The Anti-Smacking 'Law' Debate

[mrsaneperson]

Do you still beat your children Damap? Just asking... (not a serious question... obviously)

Beat his children? That sounds pretty serious to me unless you're, with the Sue Bradford anti smacking law crusaders?

87% of those polled didn't want the bill yet our governing "democracy" rail roaded it through even though PM John Key said "Its a complete & utter dogs breakfast". Backflips from Helen Clark along the way too.Minority vocalists at work at the beehive.. yes lol, sadly.

[SwissKiwi]

Beat his children? That sounds pretty serious to me unless you're, with the Sue Bradford anti smacking law crusaders?

87% of those polled didn't want the bill yet our governing "democracy" rail roaded it through even though PM John Key said "Its a complete & utter dogs breakfast". Backflips from Helen Clark along the way too.Minority vocalists at work at the beehive.. yes lol, sadly.

87% of those polled don't mind violence against children?

But violence against adults is bad and = assault?

Oh dear NZ.

[frazzledfozzle]

lol @ violence

[drelly]

87% of those polled don't mind violence against children?
But violence against adults is bad and = assault?
Oh dear NZ.

That's how I felt about it too. The opposition to that legislation was an embarrassment. And I don't even like Sue Bradford!

[mrsaneperson]

Not meaning to railroad the thread .I side with Larry Baldock organiser of that referendum against the anti smacking bill .Once again it was legislation that Sue Bradford rammed through and it was undemocratic no matter what your view on it was.It went against the majority of New Zealanders opinion. So many of those who sided with it certainly had no respect for those opposing it in terms of democracy .That was more important than the bill itself.So we all sit back & let our democracy crash.Here is an open letter Larry Baldock he wrote to Sue Bradford back in 2009:

Open letter to Sue Bradford from Larry Baldock Referendum Petition Organiser 9 August, 2009 Sue, I watched the forum on Maori Television Friday night with you, Dr Hone Kaa and Bob McCoskrie. How I wished I was there to respond to the drivel you continue to repeat in defence of your anti-smacking law. “Adults can’t hit each other so adults shouldn’t be able to hit children,” is probably the main argument you and your supporters use to justify your law that is now criminalising good parents all over this country. Let me tell you why you are wrong and why your argument is flawed from the very beginning. Firstly, some adults can hit others without breaking the law. They are called police and we give them this authority because we know that in some circumstances someone must use reasonable force to correct the unacceptable behaviour of some adults in our society. If I were to throw a wobbly and begin to refuse to submit to the laws of this country, and act in a threatening manner to persons or property, the police could hit me with a baton, taser me with 50,000 volts of electricity, handcuff me, and backed by the justice system, even enforce my timeout in a correctional institution if necessary for a number of years. It is probably widely known in NZ that you have disliked this authority that is entrusted to our police ever since your early protesting days when you sought to assault some of our good men in uniform. Truth be known you probably would like this authority to use reasonable force for the purpose of correction to be taken away from the police as well as from parents, but most of us in this country are comfortable leaving such power in their hands. So let me say it again, it is not true that it is always against the law for an adult to use force against another adult if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. Sounds very much like the old sec 59 doesn’t it! Your second error is made when you constantly bleat on about how children should be treated the same as adults in law because this neglects that fact that sec 21 & 22 of the crimes Act has always treated children differently by giving them specific exemptions from prosecution for any criminal activity they may commit. We do this for two reasons. Firstly, because they are not mature enough mentally and emotionally to be held accountable to adult laws. Your line of argument for equality would demand that when a two year old at Preschool lashes out and hits another two year old the police should be called to arrest them for assault, then prosecute and jail them like adults. That of course would be ridiculous. And secondly this exemption was given for children because it was widely accepted by society that they should not have their behaviour corrected by the police, but rather by their parents who would be in a much better position to do so. Now, as a consequence of your ill-considered law that has removed any legal authority for parents to ‘use force for the purpose of correction,’ we have empowered children and disempowered the parents that society reasonably expects to be responsible for their children’s correction and training for adulthood. Thirdly, this argument of yours is stupid because it does not recognise the difference in relationship between a husband and wife as two mature adults, and the relationship between adult parents and their children. This constant referral to an old law that permitted a husband to correct his wife adds nothing to the real debate about parental correction. Of course these laws of inequality between men and women should have been changed and it is a shame it took so long. Women’s suffrage was also slow in coming and the recognition of the equal right of women to vote was an important victory. Your argument for equality between adults and children though, could lead to a suspicion that you might think that 3 and 4 year old children should vote as well. Perhaps this is a little close to the truth as I have read how the ‘yes vote’ campaigners have been calling for the opinions of children to be heard in the anti-smacking debate already. A husband is not responsible to make his wife go to school, a wife is not responsible to make her husband eat healthy vegetables, take a bath, etc (though some may argue they have to anyway) therefore the pleas you make for equal rights cannot be logically argued. Actually as most of us parents know, children have far more rights than we do because they get food, clothing and shelter all free of charge without having to lift a finger to work for it or pay for it. And as parents we would say this is right and good, as we willingly become their slaves 24/7, because they are the most precious gifts we are ever entrusted with. Their value and worth are priceless. But with the awesome responsibility parents carry for the welfare of their children, they should be trusted in the same way as our police are entrusted with the authority to use reasonable force for the purpose of correction when needed, without the interference of the state. Sue, when my wife and I were traversing the country collecting signatures from thousands of good Kiwis from all walks of life, do you know what they were most upset about? They wanted to know when it was that you earned the right to become the ‘mother of the nation.’ What possesses you to think that you know more about raising children than the hundreds of thousands who have raised healthy, well adjusted, law abiding citizens in this country. Though they have been smacked and corrected they have not grown up violent and disrespectful, and this argument you make about smacking creating violent adults is not supported by any sensible research that distinguishes between reasonable force and a beating and abuse. In this wonderful free country of ours you are of course entitled to your views, and you can parent your kids and give advice to them on how they raise your grandchildren as much as you like, but don’t try and tell me my mother was a child abuser when she corrected me as a child. You know Sue, we have clashed a few times in debates on different topics over the past few years. I have never yet heard a proposition from you that really stood the test of common sense and proper scrutiny. How I would love to debate the anti-smacking issue with you again before all the votes are cast. Perhaps there may be some media organisation that could serve the public of NZ by setting up such a contest. A contest between just you and me. You, as the author of the anti-smacking law and dedicated supporter, and me, the organiser of the referendum petition and dedicated opponent. You said you would be willing to meet for a debate with me anywhere anytime. Let’s do it. The taxpayer will cover your travel; I’ll take care of my own. Regards, Larry Baldock Kiwi Party Leader 021864833

[SwissKiwi]

Adults should be allowed to hit children because police are allowed to hit people?

That is not an intelligent argument. Words like stupid, drivel, bleat don't help him either.

The intelligent parent would learn parenting skills that do not rely on violence.

[drelly]

Like I said... embarrassing.... Democracy voted in Hitler by the way... LOL

[mrsaneperson]

Like I said... embarrassing.... Democracy voted in Hitler by the way... LOL

Used for dramatic propaganda effect. Their is much debate if it was or not a democratic process , nevertheless he was a dictator , ironically you show yourself to be one too;similarly usage of dramatic words like "violence, hit or beat" instead of the actual specific & more accurate word "smack"; shows you are willing to distort to avoid having any kind of democratic process implemented because you hold a minority opposing opinion as does SwissKiwi.
You show you are not interested in democracy & more interested in a dictatorship run by minority vocalists who share only your point of view. Alarming !And this unfortunately is what is happening in NZ more & more. At our own peril & erosion of democratic principles we do this.

If i had been in the minority opinion camp like yourself & sided with the Sue Bradford anti smacking lobby & the bill hadn't been enacted, i would not have liked it but would have acepted it because my opinion was the minority one & i respect that we live under a democracy NOT a dictatorship.

[frazzledfozzle]

mrsaneperson big thumbs up from me

[drelly]

Used for dramatic propaganda effect. Their is much debate if it was or not a democratic process , nevertheless he was a dictator , ironically you show yourself to be one too;similarly usage of dramatic words like "violence, hit or beat" instead of the actual specific & more accurate word "smack"; shows you are willing to distort to avoid having any kind of democratic process implemented because you hold a minority opposing opinion as does SwissKiwi.
You show are not interested in democracy & more interested in a dictatorship run by minority vocalists who share only your point of view. Alarming !And this unfortunately is what is happening in NZ more & more. At our own peril & erosion of democratic principles we do this.

If i had been in the minority opinion camp like yourself & sided with the Sue Bradford anti smacking lobby & the bill hadn't been enacted, i would not have liked it but would have acepted it because my opinion was the minority one & i respect that we live under a democracy NOT a dictatorship.

What a lot of silly waffle. My point is that "majority rules" does not mean the mob is right. I don't really give a shit about political process if it means doing something harmful. Democracy is only as valuable as the public are educated and I'm afraid that people are getting more stupid rather than more enlightened.

What exactly is it that you disagree with? I'm not sure why anyone would not want children to have the same legal protection as adults?

59 Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

[mrsaneperson]

What a lot of silly waffle. My point is that "majority rules" does not mean the mob is right. I don't really give a shit about political process if it means doing something harmful. Democracy is only as valuable as the public are educated and I'm afraid that people are getting more stupid rather than more enlightened.

[QUOTE=drelly;307281]



You prove 100% & emphasise my previous post with the above statement that you are not interested in a democratic process , you stomp & grind protesting you know better & that everyone who disagrees with you is uneducated & unelightened. You are in effect being a dictator. Very sad! But LOL because i'm not sure you even realize it. This is the same stance that most of our members of parliament pervade upon us ; not interested in following the will of their electorate or country.

[drelly]

You prove 100% & emphasise my previous post with the above statement that you are not interested in a democratic process , you stomp & grind protesting you know better & that everyone who disagrees with you is uneducated & unelightened. You are in effect being a dictator. Very sad! But LOL because i'm not sure you even realize it. This is the same stance that most of our members of parliament pervade upon us ; not interested in following the will of their electorate or country.

Unfortunately, your argument holds no water because it is factually incorrect. I have repeatedly asked for reasoning but no one (you included) is willing to give any. Democracy is an imperfect system and not something to hold up as some sort of paragon of virtue to follow ignorantly and blindly. Your belief that democracy means asking permission for every decision made in parliament is wrong.

[Baldy]

Democracy is an imperfect system and not something to hold up as some sort of follow ignorantly and blindly. Your belief that democracy means asking permission for every decision made in parliament is wrong.

Ahhm... Got to agree with you on that Drelly. Until not so long ago in little old 'democratic NZ' the majority did not consider it a big deal if a man beat his wife up (purely to 'discipline' her of course).

Often the police and other members of society believed that it was okay to do so because it was 'just' a family matter and somehow justified.

Ohhh and wait a minute... here's another one... some people have told me a 'true story' about how 'democratic NZ' did something pretty damn amazing (and counter-cultural at that time) by opposing the majority views... this country dared to give women the rights to vote.

[Perry]

Unfortunately, your argument holds no water
because it is factually incorrect. . . .

What part was factually incorrect?
That NZ is [supposed to be] a democracy?
Something else?

Democracy is an imperfect system . . .

Sure it's imperfect, but it's the one that's
proven better than the alternatives, so far.

What alternative does Northland use, the
virtues of which you can extol?

[drelly]

What part was factually incorrect?

That I'm being a dictator. I keep calling for alternative reasoning and no one responds.

Sure it's imperfect, but it's the one that's proven better than the alternatives, so far.

I think all the talk about democracy is a distraction to the smacking issue we were discussing. We voted in a Government democratically that made a decision to make that law change. It was democratic. Mrsaneperson didn't answer my question either...

What exactly is it that you disagree with? I'm not sure why anyone would not want children to have the same legal protection as adults?