Posts by James W
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Much respect to John Key. It would have been very easy for him to take the 'popular' route on this, especially with that member's bill landing on his table. For the first time in ages, a politician has gone with the facts instead of... well, acting like a politician.
Now we just need the media to move on as well.
-
I actually think changing general attitudes to smacking would be a much more positive step than criminalizing it. "There is another way" as a campaign would probably work. I'm inclined to think Supernanny has done much more to stop smacking in NZ than Labour did. A "help quit smacking" team would also be of great benefit, if people didn't think there was a good chance of ending up getting prosecuted instead of helped.
This does make me wonder why there was no public education campaign to go along with the law change. Is it because it was a private member's bill drawn out of the lottery?
I note the report from the Justice and Electoral Committee (from July 2005 I believe) said this:
Public education
We recommend that if the bill is enacted the appropriate agencies should conduct public awareness and education campaigns about the effect of the recommended changes to section 59 and alternatives to physical discipline. We received positive feedback about the Strategies with Kids---Information for Parents (SKIP) programme. This programme has been adopted by thousands of parents, community groups, and educational groups throughout the country. We consider that the extension of the SKIP programme and similar parental educational programmes would be most beneficial in conjunction with the recommended changes to section 59.
-
By my claim in particular there was that if 88% of people think they weren't harmed by smacking,
You're assuming a bit there. You could have been smacked and believe you were harmed by it, but still not believe it should be a criminal offense. Once again, the ambiguous question doesn't help us.
You lost me there. There are no moral facts, there are only moral beliefs.
When I said "go with the facts every time" I meant I was disagreeing with you that it is a moral issue. Experts say this thing is bad for children and society. The law should reflect that. Morals don't come into it for me (my belief in non-violence I guess has a moral element, but I wouldn't use that as my only support for the law). Especially because the the notion of smacking kids as a form of correction probably only hangs around today because of the Bible.
Perhaps smacking will end. If it does, I expect it will be because good help and education for parents exists, rather than because a whole lot of mums and dads are in the slammer.
I totally support good help and education for parents. And I agree with you the best way to implement a law is to educate people first. The amendment to Section 59 was not introduced well and not communicated by the media well at all.
However, I don't particularly want to see "mums and dads in the slammer" (I take it you mean "good" mums and dads?) either. To me, that's a red herring. Look, you agree corporal punishment isn't the most effective method, but don't think parents should be criminalised for smacking their kids, right? Well, the problem is it has to be a criminal offence (or more accurately, the defence for smacking for corrective purposes had to be removed) in order to help stop child abuse. It was the only way to a) remove the "reasonable defence" that allowed real child abusers a way to get off (and according to the police, not even get charged in the first place); b) teach people that while a smack might be a genuine light smack in your household, in another it's a closed fist, and it's impossible to allow one without opening the door for the other; and c) more generally, influence society through making something illegal, it is no longer acceptable.
Yes, a public education campaign would have helped. Yes, education in schools would be a massive help. Yes, addressing the issues of poverty and drugs and self-esteem would help. But as an immediate step to stop our awful rate of child abuse which the same 88% seem to get so upset about whenever it occurs, removing the defence for smacking for corrective purposes had to be done. Because that is what can, scientifically, lead to child abuse.
-
When you're pitting yourself against the anecdotal evidence of one interlocutor, you've got an easy win. When you pit yourself against 88% of people who could be bothered answering, then you've got a problem.
Unfortunately, history is littered with examples of the majority being wrong, from indigenous rights to comic books to homosexuality to Britney Spears selling lots of records.
I totally disagree that issues of morality should be decided by experts, I have never had the slightest time for this point of view. There are no moral experts. When you make something a crime, it's become an issue of morality, rather than practicality
Jesus, the question of what is moral is harder to define than what a smack is.
My view: go with the facts every time. Morality is far too vague and shifting and defined by the majority to ever let the majority decide.
-
Thanks for your reply, Ben. To be honest this entire debate (which, for me at least, has been going on for 2 years now) is really starting to tire me. I believe both sides ultimately want the same thing – an end to child abuse in New Zealand – but damn if it isn't frustrating coming to an answer we can both agree on.
I think what the entire debate boils down to is this – the experts say one thing, a fair chunk of the public believe the opposite. I tend to always side with the experts, whether it be corporal punishment, climate change, health, or causes of crime. I believe people better qualified than I should decide what the answer is, and our laws should reflect that. I can never go on anecdotal evidence like "I was smacked as kid and I turned out fine", or "I smack my kids and it works" because to me that's the same logic that allows psychics to make craploads of money. There's also my gut instinct that violence of any kind is abhorrent, but ultimately it really is a Science vs Belief argument for me.
-
OK, how the referendum question was "confusing" to me:
The question was: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence?"
"Should a smack - -"
First of all, what defines a smack? The word smack is really just a nicer way of saying hit, because to say hit implies something more forceful and that would go down the road of assault, something the framers of this question insist they have nothing to do with. There is a clear implication currently in our society that smacking = okay, hitting = bad. This exact same question with the word "hit" instead of "smack" would probably have seen quite a different outcome.
The definition found online for smack is:
- slap: a blow from a flat object (as an open hand)
- deliver a hard blow to; "The teacher smacked the student who had misbehaved"Definition for hit:
- deal a blow to, either with the hand or with an instrument; "He hit her hard in the face"But before the amendment and continuing today, people have shown they don't know the difference between a smack and a hit because they have been let off for using more than an open hand. One man's smack is another's hit. And now the organiser of the question is saying wooden spoons should be okay, so obviously he sees that as a "smack".
Even if we accept that a smack is open hand only, how hard? Should it not leave a mark or bruise? Do we go back to the Rule of Thumb?
How you define a smack seems to be quite important to me, since if what the people want is the power to smack, then the exact definition of a smack needs to be written into any new law.
"- -as part of good parental correction- -"
Who says a smack is part of good parental correction? Certainly not Plunkett, Barnadoes, Women's Refuge, Unicef, various other expert organisations and lots of studies. This is an intentionally loaded question. They chose not to ask "Should a smack as part of parental correction be a criminal offence?" because you see the word "good" and instinctually want to agree.
The question could've been "Is a smack part of good parental correction" and I would've answered no. If it was "Should smacking someone be a criminal offence" I would've answered yes.
"- - be a criminal offence?"
As far as I was aware, to hit (or smack) anyone was always a criminal offence - it was Section 59 that allowed a defence after the fact specific to children. So I felt the question - once you get past the loaded nature of it - was basically asking me something redundant.
Beside all that, everyone knew the question wasn't really about whether a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence, but it was a referendum on the recently amended Section 59, which a lot of people believe prevents them from smacking their kids, even if it doesn't in every case. So by voting no, you could be saying you don't think parents should go to jail for lightly smacking their child but want to keep the law as is because it is working, or you could be saying you want to law back the way it was, or you could be wanting to amend the law in some way.
The problem is, the question didn't ask what it's makers wanted it to ask because they knew they wouldn't have got such large support - namely, "Do you want to repeal the amendment to Section59?"
-
I laughed out loud at 7 Days, so it did its job. I did find it a bit weird how dated a lot of the jokes were however - seriously, Judy Bailey? I could see some younger viewers not getting the jokes they were so old.
-
Is a light smack for the right reasons reasonable force? Perhaps this referendum answers how NZ feels about that.
Unfortunately, hitting a child with a riding crop and bit of 4x2 is reasonable force to enough New Zealanders serving on juries as to make this whole law change come about in the first place.
-
Craig said:
I've known Simon Collins for a long time, have enormous respect for the man and he's smart enough to know a majority of a bare plurality of registered voters is NOT "88 percent" of "New Zealanders". I'll be generous and assume he screwed that up hard on deadline.
This would be the same Simon Collins who gave the entire second page of the Herald to Family First back in July as part of his series on the smacking debate. And I mean gave it to Bob McCroskie - I remember one section being something like "Eight Examples of Good Parents Prosecuted". There was no counter-argument either, because each story that week ended with "*CYFS will respond on Friday." When we go to Friday, Mr. Collins' gave us "CYFS says sorry to 'traumatised' family". The entire series was purely anecdotal rubbish.
He knows exactly what he's doing, and that's selling newspapers.
-
While I'm as interested in the breakdown of where the money goes as everyone else here, I think it's a little cynical to criticise KidsCan's purpose of giving food, raincoats and shoes to schoolkids. One of the biggest hurdles people have with problems like poverty is the impression that the problem is too big, there is nothing the ordinary citizen can do. So while the larger cause of poverty will always come down to government policy, I'm a fan of simpler short-term solutions like KidsCan's because it's an achievable, measurable goal. It's an example of how the ordinary citizen can make a difference. That the raincoats are branded and the food good advertising for the companies providing it is unfortunately part of the commercial world we live in. And yes, it might well be cheaper for me to buy the raincoats myself and pop down to the school and hand them out, but seriously, how many people are going to do that? Surely one organisation to centralise it is better.