Child discipline and the anti smacking law

Forums › Off topic › Child discipline and the anti smacking law

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2382654 29-Dec-2019 20:45

PhantomNVD:

Not true!

85% voted no to the stupid “anti smacking” law!

DescriptionThe New Zealand corporal punishment referendum, 2009 was held from 31 July to 21 August, and was a citizens-initiated referendum on parental corporal punishment.
It asked: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? Voter turnout was 56.1%. 87.4% of votes answered 'no'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_New_Zealand_citizens-initiated_referendum

Two things. One, there is no "anti-smacking law". The legislation that passed repealed a section of the Crimes Act - technically it was an anti-law as it only removed legal defenses! Two, that referendum was widely panned for utilising a leading question to get the response the authors wanted. It should never have even gone ahead.

dafman

3928 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2382665 29-Dec-2019 21:46

The ONLY people still raising this issue are active christians, many of which do so at the prompting of NZ's US-styled christian lobby group, family first. Everyone else has moved on.

So, unless Nunz provides tangible information on his claim that a NZ grandmother was prosecuted for pulling her grandchild to safety from oncoming traffic, this will be my last post on this thread. I see little point in providing further oxygen to this irrelevant fire.

Beccara

1469 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2382666 29-Dec-2019 21:56

PhantomNVD:
Beccara:

I

Also worth noting, We had a referendum on this 85%+ said no to smacking

Not true!

85% voted no to the stupid “anti smacking” law!

DescriptionThe New Zealand corporal punishment referendum, 2009 was held from 31 July to 21 August, and was a citizens-initiated referendum on parental corporal punishment.
It asked: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? Voter turnout was 56.1%. 87.4% of votes answered 'no'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_New_Zealand_citizens-initiated_referendum

Yep that's my bad, I was beach posting

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2382687 29-Dec-2019 23:06

dafman: The ONLY people still raising this issue are active christians, many of which do so at the prompting of NZ's US-styled christian lobby group, family first.

While I have no doubt that family first continue to advocate for change, I think you may have significantly over-estimated their influence on the opinions and actions of "active christians" in NZ.

dafman: Everyone else has moved on.

Perhaps. It'll be interesting to see if NZ First make any mention of a referendum on the issue in this election cycle (as they did in 2017).

dafman: So, unless Nunz provides tangible information on his claim that a NZ grandmother was prosecuted for pulling her grandchild to safety from oncoming traffic...

Yes, I too would like to hear more about this aforementioned annecdote.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2382851 30-Dec-2019 12:23

dafman:

The ONLY people still raising this issue are active christians, many of which do so at the prompting of NZ's US-styled christian lobby group, family first. Everyone else has moved on.

So, unless Nunz provides tangible information on his claim that a NZ grandmother was prosecuted for pulling her grandchild to safety from oncoming traffic, this will be my last post on this thread. I see little point in providing further oxygen to this irrelevant fire.

And you won't find any evidence, as it's entirely fabricated. Pulling a child to safety from oncoming traffic is an affirmative defence under s59(1)(a) of the Crimes Act, specifically "every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of— preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person". It is only force for the purpose of correction which is unlawful under s59(2).

Another oft-forgotten thing is s59(4): "To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution".

Essentially, a single smack is vanishingly unlikely to be prosecuted, as a prosecution is not in the public interest (i.e. prosecutions are expensive, and it is not a good use of taxpayer funds to prosecute unless there are aggravating factors).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2382863 30-Dec-2019 12:43

Again, I don't understand how this thread even got started. All of this was hashed out long ago. It is no doubt possible that an occasional parent might be unfairly prosecuted for a well-intended but misunderstood action, or for a light smack on the bottom that does no real harm but is technically in violation of the law, or some other extraordinary circumstance, but the likelihood of this happening is so remote, and the frequency so minimal, that there must be many, many other things that rank far higher on the scale of legal outrages. This is just picking at something that isn't even really a problem. Without even having investigated it, I am confident that there are far more kids who get bashed without the police ever knowing, than there are 'good' parents who get hauled before the courts on a frivolous technical charge. The people who have such a problem with this legislation really ought to get their priorities right.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2382936 30-Dec-2019 14:05

Rikkitic:

Again, I don't understand how this thread even got started.

@Rikkitic: As the original post indicates, it started with the topic raising its ugly head in this parenting thread; I objected to it being raised again, and then suggested that thread wasn't the right place for the discussion, as up until then the thread had been apolitical. Based on this, the OP established it as a separate thread.

For some, it doesn't matter how much time has passed, or how little (or any) tangible evidence there is to show the law change was a failure; luckily most of society has simply accepted it and moved on - much like with 'homosexual law reform' in the '80s, civil unions in the '00s and same-sex marriage in the '10s. It'll be interesting to see how things go with abortion and cannabis law reform in the next few years...

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

dafman

3928 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2382941 30-Dec-2019 14:22

Rikkitic:

Again, I don't understand how this thread even got started ...

I can't speak specifically to Nunz's intention for starting this thread but, in NZ, lobby group family first are very keen to keep this issue in the public eye as they haven't lost hope of a return to the good old days of hitting kids. Across the ditch, the Australian Christian Lobby also urge its supporters to keep issues such as homosexuality, gender identity, euthanasia etc in the public forum with the aim of influencing public opinion. So as long as they keep doing this, we need to respond with rational facts and arguments.

In NZ there is a small risk if, for example, a conservative christian party, god forbid (and pun intended), held any small future balance of power. Don't discount Simon Bridges trading this issue if it is the only route to get into power.

So, as frustrating as it is, we need to fight the misinformation, the likes of which we have seen in this thread from Nunz, eg:

false stories of innocent care givers being prosecuted under the law, eg. a grandmother prosecuted for pulling a child out of harms way, and
the often repeated misstatement that "the reason for introducing the law was to reduce child abuse and it has failed." No, the purpose of the Act was to amend the principal Act to abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as a justification for disciplining children. It's that simple.

As an aside, many years ago, and well after she had retired from Parliament, I saw Sue Bradford in Dick Smith in Lambton Quay. I went up to her to pass on a personal thank you on behalf of all children in NZ.

(I know I said I was finished with this thread ... oops).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2382957 30-Dec-2019 15:30

I don't understand, a christian is taught to turn the other cheek to a stranger yet claim a right to assault a child.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2382974 30-Dec-2019 17:06

MikeB4:

I don't understand, a christian is taught to turn the other cheek to a stranger yet claim a right to assault a child.

Claim a right to assault? That seems like a bit of a stretch.

I've certainly come across people claiming the right to parent as they see fit, and that claim doesn't seem to be confined to christians. I'm not sure where assault comes into that.

As for turning the other cheek: as I understand it, that advice relates to revenge, which has nothing to do with disiplining children.

Beccara

1469 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2382977 30-Dec-2019 17:17

Striking another human being is assault. Prior to the law change you could legally assault a young human being in your care. Adults over 18 literally had more protection than someone under 18

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2383006 30-Dec-2019 19:24

Beccara:

Striking another human being is assault.

I think I understand the implication now. To me it [still] feels like a misrepresentation. Nobody has made a positive claim to a right to assault. Furthermore, "assault" as a word has a whole host of negative connotations. Stating that a group of people are claiming a right to assault is - in my opinion - not a productive way of framing that group's perspective.

rhy7s

625 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2383122 30-Dec-2019 20:52

mm1352000:
Beccara:

Striking another human being is assault.

I think I understand the implication now. To me it [still] feels like a misrepresentation. Nobody has made a positive claim to a right to assault. Furthermore, "assault" as a word has a whole host of negative connotations. Stating that a group of people are claiming a right to assault is - in my opinion - not a productive way of framing that group's perspective.

assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she has, present ability to effect his or her purpose

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM327394.html

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2383139 30-Dec-2019 21:42

Dratsab:
I also don't see the point of trying to compare a highly litigious, gun crazy society with what happens here.

While we only have one side of the usual "I was only gone for 5 minutes" story, the circumstances as set out in the above saga would likely involve a notification being sent through to Oranga Tamariki and an investigation into the circumstances, but would most likely culminate in a 'don't do it again' letter.

My question is why is it bad to leave kids alone for 5 mins in the car, properly ventilated., locked and safe.

As a kid we spent longer in the car while mum shopped and no one turned a hair. It's not anymore dangerous now than then...probably less. Where is the actual harm or danger?

Oranga shouldnt be involved. Better should be sent.

In law innocent until proven guilty. Wheres the guilt?

Beccara

1469 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2383140 30-Dec-2019 21:42

mm1352000:

Beccara:

Striking another human being is assault.

I think I understand the implication now. To me it [still] feels like a misrepresentation. Nobody has made a positive claim to a right to assault. Furthermore, "assault" as a word has a whole host of negative connotations. Stating that a group of people are claiming a right to assault is - in my opinion - not a productive way of framing that group's perspective.

Whatever you want to call it and however you want to frame it the act still comes down to an invasion of another human beings physical space against their will to administer an action that will create a painful stimuli, With adults this is a crime and prior to the law changing you had an escape clause with kids that was being used.

Plenty of people are still smacking their kids as part of corrective punishment today, Most parent's I've spoken to have said that the impact of the law change is they stopped using wooden spoons and rulers and stuck to bare hands with no jewelry. None fear being hauled before CYFS/OT/Police.

I was surprised to hear NZFirst bring this up in 2016/17 and I think it was a grey power vote grab about "them youngins these days", I think the UN/Unicef would continue to exert pressure to keep the law as it is citing the low number of prosecutions under s59 along with the alignment issues with the rights of the child convention

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8