Posts by ron
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
All of which have banned smacking. You still there ron?
Thanks for confirming what I suspected. You haven't actually read Chirs Beckett's paper, have you?
See his Table 1. The top four countries in terms of lowest rates of child maltreament deaths are Spain, Greece, Italy and Ireland. None have bans on smacking. In fact, 7 of the 9 countries with the lowest rates of child maltreament deaths do not have smacking bans. And after deaths from undetermined causes are excluded, Sweden ranks 12th, Denmark 18th and Finland 19th.
And NZ ranks only marginally inferior to Switzerland and Austria, equal with Hungary and almost twice as good as the USA.
Are you still there, Russell?
-
Am I the only one who finds almost everyone's behaviour inexplicable here?
The only thing I find inexplicabe is your failure to discuss DBP's departure from Cabinet.
-
Bollocks he does. He addresses a specific claim regarding a fall to near-zero abuse fatalities
He finds that claim to be false. Despite that, the myth endures.
He also finds that several countries that do not have a ban on smacking/corporal punishment have the lowest recorded rates of child maltreatment, even lower than Sweden. Maybe we could learn something from them.
"Real progress will not be achieved by making simplistic and wildly inaccurate claims about the likely benefits of a ban on corporal punishment, or by airbrushing out of existence the Swedish children who still die at their carers' hands."
That's a message that some NZ politicians don't seem to want to hear. They prefer a quick fix.
-
Kyle,
The link you supplied does not enable me to find the article you refer to.
However, apparently the article says "The main idea behind the law is not to find criminals but to protect children against maltreatment".
First, if it's against the law to smack or to use corporal punishment, then by definition those who use such conduct are criminals, whether that writer likes it or not. That means that police will have to devote resources to such cases. It's great to know that that writer has "never met one single professional, whether in health care, social services, the police forces or at school, who has felt overstretched because of enforcing the ban". Whether that can be said in this country of the smacking ban, time will tell.
Second, I don't believe Beckett "puts much effort" into arguing against a ban at all. To suggest otherwise is gratuitous. He's merely saying that we shouldn't be intellectually dishonest to think, as some here appear to, that a ban on smacking or corporal punishment will have the intended effect.
Third, Beckett makes the point, apparently not refuted, that other European countries have better records on child maltreatment than does Sweden. So why we would use Sweden as some kind of model is difficult to understand.
-
'Relatively few kids' fits well with 'may' and 'possibly'.
Kyle, I don't think so. May and possibly are hypotheticals. Relatively few is a fact. That is, compared with the number of parents who smack their kids, relatively few parents abuse or kill them. Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary.
-
Beckett specifically addresses a claim that child maltreatment deaths in Sweden fell to almost zero after corporal punishment was banned in 1979, which he regards as unsustainable.
Russell, you appear to be (deliberately?) missing the point. There is no evidence to suggest that banning corporal punishment/smacking will have any positive effect on reducing maltreament/deaths. But this, or a variation on it, is the sort of rubbish that was heard during the anti-smakcing debate that we had several months ago. How many times did we hear that we have one of the worst child abuse rates in the world? That may or may not be true - but it's irrelevant to the debate.
But to adopt him as a smacking advocate -- as you, Families First, etc seem to want to do -- is ludicrous
Excuse me? I did no such thing; try keeping to the topic. Beckett makes it clear that a ban on smacking or corporal punishment might may us all feel better, but it won't have the desired effect. And it's nothing more than a distraction because such action uses resources that could be better used finding real solutions.
-
__Smoking the latter may eventually lead to hard drugs, the former may lead to beatings and possibly eventually manslaughter/murder.
So, you have no evidence to support this? Given the relatively few kids that are seriously hurt or killed at home, I suspect your theory will never fly.
-
So what's the rate of child assault in homes where children aren't hit at all, ron?
That's like asking what the rate of alcoholism is in homes where people don't drink.
I'm sure you've read Chris Beckett's paper on the Swedish myth that a ban on corporal punishment has worked wonders. Anyway, your readers might appreciate it.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Child_deaths_in_Sweden.pdf
To quote Beckett:
"a narrative which has no real world validity is, in the end, a distraction - an instance of 'symbolic placation' which gives us a comfortable feeling because it makes us feel that we have done something and because it temporarily absolves us from trying to find solutions that will actually work and/or facing up to the limits of what we can achieve".
-
I'll bet the people who beat them started with smacking and escalated from there when they didn't get the result they thought they should get.
I see. So smacking is analogous to cannabis. Smoking the latter eventually leads to hard drugs, the former to beatings and eventually manslaughter/murder. Hmmmm.
-
ron - children can drink alcohol at home. And smoke. And have sex. All without breaking the law.
Really? My 10 year old will be very happy to hear that!