Hard News: Making it up on smacking
186 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Kyle MacDonald, in reply to
I agree. It's hard to see where the balance was in the original story.
-
Andrew C, in reply to
was this murky “reasonable force” law that allowed the latter group to get off thanks to a jury of their peers.
Are there any figures on how often this defense was used successfully? I'm not trying to start a debate on it, just interested.
-
Dylan Reeve, in reply to
Are there any figures on how often this defense was used successfully? I’m not trying to start a debate on it, just interested.
I'm not sure that statistics like that are ever kept, but there were a few higher profile examples involving hoses and the like. I'm sure someone can dig up details (they get a little lost in the search results these days)
-
Moz, in reply to
Being smacked with a jandal or a belt was fairly common when I was a kid in the 70s
Yes. But there's a tricky balance between a resilient implement and one that gives the satisfaction of a good solid impact. Wooden spoons were just too expensive since they broke so often. But jandals are too floppy, and belts it's too easy to hit the wrong thing and leave visible marks (or take an eye out). A specially-made strap is a much better idea.
This was not abuse, I'd just like to make that clear, this was normal parenting. "Everyone did it"{tm}. It only became abuse when they used a metre-long length of thick-wall poly pipe, or a fist-sized rock, or that unfortunate incident with the bit of 4x2 that turned out to have a nail poking out of it (hospitalisation required).
The important result was that they did turn me into a vehement supporter of the "lets call it assault" laws.
-
Is anyone else a bit creeped by Colin Craig claiming to punish his daughter with ""a flick of a finger on the back of a knuckle". Granted, it doesn't sound particularly violent but neither does it sound like a good way to teach a child to behave. More like a good way to teach a child that they're lesser; it's a play for dominance and doesn't sound particularly healthy.
(Thoughts possibly influenced by the recent finale of Sherlock.)
-
B Jones, in reply to
it's a play for dominance and doesn't sound particularly healthy.
That's a feature, not a bug. It's no coincidence that authoritarian worldviews go hand in hand with authoritarian parenting practices. Authoritarian communities invest a lot of energy in the latter - see Babywise/Growing Children God's Way, To Train Up A Child and so on. Undermining parents' ability to exercise absolute power in the home undermines the ability of an authoritarian worldview to replicate itself.
There are two groups of parents subject to this discussion - the larger group who lose their rag from time to time, and those who consider physical punishment to be a crucial parenting tool. It's the latter leading this debate, using the former as cover.
-
If anything Craig's world view reminds me of the old Great Chain of Being.
God
Angels
Kings/Queens
Archbishops
Dukes/Duchesses
Bishops
Marquises/Marchionesses
Earls/Countesses
Viscounts/Viscountesses
Barons/Baronesses
Abbots/Deacons
Knights/Local Officials
Ladies-in-Waiting
Priests/Monks
Squires
Pages
Messengers
Merchants/Shopkeepers
Tradesmen
Yeomen Farmers
Soldiers/Town Watch
Household Servants
Tennant Farmers
Shephards/Herders
Beggars
Actors
Thieves/Pirates
Gypsies
Animals
Birds
Worms
Plants
RocksWith a place for everything and everything in it's place. Including children.
-
Yay!
Radio New Zealand has followed up on Craig's interview and established that his claims about Australian smacking law were bullshit.
Remember where you read it first, folks :-)
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Worms
Plants
Rocks...and then it's turtles all the way down, right?
-
Moz, in reply to
the consequences to a child of ongoing abuse from a birth parent can easily be worse than the consequences of that parent abruptly exiting their life.
I have no doubt that this is almost always true.
What changed your mind? This comment at the start of this discussion seems to have you thinking the opposite. (the quote by steven crawford above reminded me). I fear you're going to weasel in the Colin Craig "smacking is not abuse" vein, but if so I'd liike to see a nice, clear, lawyerly definition of the boundary from you.
My line, FWIW, is quite clear: hit the child other than to prevent a clear, immediate threat and its abuse. Go to jail, do not pass on your problems to your child. The question I'm grappling with is whether sterilisation is justified in all cases or only the most severe.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
It only became abuse when they used a metre-long length of thick-wall poly pipe
And even then it was only abuse if you got a particularly unfortunate draw with the jury. Was it "Timaru Lady" who not only got away with a riding crop but also with a length of bamboo? Someone got away with using a fence paling, too, and I'm pretty sure there was a metal vacuum cleaner pipe in the mix also.
What was there possibly to object to with such a sound law protecting our children?
-
Moz, in reply to
What was there possibly to object to with such a sound law protecting our children?
The nanny state?
Watching scientists try to compare bad parenting with state care (foster parents, residential facilities, prisons) is both enthralling and terrifying. IIRC the gap between prison and residential care is often disturbingly small, especially if you have a disabled child and are looking at respite care or institutionalisation. But at a less personal level, the amount of abuse a child can experience at home before they'd be better off in foster care is terrifyingly large (albeit in part because to get to foster care children are normally institutionalised first).
My hope is that the very real possibility of a criminal conviction and prison time would be enough to reform all but the most out-of-control parents. Either through deterrence or removal. I wonder if what we need is "crimes against children" dedicated police units who are a properly-resourced, uniformed corollory to the social welfare agencies, since the governments we have are so reluctant to invest in education and child care despite the huge savings available doing it that way. I suspect just letting the abuse work its way out over generations is more politically acceptable and the costs are deferred, making them effectively invisible.
-
WH,
Putting the merits of the smacking law to one side, the episode stands as an example of how not to bring about social and legislative change.
We can all reflect on what a win this was for democracy the next time Parliament passes fiercely contested social legislation in the face of overwhelming public opposition.
-
Steve Withers, in reply to
Love that Wiki article. Thanks for posting the link.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
the episode stands as an example of how not to bring about social and legislative change.
Sometimes it just has to be done, regardless of public opinion at the time. If public opinion was the gauge, we'd still have criminalised homosexuality, spousal rape would remain a legal impossibility, the death penalty would remain on the books, we'd still sentence people to hard labour, and all would be merry and shite.
The right thing to do is the right thing to do, no matter what talk-back and Family Fist have to say on the matter. There aren't too many social issues where the changes are clearly about protecting or upholding the rights of a minority (or non-voting, in the case of children) group. Waiting for public opinion to come around on those issues largely means it just won't happen, or certainly won't happen for far, far too long.
-
Moz, in reply to
We can all reflect on what a win this was for democracy the next time Parliament passes fiercely contested social legislation in the face of overwhelming public opposition.
The term you're looking for is tyranny of the majority, usually put as "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". Pure democracy is a dangerous thing, which is why we have an independent judiciary and elect representatives rather than voting directly on issues.
-
WH,
I hear what you're saying, but don't agree that smacking children can be compared to spousal rape or criminalised homosexuality.
There were a range of ways in which New Zealand could have responded to concerns about the use of physical discipline. Funding for at-risk families could have been increased, education and support could have provided to new parents, or a total ban could have been phased in over time.
Instead of trying to persuade a sceptical electorate, Sue Bradford's supporters conflated parenting methods still in widespread use with the most severe kinds of child abuse. The discussion of whether it was acceptable to smack your child's hand in a supermarket devolved into the discussion of whether it is good parenting to beat a child around the head with a piece of bamboo. Supporters' inability to maintain the distinction at the heart of the conversation created a deeply unpleasant and fractious atmosphere.
I don't think Bradford's proposal was a sensible way to start a law reform effort and I don't think she was the right person to lead such a sensitive debate. The problems with her approach were compounded by the fact that she couldn't admit that a middle ground existed without undermining the case for her own amendment.
In short, I don't think that our Parliament should have overrode public opinion in the way that it did in this case. IMO we were forced into a fool's choice by Bradford and the rhetoric of her supporters.
-
WH,
-
Moz, in reply to
The discussion of whether it was acceptable to smack your child's hand in a supermarket devolved into the discussion of whether it is good parenting to beat a child around the head with a piece of bamboo. Supporters' inability to maintain the distinction at the heart of the conversation created a deeply unpleasant and fractious atmosphere.
I think blaming Sue Bradford for the insanity of the child beaters is a stretch too far. If the pro-beating crowd could have restrained themselves and only supported parents who smacked a child's hand the discussion would have been very different. Instead we were treated to the spactacle of pro-beaters saying "we support this parent who's been unjustly charged" ... "with punching a five year old in the face", which didn't help anyone.
-
WH,
Instead we were treated to the spactacle of pro-beaters saying “we support this parent who’s been unjustly charged” … “with punching a five year old in the face”, which didn’t help anyone.
I think you're right, that would be a really unfortunate position to take.
Those were the kinds of real-life acquittals that persuaded most reasonable people that the old law needed to be changed.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
a total ban could have been phased in over time.
We’re going to start driving on the other side of the road, but the change will be introduced gradually.
But seriously, how would a graduated system be anything but confusing and unclear?
As with any assault, it’s unlikely to be prosecuted at the low end of the spectrum.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
But seriously, how would a graduated system be anything but confusing and unclear?
Well, how did it work in Sweden? Their initial law change didn't amend their criminal law.
-
WH,
And what exactly did Sue Bradford do to piss you off?
I think Bradford's campaign was dishonest, that her tactics set the stage for one of the most unpleasant public debates of the last decade, and that the overall result was undemocratic. I think that's enough reasons to disapprove of what she did. I know there are those who consider that the ends justified the means.
We’re going to start driving on the other side of the road, but the change will be introduced gradually.
I'm having a flashback of the Sandringham Rd / New North Road intersection. I hope you guys are doing something about this while I'm away.
Floating the idea that legislative phase-ins are "confusing and unclear" because you don't approve of a particular policy is pretty disingenuous. An immediate ban was not the only way we could have gone on this.
As with any assault, it’s unlikely to be prosecuted at the low end of the spectrum.
This is where a lot of people - maybe 85% of people - did not want us to be.
-
This is such a bizarre debate. Still, looking at the Wikipedia entry on Corporal punishment in the home and Where corporal punishment in the home is lawful I can see Australia, Canada, Ireland, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States.
Do you think it's the English language that drives this need to beat children or is there something deeper in the Anglosphere driving this urge?
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Do you think it’s the English language that drives this need to beat children or is there something deeper in the Anglosphere driving this urge?
I get the impression that it is the adult's lack of being able to use any language to express their disapproval of their child's antics is what drives the adult to strike a child with frustration. To declare that hitting a child is a good form of discipline says to me that the English language may be too difficult for some.
Plus, what Steven Crawford said.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.