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

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2383605 1-Jan-2020 11:21

This thread's title should be renamed to "Camouflaged Neanderthals Emerge!". The minority of child-focused posters' attitude is heartening but as I said earlier, it's frightening what some people appear to genuinely believe. Thank goodness our lawmakers didn't bow to the mob -- some of the people who've posted in this thread is a perfect illustration of why a majoritarian direct democracy is a terrible idea. Kids are naughty? Hit them. Don't like someone of a particular group? Exclude them.

On and on it goes.

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#2383606 1-Jan-2020 11:24

alasta:

When I was a kid my mother used to hit me with the wooden spoon, my father used to leave me unattended in the car, and teachers used to give naughty kids the strap.

It never occurred to me that I was a victim of 'child abuse' until I read this thread!

When I was a kid, I was regularly chased throughout the house by mum with wooden spoon.

In the primmers, I had to stand in front of the class with my hand held out so a teacher with excessively long nasal hair could whack the tips of my fingers with a well worn wooden rod (when not in use, prominently displayed on the blackboard shelf as a constant threat).

In the standards, I got the strap. One teacher preferred this form of 'correction' much more regularly than all others and, perversely, required us to 'thank' him on completion.

In high school, a teacher once picked up a chair and threw it across the room at a student.

It never occurred to me at the time that we were victims of 'child abuse', but I reckon as a society we are much better off today than we were back then.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2383610 1-Jan-2020 11:40

I hear all the time including this thread how folks were hit with straps, spoons, wooden rods and it was all good no damage done. Yet we have as a nation a terrible record in child welfare and safety. We also have a poor record with mental health. Kind of telling really isn't it.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2383644 1-Jan-2020 13:23

Rikkitic:

Children are resilient. They can survive a lot of unhappy experiences and still do well. That does not mean those experiences have no effect on them. Saying that being thrashed as a child didn't hurt you is like saying you are a smoker and you are still doing fine. It doesn't prove a thing.

The only one who has talked about thrashing a child is you. I haven't seen anyone on this thread suggest thrashing anyone as a good idea. Please don't go making up stuff like that to promote your opinion.

MikeB4:

I hear all the time including this thread how folks were hit with straps, spoons, wooden rods and it was all good no damage done. Yet we have as a nation a terrible record in child welfare and safety. We also have a poor record with mental health. Kind of telling really isn't it.

Yes we do have a poor record with child welfare, safety and mental health. All of which has steadily gotten worse since the introduction of the "anti smacking law".

If we we use the logic you seem to be using when you say "Kind of telling really isn't it." the conclusion could be drawn that the "anti smacking bill' certainly hasn't fixed the problem and perhaps has made things worse.

Actually I don't think the "anti smacking bill" has made one scrap of difference one way or the other in curbing child abuse. The big problems lie elsewhere.

Our societies problems go much deeper. There are a multitude of things like poverty, the massive wage gaps between CEO's and the coal face worker, an education system that better prepared all of our young people with life skills etc, drug and alcohol abuse. Once we start addressing these issues a lot of our other problems will disappear.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2383651 1-Jan-2020 13:57

Technofreak:

The only one who has talked about thrashing a child is you. I haven't seen anyone on this thread suggest thrashing anyone as a good idea. Please don't go making up stuff like that to promote your opinion.

@Dafman:

When I was a kid, I was regularly chased throughout the house by mum with wooden spoon.

In the primmers, I had to stand in front of the class with my hand held out so a teacher with excessively long nasal hair could whack the tips of my fingers with a well worn wooden rod (when not in use, prominently displayed on the blackboard shelf as a constant threat).

In the standards, I got the strap. One teacher preferred this form of 'correction' much more regularly than all others and, perversely, required us to 'thank' him on completion.

In high school, a teacher once picked up a chair and threw it across the room at a student.

@Miriam-Webster Dictionary:

Definition of thrash

(Entry 1 of 2)

transitive verb

1a: to beat soundly with or as if with a stick or whip : FLOG

@Dafman isn't the only one here who has mentioned straps, spoons and the like. I am just confining myself to one example. Plenty of people here have talked about thrashing a child. Please don't go making up stuff about what I have said to promote your own opinion.

This I do agree with:

"Our societies problems go much deeper. There are a multitude of things like poverty, the massive wage gaps between CEO's and the coal face worker, an education system that better prepared all of our young people with life skills etc, drug and alcohol abuse. Once we start addressing these issues a lot of our other problems will disappear."

But trying to conflate that in any way with the anti-smacking legislation is malicious nonsense. Whether the legislation has actually made any difference or not, it has drawn a line and that does make a difference, whether you approve or not.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2383654 1-Jan-2020 14:16

@Rikkitic

None of what Dafman wrote constitutes a thrashing from the definition you chose to use

@Miriam-Webster Dictionary:

Definition of thrash

(Entry 1 of 2)

transitive verb

1a: to beat soundly with or as if with a stick or whip : FLOG

My Mum chased me with a ruler, but she never ever gave me a thrashing. Being caned or strapped once by a teacher isn't a thrashing either.

Being chased by someone with a wooden spoon or being caned or strapped by a teacher isn't being beaten soundly.

A thrashing or being beaten soundly means being hit repeatedly. I haven't seen anyone on this thread mention being soundly beaten until you used the word thrashing.

I stand by what I said when I said you were the first person to mention thrashing.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2383656 1-Jan-2020 14:31

Technofreak:

My Mum chased me with a ruler, but she never ever gave me a thrashing. Being caned or strapped once by a teacher isn't a thrashing either.

Being chased by someone with a wooden spoon or being caned or strapped by a teacher isn't being beaten soundly.

A thrashing or being beaten soundly means being hit repeatedly. I haven't seen anyone on this thread mention being soundly beaten until you used the word thrashing.

I stand by what I said when I said you were the first person to mention thrashing.

Okay, you win. None of these posters actually stated that they were repeatedly bashed, though they didn't specify that they were not. But I take your point. I will withdraw the term 'thrash' and substitute 'wallop'.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#2383660 1-Jan-2020 14:54

Technofreak:

Actually I don't think the "anti smacking bill" has made one scrap of difference one way or the other in curbing child abuse. The big problems lie elsewhere.

I'm not sure if you are a christian fundamentalist (?), but in your short statement above you've repeated the first two of the three most repeated misstatements promoted by the christian right in trying to keep this issue in the media.

Misstatement 1. The Bill was an 'anti-smacking' Bill

No, the Bill removed the legal defence of "reasonable force" for parents prosecuted for assault on their children. Very few, if any, parents were prosecuted for smacking prior to the Bill. Rather, prosecution was for parents using implements like riding crops or rubber hoses to beat children, often claiming a biblical right to do so.

So if it was 'anti-smacking' as you claim, you should be able to provide examples of parents who have been recently prosecuted for smacking their children?

Misstatement 2. Enactment of the Bill has not reduced child abuse.

It was not the stated purpose of the Bill to reduce child abuse.

Misstatement 3. Good parents are being prosecuted following enactment of the Bill.

@nunz posted earlier that a grandmother was prosecuted for pulling a child to safety from traffic. This was shown to be false and @nunz has not bothered to acknowledge/retract this. This is a common tactic used by the religious right, ie. make repeated claims about good parents being prosecuted, then fall silent when their false claims are put under scrutiny.

As per my comment above - if the law has failed, you (and @nunz) should be able to find plenty of examples of parents being recently prosecuted for smacking or other inconsequential correction?

And what you definitely won't be able to find are examples of parents escaping prosecution for using implements like riding crops on children. Do you or @nunz really want to see a return to these days? (seriously, I would like to hear from you and @nunz on this).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2383668 1-Jan-2020 15:33

Technofreak:
Rikkitic:

Children are resilient. They can survive a lot of unhappy experiences and still do well. That does not mean those experiences have no effect on them. Saying that being thrashed as a child didn't hurt you is like saying you are a smoker and you are still doing fine. It doesn't prove a thing.

The only one who has talked about thrashing a child is you. I haven't seen anyone on this thread suggest thrashing anyone as a good idea. Please don't go making up stuff like that to promote your opinion.

MikeB4:

I hear all the time including this thread how folks were hit with straps, spoons, wooden rods and it was all good no damage done. Yet we have as a nation a terrible record in child welfare and safety. We also have a poor record with mental health. Kind of telling really isn't it.

Yes we do have a poor record with child welfare, safety and mental health. All of which has steadily gotten worse since the introduction of the "anti smacking law".

If we we use the logic you seem to be using when you say "Kind of telling really isn't it." the conclusion could be drawn that the "anti smacking bill' certainly hasn't fixed the problem and perhaps has made things worse.

Actually I don't think the "anti smacking bill" has made one scrap of difference one way or the other in curbing child abuse. The big problems lie elsewhere.

Our societies problems go much deeper. There are a multitude of things like poverty, the massive wage gaps between CEO's and the coal face worker, an education system that better prepared all of our young people with life skills etc, drug and alcohol abuse. Once we start addressing these issues a lot of our other problems will disappear.

Children haven't had children. The adults doing the harm now are those who endured the harm.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2383678 1-Jan-2020 16:49

Dafman,

I am most definitely not a fundamentalist Christian. So far as I am concerned they fit in the same category as any other group of zealots whether they be Muslim extremists, anti vaxers etc.

Responding to your misstatement comments

Misstatement 1.

You will note I was using the term “anti smacking bill” inside quotation marks. I did this as I was referring to the colloquial term for the bill that has been used in many media to refer to this bill.

Whether or not the bill was an anti smacking bill depends on whom ever is interpreting what is said.

Section 59 of the Crimes Act now says

59 Parental control
(1) 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—

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(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.

Clause 2 could be interpreted as preventing any smacking, since a smack is/was usually used as a correction method.

The fact that there have been few prosecutions is good and means clause 4 is being used.

Misstatement 2

You say “It was not the stated purpose of the Bill to reduce child abuse.” If this bills aim wasn’t to reduce child abuse then what was its purpose? Do you mind telling me what you think the purpose of the bill was?

Because, as far as I can see there is no other purpose. Some of the reading I have done says ”proponents of the bill say the bill would stop cases of abuse from slipping through the gaps and reduce the infant death rate” . Seems to me at least one of the bills aims was to reduce child abuse.

Misstatement 3

So far as I’m concerned bill hasn’t failed because there may be wrongful prosecutions. The bills aim wasn't to punish good parents but to protect children.

It has failed because it hasn’t improved the welfare of children. Part of improving child welfare is a reduction in child abuse.

The original wording of Section 59 was entirely adequate IF it had been used correctly. Riding crops and rubber hoses aren't acceptable now and neither were they acceptable prior to the change. The operative wording being "reasonable in the circumstances"

59 Domestic discipline
(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3), every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.

Even with the changes made in 2007 still today far too many children end up in hospital or die through injuries inflicted by care givers.

Perhaps we need another law change. I say that tongue in cheek. We've already made law changes which have been ineffective, we have been just fiddling with the problem with changes like were made to Section 59.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2383680 1-Jan-2020 16:58

I have just been speaking to my son who is a Psychologist. In his opinion there is no benefit to a child from being hit, there is however a lot of harm both short term and life long. It is also his opinion that hitting children is only to the screwed up advantage of the adult.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2383685 1-Jan-2020 17:25

Technofreak:

I honestly think you are arguing the wrong issue here. Even if the law change has not made a blind bit of difference, and I am not conceding that is the case, the fact that it exists at all is important. As I said earlier, it draws a line. If you are a 'good' parent about to discipline your child, that legislation will probably make you stop and ask, is this acceptable? Is it going too far? How will it look to others? These things can have a moderating influence. At least you are thinking about something once taken for granted.

Even if you are not a good parent, knowledge of the law may restrain you and possibly dampen your anger as you contemplate the coming months in jail. If the law doesn't do a single other thing, the mere fact of its existence has the potential to change behaviour.

Just think of it as a brick in the wall yet to be built.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2383687 1-Jan-2020 17:34

Rikkitic

Perhaps you're right and it is just one brick in the wall. From my perspective one brick at a time is a bit too slow.

We seem to have propensity to make changes (sometimes knee jerking) without looking at the why. We attempt to fix what is happening without addressing why it's happening.

Fix the Why and you will fix the What.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2383691 1-Jan-2020 17:50

Fixing the why to fix the what is exactly what this change was about. We have generations alive that were raised in a hitting environment. To change that damage is going to take time but without that change and others the what would never be fixed.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

driller2000

936 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 374

ID Verified

#2383705 1-Jan-2020 19:04

As others have stated this is a ridiculous thread - given all of these arguments were had years ago.

The Bill did what it was meant to do in terms of removing the defence of "reasonable force" for parents prosecuted for assault on their children.

Those who were anti the Bill deliberately misrepresented it - and there are several in this thread repeating that BS. The "referendum" was a sham given how they framed the question. And clearly the general populace should not be entrusted with such decisions.

There is no valid defence for violence against a child. Such violence against children is proven to cause harm - your anecdotes are not data.

As a parent - if I hit my children - I know I have failed.

As a society we should be striving to reduce violence - especially against children - so if you support a "repeal" or such like - you are the problem and need to get in the sea.

End.

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