anti-smacking opponents referendum approved

Politics and the rest of world's madness all in here!
sneakers o'toole
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: London
Contact:

anti-smacking opponents referendum approved

Postby sneakers o'toole » Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:37 pm

anti-smacking opponent approved referendum to regain the right to legally beat the shit out of thier children.


Opponents of the anti-smacking law change are celebrating after collecting enough signatures to force a referendum.

Kiwi Party leader and petition organiser Larry Baldock said today that the petition had been certified by the Clerk of the House as having enough valid signatures.

"This is great news and a huge victory," he said.

When the petition was originally handed to the Clerk on February 29, 285,027 valid signatures were needed. It failed because too many were ruled to be invalid.

This time, around 310,000 signatures were valid - 25,000 more than required to force a referendum.

The referendum will be on the question: "should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Mr Baldock called for the refendum to be held with this year's election.

"None of the reasons being given by the Prime Minister for delaying it make any sense at all, and are simply a tactic for her to try and avoid this being an election issue. She will not drown out the voice of the people and should realise there is no point further angering everyone by delaying the inevitable."

In June, Helen Clark said it was unlikely the referendum could be held with the election.

"Just in terms of sheer organisation I don't think that is possible.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/4665501a6160.html
Last edited by sneakers o'toole on Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
cirE
Posts: 17440
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: your face
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby cirE » Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:40 pm

sneakers o'toole wrote:anti-smacking opponent approved referendum to regain the right to legally beat the shit out of thier children.

what a sensationalising sentence here
Future Shock wrote:freudian slip, went downa likea sack o potatoes

Image
0.21 6.78 3.31

chelloveck

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby chelloveck » Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:42 pm

Image
Image
Last edited by chelloveck on Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sneakers o'toole
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby sneakers o'toole » Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:43 pm

cirE wrote:
sneakers o'toole wrote:anti-smacking opponent approved referendum to regain the right to legally beat the shit out of thier children.

what a sensationalising sentence here


Image

User avatar
cirE
Posts: 17440
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: your face
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby cirE » Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:49 pm

uh yeah

there's a difference between "beat the shit out of" and a loving spank
Future Shock wrote:freudian slip, went downa likea sack o potatoes

Image
0.21 6.78 3.31

chelloveck

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby chelloveck » Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:54 pm

cirE wrote:loving spank

Image
Image
Image

sneakers o'toole
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby sneakers o'toole » Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:58 pm

cirE wrote:uh yeah

there's a difference between "beat the shit out of" and a loving spank


is there?

User avatar
ted the bastard
Posts: 7358
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 9:18 pm
Location: between revelations
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby ted the bastard » Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:10 pm

well, actually there is.

carry on arguing.

just out of interest, i haven't really read a lot of hard luck stories due to the amendment.

does anyone have any, or know of any?


User avatar
rryan
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:54 pm
Location: rotorua

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby rryan » Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:15 pm

sneakers o'toole wrote:
cirE wrote:uh yeah

there's a difference between "beat the shit out of" and a loving spank


is there?


yes.

my father hit me as a kid
and i turned out okay.

you're craaaazzyyyy
Image

User avatar
ted the bastard
Posts: 7358
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 9:18 pm
Location: between revelations
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby ted the bastard » Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:25 pm

chelloveck wrote:http://familyintegrity.org.nz/2008/flick-gets-father-charged-with-assault/


cheers for that. interesting source. the christian schools were the most enthusiastic when it came to discipling their students when capital punishment was legal not so long ago. :?

it would be interesting to see the outcome from that case, witness statements (that seems like a lot of witnesses to make a bullshit case)and all. he only has to go to court, he hasn't been convicted of anything.

any other ones out there?

i'm still unconvinced.

User avatar
kitten
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: West Auckland's Resident Dork
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby kitten » Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:41 pm

I don't think at all that it means beating the shit out of your kid. The scumbags who do that are going to keep doing it regardless of this law. All this law does is to disable parents who are trying to do right by their kids. Before you twist my words to say I agree with beating the shit out of my kid, let me explain myself.

I disagree totally with using smacking as a regular form of discipline. I've even almost completed a parenting course so that I can use constructive methods to teach my daughter good behaviour and values and bring her up to be confident in herself and have the ability to make good choices in life.

However, I do believe that there are certain situations where it is appropriate to hit first and explain later. It does not have to be a painful smack at all. If you do not smack at all in normal circumstances, a light tap on the backside or hand has enough shock value to stop a small child in their tracks. I believe that the circumstances in which this is appropriate are when the child is doing something that could result in them ending up in intensive care or in a grave.

The most recent time I have smacked is when my daughter stuck her fingers in the toaster. Thankfully it was turned off at the wall. I gave her a light smack on the backside which was enough to shock her into removing her fingers from the toaster, then explained to her why I had done that. Let me clarify that when I use other methods like the thinking spot, naughty spot, removal of priviledge etc, the behaviour is repeated many times over the course of about a week or so while my daughter tests the boundaries until she is sure of the consequences of what she is doing, at which point she gives up on that behaviour. I do not want her repeatedly sticking her hand in the toaster - the next time it could be turned on and she could get burned or worse, electrocuted - or repeatedly running out into oncoming traffic, or repeatedly doing anything else that could result in serious injury.

I want to make it clear that I do NOT advocate violence at all and especially not towards children. A smack does not have to actually be painful to the child to teach them not to carry out a certain behaviour. If you normally discipline in positive, non physical ways that build the relationship between you and your child, the mere fact that you have done it is enough to send a clear message that this is a line they absolutely must not cross under any circumstances. I do think that in a situation where this is necessary, an explanation should be given to the child afterwards of why it was necessary.

Ok, now bring on the firing squad haha :)
"To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing." Raymond Williams 1921-1989

Image

Image

User avatar
Fearful_Jesuit
Posts: 3635
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 9:17 pm

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby Fearful_Jesuit » Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:55 pm

GOOD OLD KIWI MUMS AND DADS AND GOOD OLD CHRISTIAN VALUES
The parasites are excited when you're dead; eyes bulging, entering your head; and all your thoughts yeah, they rot.

User avatar
YULE
Posts: 4892
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: The Swamp (im one of the cool kids now)
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby YULE » Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:10 pm

Kitten, you are being a bit blind and buying into the hype.

Nobody is going to be charged for doing something sensible. The law was all about closing a huge fucking loophole that allowed "reasonable force". People could argue that they thought beating their kids was reasonable, and get away with it.

Removing that defence was what it was all about.

EDIT: Oh yeah, of course it isn't going to stop violence from happening, but it should mean that less people get off scot free.

User avatar
kitten
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: West Auckland's Resident Dork
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby kitten » Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:19 pm

I don't think I'm buying into the hype at all. I've heard through through the grapevine of incidents where its been used sensibly and the parent has had the cops called on them. (Can't recall specifics though, as it was a while ago that I was told of the incidents.)

If the government is serious about eliminating family violence, there needs to be an overhaul of the system. I don't have facts but I strongly suspect that people who bash their kids do so because it was how they were raised and they genuinely don't know any better. Positive parenting courses need to be more readily available - perhaps information and advice could be offered at the hospital to all women who give birth? I know when my daughter was born three years ago I had no help at all, even with the basics like getting started on breastfeeding - even when I asked for it. They certainly didn't offer me any advice on how to cope as a young mum, or on positive parenting or anything. I've had to go looking for all of that information myself.

I really don't think that the anti smacking bill is going to change anything. The scum who bash their kids have no regard for the law to start with imo - one more law that they may or may not even be aware of isn't going to change it.
"To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing." Raymond Williams 1921-1989



Image



Image

User avatar
kitten
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: West Auckland's Resident Dork
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby kitten » Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:24 pm

Ok, just re-read your post and the one I wrote in reply.

I think what I was trying to say is that currently there is the "ambulance at the bottom of the cliff" scenario which I feel restricts my ability to judge for myself how best to discipline my child, and I think it would be better to try and put preventive measures in place (such as, as I said before, providing information about positive parenting courses and anti-family-violence help etc to women and their partners in the hospital when their kid is born) than to wait until kids have been seriously hurt or killed and THEN do something about it.
"To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing." Raymond Williams 1921-1989



Image



Image

User avatar
Hamtown Dave
Posts: 2099
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 2:31 pm

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby Hamtown Dave » Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:18 pm

I've come full circle aye... making it easier to criminalize and punish child abusers doesn't solve the problem.

Still, no reason they should get away with it, and the media allowing it to deteriorate into a debate over the merits of "lightly smacking" children hasn't helped the issue one bit.

Parents that are already feeling unsure of their parenting ability aren't gonna be helped if they feel like jake the muss when on the rare occasion they slap their kid on the bum... (regardless of the point of the legislation, that has become the issue due to our awesome media and lobby groups.)

I guess I support the repeal, but I think preventative measures, education of the public and support for parents are more important...
ONE MAN CREW

User avatar
YULE
Posts: 4892
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: The Swamp (im one of the cool kids now)
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby YULE » Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:30 pm

I think education and preventative measures would help of course, but it is a separate matter.

I think at hand here is should people who use physical force against their children be treated differently to those who would use force against anyone else. I just don't think it's justifiable giving parents special dispensation. If you need to use force to stop something bad from happening then ok, i'm sure you would be fine. But otherwise you just shouldn't do it.

User avatar
kitten
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: West Auckland's Resident Dork
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby kitten » Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:11 pm

The problem is that I don't feel I CAN even use reasonable force to stop my kid doing something potentially fatal because I feel that I will get looked at funny in the current political climate. There have already been cases where a parent has used reasonable force in what I would consider a situation that needed it and have had the cops called on them. (Again I don't remember specific examples as it was a while ago that I was told about them, but I do remember thinking at the time that it was totally unreasonable for the cops to be called.)

I don't agree with violence against anyone, particularly children, and I'm teaching my daughter not to hit other people. (If she doesn't listen to me/does something naughty/raises her voice, etc, I ask her if she needs to go in the thinking spot to think about it and calm down; if she hits me in the midst of a tantrum, she's straight in the naughty spot.) As I said in my previous post, a smack doesn't have to actually hurt to get the kid's attention. If smacking the kid is something you do not do under normal circumstances, the mere fact that you have done it is enough to get their attention. I've experienced this with my daughter.

Also, for young kids who are still in nappies (kids generally are out of nappies between 2 and 4 depending on the individual - with my daughter it was about 2 1/2), the nappy will cushion their bum so a light smack shouldn't hurt at all.

A friend of mine suggested that the law should be changed so that a light smack on the leg, hand or bum that doesn't leave any mark at the parent's discretion is legal. I thought it was quite a good suggestion. The current law is far too generalised.
"To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing." Raymond Williams 1921-1989



Image



Image

User avatar
kitten
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: West Auckland's Resident Dork
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby kitten » Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:16 pm

Also, I wouldn't use physical force against another adult because most adults have the ability to judge for themselves what the right thing to do is in certain situations. Children - toddlers and teenagers especially - do not have the same ability to judge because they are at a different point in the development of their brain.

For example: If I'm getting really really tired and upset over something, I would most likely go sit down and have a break. My three and a half year old on the other hand throws a complete and total wobbly - screaming, tomato face, fake tears, the works. (To which I normally respond with : "I don't understand you when you talk like that. When you can tell me what you want in a soft voice I'll be able to understand.)

Because of this, there are times when physical force is necessary and appropriate. (I'm also not only referring to smacking here, but also having to physically pick the child up and remove them from a situation.)
"To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing." Raymond Williams 1921-1989



Image



Image

User avatar
VC
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:57 pm

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby VC » Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:20 pm

Is smacking really an effective way of changing behaviour or is it just conservative people with no imagination that think it's their God-given right?
Thou shalt not use poetry, art or music to get into girls’ pants. Use it to get into their heads.

User avatar
kitten
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: West Auckland's Resident Dork
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby kitten » Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:25 pm

Was that in response to me, or was that in response to the article?
"To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing." Raymond Williams 1921-1989



Image



Image

User avatar
ghetto ninja
Posts: 11424
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Knee deep in a suburban nightmare

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby ghetto ninja » Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:13 pm

No offence kitten but you are being a bit hysterical about this. Firstly its not an "antismacking" bill. That was a term cooked up by the media and people who opposed the repeal of section 9. Nobody is going to get arrested and there kids taken off them for smacking them in the super market or some shit like that. Police arent interested in wasting there time like that unless they deem the child to be in some sort of danger. Have you actually read the act in question?
Martyrdamn wrote:Said 'hey baby gurl' to about seven girls tonight,
turns out girls don't like guys talking about getting up in their guts,
fagets, right.

User avatar
kitten
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: West Auckland's Resident Dork
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby kitten » Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:21 pm

I don't think I'm being hysterical about it at all.

I haven't read the act itself, just a summary of the general gist of it.

The issue for me is more my feeling that the state is dictating how I parent, and that I don't feel I can freely parent according to my own discretion in public in case someone calls the cops on me as I am aware that this has happened.
"To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing." Raymond Williams 1921-1989



Image



Image

User avatar
ghetto ninja
Posts: 11424
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Knee deep in a suburban nightmare

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby ghetto ninja » Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:25 pm

I work in child protecton and am yet to see or be involved with anyone who has had the act used against them where the child had not suffered serious injury.
Martyrdamn wrote:Said 'hey baby gurl' to about seven girls tonight,
turns out girls don't like guys talking about getting up in their guts,
fagets, right.

User avatar
kitten
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: West Auckland's Resident Dork
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby kitten » Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:28 pm

I haven't heard of any cases where a parent has actually had to go to court for using reasonable force. I HAVE heard of cases where they have had the cops called on them. Personally I don't want the cops called on me because I tend to get looked at funny to start with, and I don't trust the cops. That's just me though.
"To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing." Raymond Williams 1921-1989



Image



Image

User avatar
YULE
Posts: 4892
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: The Swamp (im one of the cool kids now)
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby YULE » Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:42 pm

So, you want to have a law written that would let child abusers get off, and line the pockets of lawyers, because cops make you feel uncomfortable?

User avatar
Marrow
real poo particles
Posts: 3748
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:38 pm
Location: lost in the Warp
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby Marrow » Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:52 pm

since they put the law in place, noone has been arrested under it anyway, according to random statistics. (unless someone got done in the last month or so). So I dont even see why anyone is complaining.

I personally support smacking, theres nothing wrong with it, and taking away freedom to smack is just another in a long list of "overly PC" things we need to conform to these days. The alternative to being hit, is often worse (like losing allowance, or some other wankery punishment). I wish my superiors could go back to hitting us, instead of having to think up random punishments that wasted everyones time.

Anyway, there are already laws against assault and physical abuse, why do you need a special law just for the same thing between parents and children?
Dead Kid wrote:Just leave your friends at home this time eh... Spelling-Mistake Chris, Hit On All The Moderators Chris, Anti-Social Chris, and I think that's when Make-Every-Thread-Twice-As-Long-As-It-Needs-To-Be Chris showed up. I'm telling you, you've got to sort your foruming out bro
PertHJ wrote:You can't drink your coffee and fuck it too

Matt
Site Admin
Posts: 10639
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 7:15 pm
Location: Palmerston North
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby Matt » Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:57 pm

Nah, I think Yule said it earlier on - the point of the law was so that charges could be laid in situations where parents were beating their kids. As it was, they could easily get away with it and the cops were powerless to stop them. Now that has been fixed up.

It's mainly the media looking for a story that has led to phrases like "anti-smacking" getting popularised and big misunderstandings on what the act actually entails that has led to the situation we have now.

User avatar
YULE
Posts: 4892
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: The Swamp (im one of the cool kids now)
Contact:

Re: anti-smacking opponents referendum appoved

Postby YULE » Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:22 pm

Marrow wrote:Anyway, there are already laws against assault and physical abuse, why do you need a special law just for the same thing between parents and children?
That's just it. It is removing the special law for the same thing between parents and children, and actually treating children like real people. It isn't actually adding anything in.


Return to “Current Affairs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests