Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Or TV last night.
-
That's quite eerie. You're not really some guy called Mike who says things like 'I have the body of a Greek god, you know' are you?
He used that line and got lucky?
Man, I'm totally off track.
-
That may be the argument you are making, but its certainly not what either Bradford or Clark are telling the public:
"But today she said her stance had not changed. [PM Helen Clark] still did not support a smacking ban and did not believe that was what Ms Bradford's bill would achieve."
Hmm. It's against the law to speed in this country, and yet I can travel 51 km/hour and never get a speeding ticket, ever, because no cop is going to waste their, and my, time. Does that mean that speeding is banned or not?
Sue Bradford is right. She's not banning smacking, she's removing a defence which allows people to get off (http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR10668.html. Smacking is already banned in this country, in much the same way that punching people on the rugby field is banned. Just one currently has a 'reasonable force' defence, whereas on the rugby field police apply common sense.
And no, Helen Clark never plays politics when she gets dragged into a debate. She's a 100% straight shooter that one, honest.
-
Kate has a very good point. There are obviously a lot of bad parents out there - parents that don't care about or even don't want their children. Removing the 'reasonable' defence is not going to turn these parents into loving models of parenthood.
I think people are making the assumption that just because they haven't heard of it, no moves are in the wind to promote and educate positive parenting. I would bet within a year we'll be seeing TV adverts or some other campaign teaching alternative skills to smacking.
Most of the groups that have been advocating this position would say that's just as important as the law change. It's just that the law change is what's happening now.
True. But its also true that most societies (including a majority in our own society) have concluded that parental discipline (including reasonable physical discipline) is not a breach of a child's rights.
I think the point is, that's looking like changing here in the near future. While it's not being done explicitly, this is a debate about whether or not children have that right, and if the bill passes (in its mangled current incarnation) then it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that in NZ, children now have that right.
-
Kyle, what I am saying is that the special obligations inherent in the parent/child relationship require special treatment in law.
But there's no requirement that the special obligations in the relationship be applied to the area of smacking/assault. Indeed parents have certain laws that only apply to them because they are parents (eg truancy).
That point to one side, what I have really questioned is the political legitimacy of this bill being passed by Parliament. I, like the majority of New Zealanders, do not believe that the supporters of this bill have made the moral case for the legal prohibition it contains. I also wonder whether the bill is inconsistent with Article 18 of the ICCPR.
Point 3 of that article states: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."
So if we conclude that children have the right not to be hit, then hitting children is not a right extended to anyone through belief or religion.
In my view it is an unfortunate accident that the Government has the numbers to pass this bill against the wishes and reasoned objections of so many citizens. You might disagree.
I spent much of the late 1980s and most of the 1990s unhappy that the government had the numbers to do a large number of things that the majority of the population were against. That's not an accident though, that's parliamentary democracy.
-
But yeah, it was terrible. One of our empty blue recyclying bins blew all the way to the other side of the cul de sac. I thought I was going to die.
That noise it made as it dragged along the asphalt, you know that's not an earthquake right? So no need to run screaming onto the streets and all that.
-
Another way to frame the debate would be to ask whether people who believe smacking is wrong can tell everyone else how to raise their children. The relationship between parent and child is sui generis IMO.
Well clearly there are things society, as represented by government, can tell people to do, and not to do, as parents. Most laws apply to the parent-child relationship regardless of whether or not the parent-child relationship is unique. Parents can get in trouble if they fail to ensure that their children are properly fed, educated, clothed etc.
Just because it's a unique relationship in our society doesn't mean that laws don't apply. Marriage is a unique relationship in our society, that doesn't mean that we stop applying criminal laws when they're between couples. You can still get charged for raping your wife if the actions match the definition of rape.
And it's not people who believe smacking is wrong telling everyone else how to raise their children. It's a bill before parliament, so its the government doing the telling. There are lots of laws on the books telling people who to, or how not to, raise their children. This is nothing new.
-
The bill is illiberal: there is no evidence that mild smacking is harmful to children and there are no liberal grounds for prohibiting it.
Hmm. There's a lot of debate about the research in this area, and most people recognise that there hasn't been enough research to say definitively what the harm to children is. There is evidence indicating that smacking is harmful to children however, it's just debated in extent and long term effects.
But step back and think about the argument that you're making. If you were to take the word 'children' from your sentence, and replace it with 'women', 'Maori', would you use the sentence? Probably not. If it's not OK to use it as an argument for those people, why is it a valid argument to use for children?
The debate should be about whether children have the right not to be hit, or if that is a right denied to them because of their age. I can think of valid reasons not to give children the right to vote, the right to drive. What's the reason for not giving them the right not to be physically hit?
-
(And I think advocates of the Bradford Bill have gone a wee bit over the top in painting S.59 as a reliable get of jail free card for sadistic monsters. If anything, that kind of defence seems rather risky and far from certain.)
I can't imagine many people beat a child with the intention of getting caught and having to use section 59 to get off. Most probably don't consciously think that they're going to be charged with assault. The fact that it has been used to get some fairly horrific beatings off indicates a problem in the system.
And the original bill was entirely clear. If the select committee hadn't mangled it, it'd be about as clear as any other form of assault in the crimes act, and there's no public outcry about all of them.
-
Police have said they will treat smacking a child under rules of the DV Act, which clearly states any kind of abuse , including emotional is an offense. Police will have no alternative but to issue a PO.
Well whichever police you've been listening to, I think they need to check their police manuals. Courts issue protection orders, not police.