Thank fucking god

http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10534667&ref=rss


Thank fucking god, there's hope that this idiotic law will be repealed. Sanity may prevail.

"... This allows parents to use reasonable force against children to prevent harm, to stop a criminal offence, to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour, and for "the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting". But they cannot use force for "correction".


I"d like to know their definition of "smacking", but it probably means spanking or slapping of any kind and is absolutely perposterous. It seems odd that this bill passed with so many people against it. I bet that these "gentle discipline" and attachment parent types probably think that it's great and wonderful, but I think the law needs to be repealed or greatly revised. I am sure there are already child abuse laws on the books and I can't imagine what provoked them to pass this nonsense, but it looks like it was a moo campaign of sorts, which figures.

I was still in the country at the time this law was passed KidlessKim, and I can tell you that indeed the vast majority of the population was against it - there were several large protest marches throughout the country, and numerous polls conducted by various groups continually showed that most people didn't want this law passed. But the government, which is supposed to be a democracy and hence listen to its people, completely ignored the populace and basically said sorry, but we know best. And they passed the law anyway. That's what pisses me off about it. If the majority had been all for it, I'd still think it was nonsense, but I'd also think, well, majority rules, so if that's what most people want, then I'll just have to deal with it (or not really, since I don't have brats, but anyway). But the majority were clearly and openly against it, and they pushed it through anyway like a fucking dictatorship.

We too have an election shortly and I sincerely hope that my fellow NZers will make a point of NOT voting in anyone who voted for this bill!!

"Green MP Sue Bradford is the author of the Bill that removed Section 59 that included a defence of reasonable force. She said the defence ``allowed some parents to get away with assaulting their children'.

...Ms Bradford said the poll confuses the issue because smacking is not a criminal offence. She said proponents of a referendum of the issue are confusing the issue on purpose.

``I believe their real intentions are to change the law so that reasonable force is defined, creating what would in effect be a whackers charter, describing in law the ways in which parents would legally be able to assault their children,' Ms Bradford said."


Articfox, do you know who this Susan Bradford is and what her agenda might be? It says she is the author of the bill, so I am wondering if she holds a political office or is just some concerned, moo do gooder activist. Since the police are given discretion as to what is criminal smacking and what isn't on a case by case basis, is that causing discriminatory arrests as well? This sounds like a REAL mess and I would like to know what triggerred a bill like this in the first place. Thanks for answering my questions. I don't know what "green mp" means either, if you'd like to fill me in.

For those outside the Commonwealth, MP stands for "Member of Parliament", which is more-or-less a Congresscritter. Green means a member of the Green Party, because some countries have actually abandoned first-past-the-post as a method for electing politicians.

Up here, our Supreme Court decided to allow spanking, but put a good number of restrictions on it: it cannot be used on children under 2 or over 12; it cannot leave marks; it should be done on the behind; and you must use your hand and not anything like a belt or a paddle. Given that a lot of people were predicting an outright banning of spanking at the time, the actual decision sounded pretty good.

This law is just ridiculous and needs to be repealed ASAP! Hell, it shouldn't have been passed in the first place! Discipline, with the limitation of spanking only, should be left in the hands of parents. It is parents who have to deal with this crap and know when discipline should be administered. Generally, spanking, along with denial of priviledges, is sufficient to get the child to know what is acceptable and what is not.

Unfortunately, with the advance of the GD crap, parents probably WON't have the foggiest notion of how to discipline their brats. I look only for MORE restrictions on the rights of parents to discipline their children. I'm glad I'm getting old and that I'm CF. It certainly doesn't bode well for society in general. Children NEED discipline and you do them no good service in not maintaining it.

I think we shoud be able to smack any child we please.

Hey, we conquer this one issue at a time, Rose Red, though I am with ya on that.

RR, ya piker, your right AGAIN

This just shows the absurdity of modern 'civilisation2: a law to PERMIT parents to spank their kids.

I believe that spankings should be up to the parents (or caregivers) and on a case by case, kyd by kyd basis. Some kyds can be reasoned with and others can not. Some kyds respond by a harsh tone or the taking away of priveleges, while others do not. Sometimes, the implied threat of a spanking is enough to make a kyd stop acting like an asshole. The MOST dangerous thing about making no spanking a law is that the kyds will be aware of this and ALL threats of physical parental power will be null and void. We already have brats calling CPS for revenge because they are well aware that ALL alleged child abuse complaints must be investigated and therefore their parents would be at the least, inconvenienced by an investigation. So, I can only imagine how much perceived power this will give brats of the future. A brat misbehaving and pushing me to anger who yelled out with a smug look, "You can't spank me!! It's against the law and I will call 9-11!!!", MIGHT be enough for me to choke the life out if them and I am a rather non violent person. I can only imagine how a parent who is already at their wit's end, frazzled, and on the brink of a breakdown, could "snap", and kill that kyd. This "law" may just backfire if implemented at large.

kidlesskim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Green MP Sue Bradford is the author of the Bill
> that removed Section 59 that included a defence of
> reasonable force. She said the defence ``allowed
> some parents to get away with assaulting their
> children'.
>
> ...Ms Bradford said the poll confuses the issue
> because smacking is not a criminal offence. She
> said proponents of a referendum of the issue are
> confusing the issue on purpose.
>
> ``I believe their real intentions are to change
> the law so that reasonable force is defined,
> creating what would in effect be a whackers
> charter, describing in law the ways in which
> parents would legally be able to assault their
> children,' Ms Bradford said."
>
>
> Articfox, do you know who this Susan Bradford is
> and what her agenda might be? It says she is the
> author of the bill, so I am wondering if she holds
> a political office or is just some concerned, moo
> do gooder activist. Since the police are given
> discretion as to what is criminal smacking and
> what isn't on a case by case basis, is that
> causing discriminatory arrests as well? This
> sounds like a REAL mess and I would like to know
> what triggerred a bill like this in the first
> place. Thanks for answering my questions. I
> don't know what "green mp" means either, if you'd
> like to fill me in.

Hi Kim,
This hatchet-faced Sue Bradford is indeed the author of the bill, and as Acme explained she is a member of parliament and of the Green party, who are basically a bunch of goddamn tree-hugging hippies (as Eric Cartman would say). Some of their policies are good, to do with environmental issues etc, and some of them, like this law, are nuts. Anyway this woman has four children and loves to bleat on about how she never ever physically disciplined them and they've turned out fine. She fails to realise that millions of people WERE physically disciplined (including myself) and turned out fine, too!! Furthermore, I should really have said that she has three children, because one of her sons killed himself a few years ago. Frankly, and this may be an incredibly heartless thing to say, but I don't think she can be that good of a mother if one of her 'great kids' topped himself.

As for the reasons behind this law, it came about because we have a very high rate of infanticide in NZ. The reason for that is because we have a large Polynesian population in NZ (there are more Tongans in NZ than in Tonga!) and beating your child when it misbehaves (and I mean seriously, violently beating) is the norm in most Polynesian cultures. The vast majority of the victims of infanticide in NZ are Samoan, Tongan, Maori etc. So this stupid law was Sue Bradford's brilliant idea to try and lower the incidences of infanticide.
While of course I am all for measures being taken to lower the high rate of this crime, this law is not the way to do it. It doesn't just apply to Polynesian breeders, it applies to ALL parents/PNBs, who are trying to raise good well-rounded children by giving them the occasional spank when needed. And, as many people pointed out, if you're the kind of person who is going to beat your child to death, you're going to do it regardless of what any law says, and of course since this law was passed there have already been several more high-profile cases of children (again, mostly Polynesian) being murdered by their parents. This so-called wonderful law didn't help those kids, did it?
Further, our youth crime rate is increasing every year, and most people believe this law is just going to help kids become criminals easier and earlier because they won't be allowed to be disciplined.

Sorry, I could rant for ages!!

Trust me if you are the type to violently beat and abuse your child, no law is going to stop you. No anti-child abuse law has ever been able to do that. That decency and restraint needs to be in the heart of the parent or caregiver...no law can provide what is not there.