There is nothing wrong with the intent of the 'Bradford Bill', no parent should be allowed to horse whip their child and get away with it under a 'reasonable force' pretense but this bill is going to far.
Ms Bradford, a list MP, as in no one actually voted her into parliament, is adamant that she will withdraw her bill if it gets watered down at all. Now that just sounds like sour grapes to me. How is it that we live in a democracy, most parents do not support the bill in its current form, but Labour MP's are being rail roaded into voting 'yes' for the bill as it stands? Where is the conscious vote? Where is the referendum? Labour and the Greenies seem to be very good at creating policy and laws that most of their Christian constituents do not agree with.
Ms Bradford has publicly stated that she did not hit any of her 5 children, interesting. Over at Salient a poster called Grant has this to say:
Other related posts:
I Thought I would Come Back
Unemployment does get boring
Over the 'i'
Comment by freitasm, on 26-Mar-2007 10:14
In my blog post I say this bill will criminalises parents who use a smack in the bottom as a deterrent to kids running wild.
There's no way anyone would condone unlimited smacking, or use of implements to smack children.
For those idiots who beat their children to death, the law is clear, and they should be charged as already is allowed.
There's no need for another law.
If they claim "reasonable force", it's obvious that someone is stupid enough to believe that killing a child is "reasonable force". In this case both the parents and the people allowing this strange excuse should be trialed.
Comment by freitasm, on 26-Mar-2007 10:17
By the way, I agree with you. Parents that under the influence of drugs, bad judgement or simply sadism will continue to beat their children.
The innocent ones, who resort to a smack in the bottom to bring the child back to this planet will penalised.
And yes, some kids will try to "plant" evidence. And then another family will be broken.
Comment by TinyTim, on 26-Mar-2007 10:44
I've heard pretty bad things about Sue Bradford raising her kids too - to do with drugs.
Someone commented on a forum elsewhere about the Green's track record for protecting children:
2003: P (Methamphetamine) reclassified as a Class A drug – only the Greens opposed
2006: Opposed an increase to the Drinking Age
2005: Intentional Possession of Child Pornography (the worst of child abuse) – only the Greens opposed the maximum penalty being 5 years – wanted it lower at 2 years
2007: Want to decriminalise marijuana
If this is true then what's going on here?
(Jama, you say noone voted her in. However the 6% of the population who voted for the Greens voted her in (or whatever the percentage was). They knew the list. That's how MMP works.)
Comment by Jennifer, on 26-Mar-2007 10:56
In a law like the smacking bill, if it was illegal do you really think every parent who uses violence to dicipline their children is going to get pulled into court? Do you phone the police at every voilation of the law you see and how many other laws do many people break and go unpunished ... say for example the illegal nature of downloading music, many people do it without prosecution but those who go to far and sell bootlegs will get punished.
Interesting to see that Bradford may have smacked her children, but I don't see that much hypocracy (apart from claiming she hadn't) in trying to put through a bill that would take away an argument for parents who do abuse their children.
It may not stop smacking completely, people will still reserve the right to dicipline children how they see fit but surely it will make people think twice before they do hit their children and surely thats a good thing ?
I somehow feel people are a bit paranoid about been pulled into a courtcase if they smack a bottom but realisitically do you think there are the resources to prosecute every person who smacks a child?
Comment by freitasm, on 26-Mar-2007 11:10
Answering a question with another question, are there resources to check all burglaries reported, or are all in the highway issuing speed tickets?
Comment by The_Q, on 26-Mar-2007 20:41
Bradford is right, It's not an anti-Smacking Bill. What it is is an Anti_Force Bill. However Smacking is not illegal as Section 59 permits the use of force. This section of the crimes act is the only reason Smacking (or sending a child to their room (threat/use of force?)is not a criminal offence. Section 59 was added to the crimes act for only one reason, to allow parents to use force upon a child. The same act states that assult is the application of Force against another, and against their will. A Parent may however use "Reasonable Force". Its left for a judge to decide what is reasonable in light of the circumstances for which it is used. The so called horse whip crime (it was a riding crop) was used on a child who had assulted a crippled man, The judge agreed that in light of the situation, use by a mother of a crop was "reasonable". After all, telling Johnny to put down a baseball bat for dinner, and taking it off him when he's hitting his sister require very different levels of force. (Our old lawmakers knew that, the current ones think they know how much force to permit in every situation). As for enforcement, the police must investigate every complaint, CYPS must be advised if a child is involved, and if the social worker beleives assault (use of force) is likely, they must remove the child. Will this harm family's ... of course, but as bradford knows, Her real enemies are parents, and know she has the power to place children in the care of the state, where she "thinks" they really belong .. Its a case of the greens telling Mother Nature how she got it wrong.
Comment by The_Q, on 26-Mar-2007 20:56
And just for the record.
Since 1990 to today, there have been seven (7) cases before the courts where section 59 has been used as a successful defence in every case the Judge felt that the circumstances required reasonable force that was greater than would have normally been permitted. It is interesting also to note that all seven are still involved with CYFS with 5 attempting to recover access to their children and 1 having ongoing supervision.
Comment by freitasm, on 31-Mar-2007 09:56
From NZ Herald:
A father has been found not guilty of intending to cause grievous bodily harm to his 3-month-old son, left blind and brain damaged.
Andrew Wepiha, 24, had denied intending to harm his son, Ethan Tiaiti, in April 2006. A jury in the High Court at Auckland delivering its verdict last night.
Ethan was taken to Middlemore Hospital on April 5 with brain injuries and bruising to his face.
"Seriously, I didn't mean that."
In the near future you won't be able to smack the bottom, but people who are out there doing worst things won't stop anyway.
Comment by Jean, on 6-Apr-2007 19:53
Dear God does their have to be another bill on smacking.
I got my backside smacked a couple times, had the belt used on me, ruler and slippers. ofcause I was upset and cryed loudly. But it taught me a valuable lesson. that society has rules that must be obeyed, as when you grow up and you do things that a wrong in the wider society. things get serious such as criminal records and jail time that affect your life forever than a plain old smack on the backside.
So lets stop interfering with the average parents right of discipline and target the real child abusers of society
Can't people see the difference between normal basic discipline, as the wack and the serious child abuse cases such as beating one kids to death and leaving them battered and bruised.
Comment by Alex Fulop, on 19-Apr-2007 19:20
We the common people need to be able to have the ability to voice our opinions/facts about CYFS. I am putting my hand up to start a pressure group to force either legislative or administrative change to make CYFS more accountable for their actions, and give people a bigger voice and the abiility to complain if wrong-doing has been done by CYFS.
I need your support and judging by comments written to CYFS-Watch and this there are thousands of us out there.
SO COME JOIN THE MOVEMENT FOR CHANGE, EMAIL ME at email@example.com.
Attn; Alex Fulop.
Comment by Niky, on 2-May-2007 16:53
I fully agree with your argument. As a parent of a 9 year old, I prefer not to smack him because on most occasions I can reason with him and when I can't I pick him up and put him in his bedroom. Should he hit back, punishment is loss of all nice privileges he holds dear to his little heart, and by God, when I remove a privilege, I remove it. However, when he was 2 it was a completely different story. We lived next to a highway and he could climb any damn fence there was. Nothing would stop him and the minute I turned my back, or went to the bathroom, he would be away. Could even unlock the door. Time out and yelling didn't work. Couldn't lock him inside. Illegal to tie him down and duct tape him to something so I smacked him on the legs. 3 times in total whenever he climbed that fence. He learnt and I didn't get a run over child.
I don't agree with people who hit their children. Hitting is different to smacking and things like that should be defined, but innocent parents are going to get into trouble and all hell will break loose when they do. Obviously someone like Sue Bradford needs a law to stop her from being violent, since she doesn't seem to have the moral fibre to do so without one.
Comment by Kura, on 4-May-2007 10:29
Hey um i do agree to kids to get a little light smack, because they need to know what smack is like. When a child is naughty parents have the right to give them are light smack to there children, it is their choice how to discipline their own kids...
If you smack your child, there got to be a reason why you parent did it..
In my English class 40% student agree to smacking and 2% disagree not to smack....
Add a comment
Please note: comments that are inappropriate or promotional in nature will be deleted.
E-mail addresses are not displayed, but you must enter a valid e-mail address to confirm your comments.
Are you a registered Geekzone user? Login to have the fields below automatically filled in for you and to enable links in comments. If you have (or qualify to have) a Geekzone Blog then your comment will be automatically confirmed and placed in the moderation queue for the blog owner's approval.