks associated with the use of smacking are serious enough that I’m more than willing to put the extra effort into child disciplne. Besides which, I seriously doubt whether I could bring myself to raise my hand and bring it down on my child with the intention of causing them pain, as punishment. I wouldn’t do this to a dog, and I certainly wouldn’t do it to my own child.

Actually agent0, it was me who I think you’re addressing your comments to, not Hal.
I’m not sure your comments really apply to me personally since I’m female and we generally piss in toilets, even when we’re drunk.
When I asked you ‘am I right?’ the question was, ‘is your goal to teach your children WHY they should or shouldn’t do something?’. Surely your answer would have to be yes here. I talking about moral learning. Which has been found to be poorly achieved by smacking and much more effectively achieved by other methods. If my child kept leaving the section without telling me I wouldn’t let them play outside unsupervised until I was absolutely certain that they weren’t going to do it again. And I wouldn’t be certain until they could tell me the reasons WHY it’s unsafe for them to be wandering around alone, and WHY that would make me extremely worried etc. In other words, I’d demand that they understand WHY they shouldn’t do it. I can’t imagine any way to get them to understand WHY without explaining it to them. If they don’t know why then they’re just going to do it when I’m not looking, same as every other moral action that childrenn need to learn about.

Well Gina, do you have kids? Then shut the fuck up. Do you want me to keep him in the doors forever? So you are still WRONG!!
The times I wrote about earlier took place last year. These do no include the times in previouls years where he left our section without permission.
My son is of above average intelligence for his age (He gets that from his mother) but at the same time very obstinate. His will is so strong. This characteristic, I want to preserve and have no desire in trying to break it. I see it as a positve attribute but curbing it has proved more than difficult.
Each time I allowed him to play outside unsupervised after grounding him, I asked him if he felt he was ready to do so without leaving our section. I believed his answer. Why? Because I feel it it important as a parent to have my child know that I can trust them enough to realise that they have made a mistake and that they will try not to to do it again. He wouldn’t immediately after being grounded leave the section then. It would happen after some time had passed. Weeks usually.
As I mentioned earlier, I explained in great detail every possible reason why this rule is in place. From issues of his personal safety to the example set for his younger brothers to the trepidation it will cause us, his parents. I meticulously covered every base after each offence and I would make him explain in his own words to me what I was saying to make sure he had a full understanding of everything we talked about.
You have no experience in dealing with such matters so enough of your shit already.
The third time I grounded him, I kept him indoors for 3 weeks. I got more shit from friends and family for doing that than when I just gave him a wack. Especially because it was during the start of his end of year holidays.
His mother, my mother, my father and my brothers told me I was cruel and that I was going to far and it put a strain on our relationships, me feeling I had to do what I had to do. It depressed me.
On top of that, I had to watch my child slowly slipping into a state of depression. Now what would you suggest. I keep him grounded for months at a time???
So SHUT THE FUCK UP because you don’t know shit when it comes to raising children.
You say you were strong willed as a child. Most people would say I’m willing to bet, you were a spoiled, bitchy, ill behaved little wench who people couldn’t stand to be around.
One of my nephews wasn’t smacked until just recently. He was a little terror. Not anymore. There has been a noticable change in his behaviour, all positive. The reason, his mother decided enough was enough and has started smacking him occassionally. It’s worked a miracle because I love children, I love my nephew but being around him before his mother decided the time had come to take action, was not easy, even for me.
My sons’ behaviour in public, impeccable and towards others, they are very polite and respectful.
Now please, until you have a child of your own, don’t talk to me. I have seen first hand people who said they would never smack their children become parents who do smack their children.
Talk to me when you are a few years into motherhood.

Oh I’m sorry Gina. As for me bullying you into silence, wherever did you get that idea? Definitely not my intention. What I meant, was for you to direct your comments elsewhere. I just don’t need advice from you unless you have something truly constructive pertaining to this particular situation.
And for putting me on the defensive, my empassioned reply was due to your silly assumption that I did not try everything you suggested I try. I was offened by you. To think that as a parent I didnt… I did everything you suggested before you even suggested it and much,much more. Everything I could possibly think of to let him know “WHY”…What more could I possibly have done? What would you have me do? Lock him in a closet??
You failed to answer my question also. Do I keep in indoors for months at a time? How do you propose I should have handled it? Remember I already tried everything you thought of. Please, give me something other than what you have already posted. No repeat answers.
And if you are a parent and I’m quite sure you aren’t, you would have proudly admitted to such a great honour and privilege. You see, I see it as exactly that. An honor and a privilege. Not my right. It is what I am most proud of, the fact that I am a parent and I have an opportunity to forge and mould, young impressionable minds. To be a positive force in their lives for as long as I live. Which is why I let everyone know in my first post.
LOVE. I live my life by this one simple word. I abhor the cowards who abuse minors in their care, regardless of whether they are their own children or not.
A smack with the intent to educate (when all avenues have been exhausted) is not the same as one with the intent to maim or injure.

Brannavan Gnanalingam needs to be rooted in the ass. So forceful in his opposition to that terrorist Bradford - it really turns me on to see a man with such brutal conviction. I love you Brannavan Gnanalingam.

I am concerned that much of the debate against the use of force (in smacking) is focussed around elimination of pain from the childhood experience. If all pain is considered wrong, when will parliament be debating the right of women to have children without ANY pain? What remedy will exist for my wife when my nearly 2 decides to practice hitting? So far his sisters have failed to rationally convince him that hair pulling isn’t on either…

How is it, that a politician can claim physical discipline is wrong, then hold themselves up to be a good and well adjusted person? There parents had the right to choose how they raised their children. They inherited the right to choose how to raise their children. They seek to change the right of people of their children’s generation…?

As I think this is now a done deal, the few having provided their “guidance” to the many in another stunning display of politics, New Zealand style, I suggest both the green and labour parties work on new career choices before the next election. Even ever tolerant middle NZ voters cannot put up with this.

(i do see a ray of hope in this kind of debate, queer bashers, god botherers, righteous and wicked aside…)

Sam - the preventing of child abuse is a red herring. There are already laws in place against child abuse and people are regularly prosecuted for this. It is my understanding that in the last 16 years there have been only 7 cases where section 59 has been used as a defence. This proposed law change is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The recent case which used section 59 as a defence involved a so called ‘horsewhipping’ of a boy - in reality this case involved a boy who was going to take a softball bat to his stepfather and the mother picked up a riding crop and hit him with it to stop this. Not a great situation, but one could easily see that the action was self defence - what were the parents supposed to do - allow the son, who had ongoing behavioural issues to hit them with a softball bat???

This bill is really about Sue believing that we shouldn’t be allowed to smack our kids at all and wanting to impose that view on all parents - she has come out and said that this is her belief.

For an alternative view to unicef I would suggest reading the material at http://www.familyfirst.org

I understand the argument that some children are so poorly behaved that they need a good smack and won’t respond to anything else. However I interviewed a number of parents who decided not to smack their children before the children were born, and thus, before they could have any idea about the temperament of their children. Also, these people mostly had multiple children, each with their own different temperament. What they recommended for people who don’t want to use smacking, is: find out about as many alternative disciplinary techniques as possible because different techniques will work with different children in different situations. They were all able to find discipline techniques that worked with each of their children, despite their differences in temperament, without having to resort to smacking.

I dont believe you should smack kids - I never smacked mine more than a couple of times and they have never caused me a days problem. If I had my time over again I would not smack them at all - there are better forms of teaching them to behave - but in saying that, that kind of smacking and the frequency of it is still accceptable under this bill. In hindsight it was lack of parenting skills and my personal stress that preceded the smack. I had two parents - one who smacked and one who didnt - guess which one I remember fondly - guess which one I always obeyed - guess which one I respected and would do anything for - guess which one I remember every day of my life and he died in 1980.

Can’t SUE BRADFORD see that there is a fine line between smacking and beating?

STUPID STUPID STUPID

People keep talking about the fact that there are already laws in place to deal with people who physically abuse their children, and that is true. But I don’t see the issue being solved by those laws. What we need is a law that deals with the root of the problem, smacking.

When a parent who never smacks has had a really bad day at work, they come home, their kids are screaming, and little Johhny has tipped over the rubbish bin, spilling the contents onto the floor, again, the parent who doesn’t smack does not accidentally hit little Johnny a bit too hard, harder than they meant to. They don’t send him falling onto the corner of the coffee table. They don’t have to take him to the hospital to get his head stiched up. They don’t have to feel guilty about the scar on his forehead every time they look at him for the rest of their life. And why? Because the parent who doesn’t smack isn’t in the habit of smacking their kids, so when the strain comes on they don’t even think about using it. Maybe they yell, maybe they cry, but they don’t hit.

Frude & Goss (1979, p.333) surveyed mothers of 18 month to four year old children and found that those who physically punished frequently were more likely to worry that they might lose control and hurt their child, and more likely to report an “incident in which they had really lost their temper and hit the child”.

Of the 83% of parents who used physical punishment, 12% described the most severe occurrence as resulting in “considerable pain” (Graziano, Hamblen, & Plante 1996, p