OnPoint: "Smokescreen," I scream
66 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Family First has a list of about 30 cases that they claim show the law isn't working well. Some may fall within your parameters.
I note that on the figures they provide there has been one prosecution for "smacking", which I assume to be the Masterton case I've noted before. None for the much-discussed "light smacking" though. There is zero chance of a law change to permit the other behaviours described.
I do suspect that given this organisation's track record of enabling and misrepresentation, many or even all the cases they list will turn out to be other than they've described them. Call the "ear flick" rule ...
But one constant theme in this material appears to be that children are to blame for what happens to them.
-
Jono,
Are you talking about Ralph Nader's sister Craig? Why is she so popular all of a sudden? Mind you, I do hear good things about her Controlling Processes course!
-
I note that on the figures they provide there has been one prosecution for "smacking", which I assume to be the Masterton case I've noted before. None for the much-discussed "light smacking" though. There is zero chance of a law change to permit the other behaviours described.
They do argue that "... police are unable to define the difference between "smacking" and "minor acts of physical discipline"", so that takes it up to their nine.
They also note specific cases which have resulted in charges, or children being taken from parents.
... one constant theme in this material appears to be that children are to blame for what happens to them.
Is that too surprising? Even if you disagree with smacking - as we both do - surely we can recognise that those who do smack will often/usually/almost always do it because they think their children have been misbehaving?
-
They've been compiling 'victim parents' for adverts during the referendum. No doubt we'll find out all sorts of interesting things about them as well.
Only if someone does the dastardly deed of splashing their name (as opposed to a selectively edited version of their deeds) over the newspapers and internet.
-
Is that too surprising? Even if you disagree with smacking - as we both do - surely we can recognise that those who do smack will often/usually/almost always do it because they think their children have been misbehaving?
I file this in the same box as "bloody girlfriend! Should have known not to [do any one of many things] when I've been drinking/had a hard day at work/etc. Then she wouldn't have got hit."
While it's not surprising, it's the fact that it's still considered acceptable by a lot of people in society to say that about kids, whereas not many people would still think about saying it about an adult. That's the contradiction that needs more highlighting.
-
Only if someone does the dastardly deed of splashing their name (as opposed to a selectively edited version of their deeds) over the newspapers and internet.
What a stupid media release from family first. Most people who go to court end up named in the court news of several daily papers. If you didn't throw yourself at the media before you went to court, they might not put it in such a prominent place after left the building.
-
While it's not surprising, it's the fact that it's still considered acceptable by a lot of people in society to say that about kids, whereas not many people would still think about saying it about an adult. That's the contradiction that needs more highlighting.
Quite.
I might add that it's a contradiction that Family First has turned into a fetish. They seem to struggle to find a parental action that can't reflexively be blamed on the child involved. And these are people who drone on out the other side of their mouths about "parental responsibility".
-
I file this in the same box as "bloody girlfriend! Should have known not to [do any one of many things] when I've been drinking/had a hard day at work/etc. Then she wouldn't have got hit."
I'm with you there, but men are (no longer) charged by society to discipline their female partners. There are obviously people who feel that the limited use of force should be allowed in raising one's children, and I'd debate them, except their point is precisely that smacking was banned by stealth, to address an issue of quite different magnitude. I think Graeme has been arguing that they have a point there, and I tend to agree.
-
While it's not surprising, it's the fact that it's still considered acceptable by a lot of people in society to say that about kids, whereas not many people would still think about saying it about an adult. That's the contradiction that needs more highlighting.
Quite possibly, but it's a line of logic I'm sure they (and many/most/almost all) parents would use when talking about non-physical punishments as well. If children are placed in time-out, or told they can't watch TV as a consequence of some action surely we can recognise that those who do [punish their children in such a way] will often/usually/almost always do it because they think their children have been misbehaving?
I file this in the same box as "bloody girlfriend! Should have known not to [do any one of many things] when I've been drinking/had a hard day at work/etc. Then she wouldn't have got hit."
But it would be okay if this guy's girlfriend had been sent to her room or told she couldn't watch TV?
-
Is that too surprising? Even if you disagree with smacking - as we both do - surely we can recognise that those who do smack will often/usually/almost always do it because they think their children have been misbehaving?
Sure, and I wouldn't be unsympathetic to the next female ACT staffer who smacked David Garrett in the mouth following an "off-colour comment". Our laws around common assault being what they are, I suspect a court -- and the woman's employer -- would be significantly less sanguine. One well known legal principle is Ignorantia juris non excusat; I don't know if "Good intentions" are much of an excuse either.
-
"this guy's girlfriend" is, I assume, not a minor?
And yep, kids *misbehave* - but - blaming kids for being kids and then warranting physical punishment for such behaviour?
-
And yep, kids *misbehave* - but - blaming kids for being kids and then warranting physical punishment for such behaviour?
And aren't they the same people who whinge about society cotton-wooling today's kids? They can't have it both ways.
-
Yes, but we're back to saying that smacking should be banned, which is kind of what they've been arguing our secret agenda was from the beginning. Which proves them right, in the oddest way.
-
Agreed Giovanni - so I'll be voting YES in the referendum-
-
Yes, but we're back to saying that smacking should be banned, which is kind of what they've been arguing our secret agenda was from the beginning. Which proves them right, in the oddest way.
I'm still stuck on how its a bad thing eliminating a legal defence for punching your children in the face, or attacking them with a riding crop.
I found it hard hearing Heather Roy in the general debate through my howls of anguish, but I think that's what she's keen on. -
As will I, although not dignifying it with an answer is also tempting.
-
That was meant in response to Islander's I'll vote YES.
-
I thought about that...
And, the threads seem to be melding eerily-
-
Does stapling a note of displeasure to your referendum ballot invalidate it? I don't know if there's anything in the Electoral Act that says so.
-
I'd do that DeepRed if it doesnt negate the YES...further to yoyur point upthread re mollcoddling children/wrapping them in cottonwool - exactly! FamilyFist is all about *control* -and I'd suggest patriarchal control- not about ways to bring up inquisitive & lively human beings to be creative & happy adults.
-
YES. One child I know would think it all a great giggle, whoop & try & kick the cupboard door down. Another would become hysterical. Let's go for protecting the latter (who, I suspect, would encompass the majority.)
-
O - post 2 previous - the y's are starting to migrate randomly too!
-
And yep, kids *misbehave* - but - blaming kids for being kids and then warranting physical punishment for such behaviour?
I raised the matter in response to Russel's incredulity that someone was *blaming* children for being smacked. I think the blame is about as much as would be apportioned by the person in question (and many others) to children who were grounded or lost TV privileges. Many people view smacking as just another consequence on the continuum of responses to mis-behaving children.
There are many arguments against smacking, and many arguments in response to those who support it, I don't think that their is blame apportioned to children in cases of smacking is a particularly good one in either respect. I suspect Bob McCoskrie and others would be opposed to any smacking where they didn't think the child was blameworthy - and probably opposed to grounding and other punishments as well. I think that most parents would think that if a child hasn't done anything wrong, why would any form of discipline or punishment - physical or not - be appropriate?
-
Exactomundo.
-
I'm still stuck on how its a bad thing eliminating a legal defence for punching your children in the face, or attacking them with a riding crop.
For many people that's what Chester Borrows was trying to do, they think Bradford's bill was aimed at eliminating a legal defence for punching your children in the face, or attacking them with a riding crop, or lightly smacking them.
I also suspect that many parents were miffed at being lumped together with child abusers ... if proponents of the amendment had toned down the rhetoric and instead argued:
we know the vast majority if parents who smack aren’t violent, and don’t beat their children, are just as sick at the levels of child abuse in this country as we are. This law change isn’t about parents who smack, it’s about the violent ones, the ones who use the law to get away with abuse. This law change bans smacking, but if we don’t do it we won’t even be able to begin to address the needs of those children who do grow up in violent homes. Most parents who occasionally smack their children, feel guilty about and know that there is a better way to raise happy and healthy kids; these people – the vast majority of New Zealand parents – will have nothing to fear from this law change – the police will not investigate or prosecute a minor smack. Yes smacking will not be something you’re allowed to do any more, but you already know you shouldn’t do it, and feel guilty when you do; and isn’t it a small price to pay to offer some protection to the children who do grow up in violent households?
I suspect the last two years would have been somewhat different.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.