The "Spectacular Failure"

[alanmin4304]

Thankyou for your interest ya all ---just thought I would put the other side of the arguement.

I repeat --You do not need to hit your children or your neighbour so why should it be made legal?

[Carlos & Siran]

The scumbags who beat and kill little children are not going to stop because it's "against the law"

Responsible parents who use a smack as a last resort know the difference between a smack and an abusive beating, all this law has done is criminalize good parents who love their children and smack only in desperate situations.

You only have to watch the news form the last few weeks to see that this law is not stopping the abuse of wee ones.

[Cricketman]

You do not need to hit your children or your neighbour so why should it be made legal?

all this law has done is criminalize good parents who love their children and smack only in desperate situations.

there is a difference between a smack on the bottom that says " listen to me, i am your parent, and whilst you are still young, i am going to have some control and respect from you, and if you step out of line there shall be consequence..."

and "hitting" as alanmin puts it.

again, i was smacked as a child, and it has done nothing but make me a more respectful and valuable member to society today. whereas my brother, who went without alot of smacks, has no respect for anyone, least of all my parents. (to the point that he blatantly hacked into my 76 yo grandfathers pension and stole money.)

now not saying that smacking would cure this behaviour, far from it, its too late now. but, a smack on the glutes a few years back might have reighned his head in abit more.

the number of times i have watched children bully and wry thier way around thier parents in the supermarket i work because they know they wont get a smack is rediculous, when a tap on the glutes would solve the problem immediately. immediate rammification of a foul/disrespectful action is needed. "time outs", talking calmly etc simply wont work in some cases, as the child learns that all s/he gets is a talking to and no real consequence to his actions. meaning that s/he can walk all over his parents if s/he feels like it.

[alanmin4304]

It does not matter what flavour you put on it but smacking is hitting and you would not "smack" your neighbour. The problem arises when people smack their kids around the head or beat them a little harder than they should. Kids that are beaten up by their parents were all subject to "parental discipline". The law does not define what is a reasonable smack and what is not. As you would not smack your neighbour, why would you smack your own children. I am curious why those who would smack their children would not smack their neighbour. Is it because it is ilegal? My father believed he was using good parental discipline when he broke a copper stick on my backside when I was 8 years old and when he smashed my head into my brothers when we argued and my mother broke a haibrush on my legs.

The kids that are beaten are subjected to a little more "smacking" than the ones that are not beaten. Where do you draw the line. You cannot. You do not need to smack your children and it does not make you a better parent or a better christian if you do.

[Cricketman]

I resent the connotation that smacking and christianity (or any religion for that matter) go hand in hand. it is not the case at all, saying all parents that smack thier children are christian, cathoilic, muslim or any other religion or sect of society you wish to place on it is a gross hyperbol, and ultimately rubbish. any person, anywhere in the world can, and ultimately most will, deal a smack to a disobediant child.

the line is drawn whereby it is more than a smack on the glutes with a open hand. that is the definition of a "smack"

anything over and above this is a beating. whereby bruises and or welts, bleeding etc is a beating.

i have been beaten with a graphite golf stick, bamboo, a shambok (used for herding cattle), a horsewhip, and more.... i would still not call it a beating... and at the time, i admit i probably deserved it. in fact i respect my parents more now for the fact that they kept me in line all my life up until i left home. At the time i resented them for it, but looking back i understand why it was neccesary.

you dont smack your neighbor, not because its illegal, but for the fact that they ultimately are a) hopefully, adult

b) not your place to discipline

c) if they are all of the above, why do you care?

d) most people would hope that by the time that they are old enough to understand and told what they are doing is wrong, you wouldnt need to do anything more than talk to them.

e) if it is your neighbors kids, tell thier parents, and let the parents do the parenting and hand out the punishment.

children NEED discipline. i have seen so many monsters that walk all over thier parents. you cant "talk " to some kids.

"mommy said please stop pulling the dogs tail"

*kid carries on*

"now johnny, hes going to get angry with you if you keep doing that..."

*kid carries on*

" johnny, ive told you twice now, if you carry on ill send you to your room when we get home"

*no immediate repurcussion, so kid carries on*

*dog lashes out and bites kid*

dog gets a beating undoubtably, and maybe put down, when all of this would have been resolved with a smack on the arse and a "I told you not to!"

this is exactly what happened and i witnessed it. some kids learn to walk all over thier parents.

again i say, if your kid listens to your spoken word, then fine, that works for you, great...

some kids wont listen and need IMMEDIATE repercussion for disobedience, for thier own good sometimes. smacking is a last resort, not a first. saying that you shouldnt smack your kids, IMO, is puttingthem at risk further down the track.

if you smack your child or grab hold of them as they try to cross a busy street and injure them, is it not better than the kid getting run over? hyberbole? yes, but the point sticks.

[jude]

I agree with Alanmin. I don't see how we can justify hitting the smallest and most vulnerable in our society. In my opinion, all it teaches them is that bigger people can hurt smaller people. I confess that I smacked my children but it was very rare and only when I didn't know what else to do. If a good parenting course had been available back then I could probably have avoided that by having a few more parenting strategies.

Despite hardly ever being smacked, my kids are successful too. I define successful as:

They have never been in trouble with the law

They are honest

They are kind to animals

They are considerate of others

They are nice to their dear old mum :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Cricketman]

like i said, there is no 1 strategy,

thats great Jude, you must be really stoked with them. they must have been great kids.

i also agree withthe principles that you outline.

They have never been in trouble with the law

They are honest

They are kind to animals

They are considerate of others

They are nice to their dear old mum :lol: :lol: :lol:

but surfice to say that not all kids are like that. some kids have no respect for thier parents at all. im not condoning that parents should smack, beat and torture thier kids everyday for the smallest offence,

BUT! as part of a parental package, a smack can be a useful tool. its not a justification of hitting, its a justification of a parents right to discipline thier child in the way that they see fit.

smacking should be rare, but when there is nothing else for it, it should not be a criminal offence!

a more poignant law would be to make every parent in NZ have to go to a parenting course before thier kids are born, so that they can learn different parenting strategies. surfice to say and im sure most would agree, some people should just NEVER have kids...

society needs a breeding programme... :lol:

[Caryl]

I would like to thank you all for keeping this subject well controlled. I was going to immediately remove it as, since it is based on a law and involves a referendum, that makes it political and therefore against the guidelines but you have all shown restraint and I hope you continue to do so.

Discipline is a great thing but it involves a lot more than whether to smack or not. We now have a generation or two of children who have always been told they are wonderful and great (no matter what their behaviour) have never been told in school they are not working hard enough (not allowed to lower their self esteem) believe they can leave school with no qualifications whatsoever but go straight into a top level position with top wages (because they are wonderful, great and everyone loves them and you don't have to work hard to get anywhere) and think the world owes them a living (I breathe therefore I am brilliant!).

I have 2 children. The eldest was one who always ended up getting a whack on the backside (after everything else failed) as she was one who pushed the boundaries as hard as she could to see how much she could get away with. Her younger brother was never smacked in his life as he rarely did anything naughty. When he did do something bad (and it was only ever a minor transgression) you only had to frown at him and he burst into tears. The eldest is now a prinary school teacher loved by children and parents. The other is a deputy registrar in the Children and Young Persons Court. Both are fine, upstanding citizens (with the eldest having had minor run-ins with the law - usually for driving after curfew on a restricted licence as she was sober driver for her mates), honest, kind to animals, considerate of others and nice to their dear old mum (especially when they want something :lol: )

[Cricketman]

thaks Caryl, it certainly is an interesting subject at least.

also your experience upholds what ive been saying, some kids need firm and strong boundaries, and some kids will do what they are told first time, everytime.

shades of grey, not black and white, wrong and right, legal and illegal, at the end of the day, some people will always smack thier kids, no matter what the law says, and some people will never smack thier kids because they wont have to. some people should smack thier kids, or should of a long time ago, but dont/didnt, and therefore have tearaways that have no respect for anything, least of all thier parents. and some parents smack thier kids when they dont need to.

this cross section of society is as varied as society in itself, and thier is no "silver bullet". the government attempting to medle in the lives of everyday people is exactly that, meddling. Whats next? are they going to tell me i cant wear my boxers around the house? that all my fish tanks must be less than 20 litres? that i cant paint my car in flourescent hues of pink and purple? that i must frog-march everywhere i go?

its just not going to happen... but judging by the way they see fit to try pry into our families already, whats to stop them from saying anything that they want? imposing anything that they want.

more and more our "democracy" is sounding like a dictatorship.

once again, thanks to the mods for allowing this thread to run. please try keep it clean so that we can continue this discussion people, it is very interesting. and i hope i havent offended anyone myself. 8)

Chris

[Caryl]

You wear your boxers around the house??

I am sure there is a law against that. I hope you stay away from the windows

[Cricketman]

the windows are my favourite place to be!

not my fault if your looking in my windows! think of it as a type of home security :lol:

[alanmin4304]

Read your newspaper and look at your TV.The most vocal people wanting to bring back the legal right to smack their kids are the born agains (who I would define as the more conservative and literal believers of the Christian faith. I have no more against Christians than any other religion I just have the saying "spare the rod and spoil the child" indelibly beaten into my brain.

Anyway thanks for your tolerance and thoughts, we may have to agree to disagree.

By the way, I have never hit (smacked) my children and they are both fabulous. I vowed that if I did nothing else I would break the cycle of violence to children and it worked for them and me.

[Caryl]

Good on you Alan. Breaking the cycle of violence can be difficult, especially if you have been raised to know no other way of life.

[Cricketman]

it is one of those things Alan, i can see your POV, even though i dont agree with all of it.

agree the most vocal people are probably using bible bashing verses to thier own end, and any quote can be mislead and used to any means when taken out of the contyext it was written.

but again, look at the Maori activists. Most Maori i know and have talked to, including very well versed in the legal sector and education, are fairly happy, and alot dont agree with the so called Maori activists. just because they are the loudest does not mean that they neccesarilly carry all of their peoples views. same goes with the "Born agains". just because they are louder, doesnt mean that all who agree with part of thier philosophies are "born agains" themselves.

i think the Agree to Disagree is a valid statement, and i truely value what you have to say. and thanks for sharing your ideas, its been very enlightening subject indeed!

hope all goes well for you and your family.

Chris

[twinkles]

I disagree that some children need smacking. What those tearaway kids with no respect for anything need are firm and consistent boundries and consequences, whether thats a smack or another consequence is largely irrelevent. Or should i say needed, by the time they get to an age to start causing big problems its a bit late.

I have never and will never smack my children, and back the law change whole heartedly. The way I see it working is as a slow but steady change in the way society views smacking, so that the parents in a generation or two wont even consider it as an option. I think alot of the child abuse that goes on is from people who often smack their kids snapping one day when the smack doesn't work and going that bit further to beat them. If we change the boundries of acceptable behaviour is it not likely that in a few generations people might snap and smack their child, rather than snapping and going from smacking to abuse?

Of course there's no silver bullet to instantly fix child abuse, and it peeves me off when i hear people blameing sue bradford for the latest deaths. The only way to tackle the problem is through a slow change in the way people view abuse, more support and teaching for parents, and quicker intervention when children are in a bad situation. I think the law change is a first step in the right direction, but of course it can't be expected to instantly halt child abuse, there's nothing that will do that.

Please excuse my spelling :-?

[Cricketman]

i agree with parts of what you say twinkles, indeed i think that there needs to be a line at what a smack is too.

as i said, a open hand to the glutes is a smack and anything beyond this is a beating.

again, a smack is a last resort. not a first in my view,

it can be a useful tool in the toolbox of parents, as a last resort... kinda like a sledgehammer or tnt... lol

making it illegal wont stop it. some kids go ape in public, cos they know they wont get into trouble, all they get is a dont do that or ill put you in the car, which never happens..... ive seen this in the supermarket where i work.

again LAST resort. i dont condone the senseless beating of children.

[Barrie]

I read a report this morning that quoted Sue Bradford as saying that as 60% of people had not voted and that 5% had made a mess of their voting papers (I may be out a bit on the percentages) if you add that to the 11% that the yes vote recieved, that gave her bill a huge vote of support

Now that is a real worry!

[bronze-dragon]

that 60% that didnt vote, obviously think its a ridiculous waste of time and breath, and simply couldn't be bothered voting.

as someone has already said, its already illegal to beat your kids, having this ludicrous law wont stop the beatings.

oh, and to the woman I just saw in the supermarket, your son does plainly not want to be looking through the vegetable lane with you, making him sit there and think about what he has done after he through's a tantrum, is giving him exactly what he wants!!!

[whetu]

I must admit I haven't read all the posts in this thread, because I read the first few posts (including one insulting Sue Bradford for the way she looks) and found myself getting quite annoyed that, yet again, an important debate like this can be brought down to that level.

However, I would like to make the following points (and I hope I am not repeating too much of what has already been said here):

1) Section 59 of the Crimes Act allowed adults to use "reasonable force" as a defence when they were charged in court with assaulting children.

2) Sue Bradford's bill repealed section 59, removing this defence. The media branded it an anti-smacking bill for their own reasons of stirring up conflict.

3) This law change has been strongly supported by organisations such as Plunket and Barnardos whose job it is to care for and protect vulnerable children. It also received support across the political spectrum.

4) The referendum question was an extremely poorly drafted document to the extent that the referendum result is not in any way relevant to the true issue. A more accurate question would have been "Should an adult be permitted to use a defence of 'reasonable force' when charged with assault against a child?"

I do not believe that it is any more necessary, desirable or acceptible for an adult to hit a child than it is for a husband to hit his wife, an employer to hit an employee or care-givers to hit sick or elderly people.

Personally, I had one parent who believed that hitting me was a good way of teaching me 'manners' and 'respect'. As a result I have grown up with no respect for that person. Hitting someone who is much smaller than you in order to control their behaviour is the mark of a bully, not a 'good parent'.

Fortunately I also had one parent who gained my respect by behaving in a calm, loving and rational manner. That person retains my love, respect and admiration and has proved to be a wonderful role model for my siblings, neither of whom find it necessary to hit their children in order to manage their behaviour.

[jc360]

I read a report this morning that quoted Sue Bradford as saying that as 60% of people had not voted and that 5% had made a mess of their voting papers (I may be out a bit on the percentages) if you add that to the 11% that the yes vote recieved, that gave her bill a huge vote of support

Now that is a real worry!

Nearly 54% of eligible voters voted. how would Sue know that 5% made a mess with their papers??? And of the 46% of eligible voters who didnt vote, whose to say they would have voted either way??? I find Sue's continued defiance to 'act on behalf' of NZers a complete insult, a failure to admit she 'got it wrong' an admission of any maturity and wisdom. further more i believe her driving force behind this law has nothing to do with child protection, as she has failed to show any consistency on the matter. While more children die of abuse she is missing in action, unable to provide any constructive ideas that deal with the issue of child abuse.

[Barrie]

" The bill's architect, Green MP Sue Bradford, says around 60 percent of the population has either not voted, has spoiled the ballot or voted "yes"; which she believes adds up to a majority on her side."

This was the quote I was refering to

Note the 5% that I mentioned is not mentioned in this so Im sorry if I have missled anyone

[alanmin4304]

Whetu for President (of NZ). I agree entirely. The people who want to smack their kids are often the same people who want to put 'bad" kids in the military to teach them disipline. Military discipline is learning to obey orders without question and has nothing to do with self discipline. What all kids need is boundaries, consequences and consistancy. If you say you will do something if they continue misbehaving then you had better do what you say, not give them a smack in the ear and have them wonder what it was for. I don't care what the law says, my father stopped "smacking" me with a copper stick when I was big enough to do it back. My kids have thanked me for not smacking them and now have little respect for their mother from whom they are both somewhat estranged. You pays your money and takes your pick but please think carefully when acting for those that are too young to defend themselves

[phoenix44]

:oops:

I would like to withdraw my pitbull comment. it was uncalled for

so here is me withdrawing it.

*yonk.

[VinsonMassif]

I think people who misquote the bible or any other moralistic document for their own cause are very misguided and manipulative.

I think using an act of violence, albeit a 'mild' act, as a form of discipline is wrong.

We have laws against ANY form of assault that all adults are held to.

Hitting the small and vulnerable kids is wrong imo.

Like some one mentioned: the military hold their members to the highest form of discipline and they don't beat their trainees every time they step out of line, they discipline them.

IMHO resorting to violence shows up a lack of parenting skills rather than proving you are a good parent.

Hitting = Violence no matter what name you plaster on the act itself.

And I am in no way talking of abuses suffered by poor innocent children.

[smidey]

for me its a consequence thing. i have 3 kiddies, 8, 5 & 2. We smack when we need to which isn't often at all. Its probably 6 months since our eldest has had one because we have other wyas to punish him for bad behaviour. He has the "ladder of certain doom" at the moment but it needs to change every month or so to keep him interested. In the past we have done things like making him clean the toilet or standing on the toilet for 15 mins. They all work but loose their effectiveness after a short time.

What i have found is that we have had to correct our children with a smack more between the ages of 3 & 5 than any other years as they simply don't recognise other punishments. Try telling a 3 year old to go to time out or clean the toilet, their only real consequence they remember & motivates them to behave nicely is a hot bottom.

I had a thought the oter day after watching the parenting show on TV, a small booklet with 25 different ways to punish without smacking or similar would give parents who can't think of other ways to correct their kids would be very helpful IMO.