Get a mop and wipe it up!

Kick Sue & Helen's S59 Bill - In the Nutshell

, posted: 29-Mar-2007 11:53

Much of the debate around the Anti-Smacking Bill is focussing on the details and the semantics, and forgetting the big picture... 1. How many of the children who have died from "child abuse" were already known to government agencies before they died? Answer: Most, if not all. Therefore, there is no need to accept hearsay accusations of child mistreatment (from busybodies, estranged spouses, etc) since social workers, doctors and other public officials are generally already aware of children "at risk". 2. How many children died from smacking (as the NZ public understand the term), and how many from beating, hitting or bashing (as the bill's proponents call it)? Answer: None died from smacking, because it is "reasonable force". In fact, none were abused by smacking, because it is "reasonable force". Only children who were "beaten, hit or bashed" ended up dead. We know that those are all "unreasonable force" and NZ juries do find such parents guilty, UNDER EXISTING LAW. No law change is required to stop child abuse. Instead, questions need to be asked about what factors lead to higher incidence of child abuse (eg welfare, relationship breakdown, etc). 3. If the concern of Bradford and Clark is ostensibly "child abuse", then does that warrant allowing the state into the private lives of families (and the threat of removal of children into CYFS care -- there's an oxymoron) on the basis of hearsay evidence of smacking for correction? Answer: Of course not. This is an ideological bill aimed only at undermining parental authority, and transferring more power to the State. The aim is not smacking or correction -- it's goal is greater government influence in raising children.


Other related posts:
Surf Life Saving Flags at Long Bay could be Killers
Open Letter to Minister of Police: Don't Lower "Ticketing" Speed Limits
5 Reasons Why You Should Hear Christopher Monckton

Comment by bruce, on 29-Mar-2007 12:51

nicely put. lays out the facts nicely, and points to the real reasons behind the bill.


Comment by bradstewart, on 29-Mar-2007 13:26

Child abuse is already illegal. Does anyone really think potential abusers are going to look at this law chnage and not do it?

All it does it take away a legitimate avenue of discipline from parents. The number of times I was smacked growing... uncouncountable, but I'm so much better for it.

Comment by freitasm, on 29-Mar-2007 13:46

If there's one thing I believe is that governments are not the "know all" entitites people believe. Common sense helps a lot, but politics gets in the middle of life.

Comment by Graeme Axford, on 14-Apr-2007 12:38

I wish a few more people could think for themselves like you. Good comments to ponder...


Graeme Axford

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.

Your name:

Your e-mail:

Your webpage:

dmw's profile

David White
New Zealand

Goon fan, .NET developer, contrarian seeker of truth