Posts by Ian MacKay
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"Scott, there are very wide holes to drive legal buses through as the current law stands."
Not sure what they are but simple solution make striking a child for any reason illegal. -
"That's part of what I don't like about them - then instead of a discipline defense it's like a provocation defense."
Now there's a good point! We have dismissed totally the idea that provocation is an excuse. Yet isn't that essentially what is happening when the child does the wrong thing. I smack you because you provoked me. It is YOUR fault. Nothing to do with my lack of patience/understanding. YOU provoked me. So there!
-
Sofie. Yes the Universe but maybe it should be 9. Any number say 42 has a digital root of 4+2=6 Then 42-6= 36 so 3+6=9. You see the answer is 9 lemons!
Or 59 is 5+9=14 and 59-14= 45 so 4+5=9 Now thats easier than a dumb referendumb. -
I have had 4 children and when I smacked them, rarely,it was my incompetence/impatience/lack of coping rather than the "crime" of the kids. It does seem to have a short-term effect but as a means of kids developing confidence and self determination it is an abject failure. I was strapped and caned quite a lot as a kid by teachers, but was able to detach myself from the punishment. Good skill? Did it do me any harm as some say? Don't know. Maybe I just passed it on to my kids though adults now they can't remember being hit.
Maybe the answer is a lemon! -
Mark: Now I am more confused. Firstly my point was and is that my question above was what the repeal boiled down to. That was the reason for the Repeal of S59!
Secondly I cannot therefore reconcile the No in the referendum to your position. I am sure that many/most of the NO votes were given on the grounds of disagreeing with the repeal - weren't they?
If a significant number of the NO vote thought as you do, then that would totally change the implications of the total No vote.
Therefore thankyou Mark. You have got me thinking! -
Mark: If you (or someone) hit the child with a whip for being naughty, would you like to be able to escape conviction by saying you were only using reasonable force to correct the child? YES/NO?
That Mark is what the Repeal set out to remove as a legal defence. Thats all. I cannot believe that you would say Yes! -
Ben. Away over there the BBC summed up the purpose of the Repeal:"The legal change was to stop people using "parental discipline" as a defence against assault changes but allowed police wide latitude to not prosecute cases seen as trivial."
Wonder why our media did not get it so well? -
Ben. I am a bit conflicted as to what you now believe? If you consider that "instantaneous physical force for to intervene" means smacking, consider this. Pysical force could mean grabbibing a kid from running out on the road, holding his hand to stop her from running into danger, picking her up and removing her from the supermarket, taking him to time out. On reflection the smacks that I gave my kids years ago were because of MY frustration not to protect them at all. When cooled down the crime seems unimportant. In an ideal world we would simply say no hitting kids at all.
-
A Bill has been prepared saying "Smacking may be used for the purpose of correction."
-
As I guess everyone knows, the NO voters seemed to be voting for something quite different from my understanding. Even an interview with the successful petitioners last night on late TV 1 News, seemed to be talking about a different issues. When asked in what way was the Repeal failing to work properly, they talked instead about serious crime against kids still going on.
What it all says to me is that any Government better watch out. Once the population get a taste for "rebellion" it might be hard to deal with. When even us ordinary folk realise we can collectively have effective voice,(as we should have), then get your act together. The dragon is stirring!