The "Spectacular Failure"

[suphew]

I for one voted yes. I was smacked as a kid, but well with-in reason. I can't remember a single time it actually happened. What I do remember is waiting for Dad to get home to give me my punishment, the actual punishment didn't mean a thing. What did it prove to me, smacking is useless as a punishment, if a parent needs smacking 'in their tool box' it just shows how poor a parent they are.

Bob McCoskrie proved what a small minded, bigoted, hypocrite he was just a couple of days ago. After spend weeks interrupting other people to push his "you should have the choice line" he was asked about the gay couple's adopting issue. What a surprise, according to him they are sub class humans and not fit to choose to have children.

I was raised in a strict christian home, I saw too many "good christian" parents beating the crap out of their kids with canes and rods to ever listen to one try and tell me you "need" to be able to smack you kids to bring them up right.

[Cricketman]

you dont NEEd to smack your kids to bring them up right. but a smack is a severe and instant consequence.

again look at my example of the kid and the dog. how, without a smack would you tell that kid to not pull the dogs tail, your dealing with a 3 year old whos favourite words are " no mum!" and "shut up mum" , and everytime you remove him from the dog he somehow manages to go straight back to what he was doing.

you cant tell me that you can have a civilised and structured conversation with the child about the possible repocussions of his actions. a) he wont understand, and B) hes learnt that even if you tell him that hes a naughty boy and send him to his room that it means jack squat in the long run and mummy and daddy are soft to get around.

i know for me, after i had got a smack, the mere saying " stop it or ill give you a smack" was enough to detice me from whatever i was doing.

some children wont listen to anything else, time out, stand in the corner, no ice cream for dessert, child thinks " pfft, thats nothing, im going to carry on anyway"

crossing a busy street, you say "dont cross" the kid carries on cos hes learnt that what you say doesnt apply to him cos he is the king of his own world and has got his parents right where he wants them, then smash, gets run over or something.

the type of child that i explain here is a few in a dozen, many children will listen to thier parents, and thats all good and well, but there will always be one rebelious little tyke that will push boundaries and, if not immediately given a consequence (ie. not "time out when we get home" or " no pudding tonight" or whatever soft punshment that you wish to deal out verbally with no solid backing) will learn that he can get away with murder, until he ends up seriously in trouble from not listening. imediate rammification is necesarry, not in 5 mins, not tonight, but right there on the spot in the moment or even in the act! guarenteed they will not want to do it again.

im seriously happy for people that dont have to smack thier kids, its great, but to think that just because you dont have to, no-one else should be allowed to parent thier way, is a gross egotistical statement.

like alan said, who are you to hit your neighbor? well who are you to tell your neighbor how to raise thier children? they are not yours, they are not the governments, no-one knows what little monsters they are behind closed doors. to pass a judgement on parents everywhere and to say that you are better parents or that they are poorer parents is egotistical, elitist, narcistic, and rediculous to belive that you can do a better job.

the law violates the privacy of family. no child has died from a smack on the ass. there still needs to be a line designated between a smack oin teh ass and beating. there is a difference between p[arental control, and someone cracking and beating the snot out of a kid.

the latter will not be stopped whether you make it illegal or not...

maybe because there is no immediate repurcussion.... :roll:

[bronze-dragon]

I for one voted yes.

You and the rest of the 11% that voted yes now have the choice to not smack your children.

as one of the 80% that think it is ok to smack, if I ever have children it will be my choice to smack them.

so I resent the fact that you have just said me, my parents and 80% of the country are poor parents.

[alanmin4304]

How come no one has answered my question from way back. How come you want the freedom to be able to hit (smack) your vulnerable young child but you do not complain about interfering nanny state saying that you cannot smack (hit) your your 22 stone bikie neighbour.

Lots of kids have died from smacking---the perpetrator just had a different idea of smacking to you and probably learned it from being lucky enough to just survive "smacking" from their parents.

Do your kids a favour and break the cycle. There are other ways to teach your kids. Kids need to know that what you say always goes and if you say there will be a consequence then they had better know that there definately and always will be.

I used to have major disagreements with the mother of my children because she would say "wait untill your father gets home" and when I got home I would not smack the kids.The consequences of bad behaviour should not just be a threat but should be consistant. You cannot toilet train a dog by punishing it half a day later or it will not connect the punishment to the event.

[twinkles]

re the dog example - "logical consequences" are far more effective than smacking, and actually teach the child why their behaviour is not ok, to set them up right for when they are adults. IMO a smack only teaches them to behave to avoid a smack, so what happens when they grow up and are no longer smacked? If the child is pulling the dogs tail, first you tell them thats not nice for the dog, and hurts him, and if child doesn't stop, you pick them up, take them to a different room, and tell them if they can't be nice to the dog they wont be allowed to play with him. Don't come back and say well the child will just go straight back to the dog, if you're the adult in the situation surely you can keep the child in another room for 10 minutes before letting them have another go. If it's a young child who hasn't learnt how to play nicely with the dog, when you take them back to the dog could be a good opportunity to show how to pat him nicely so he feels happy. If it fails and the kid pulls the dogs tail straight away again, take the dog outside and have a ball game, show how much fun you're having playing together without the child and they'll be desperate to play nicely and join in.

The result you're aiming for is a child who learns what is and isn't socially acceptable behaviour, and plays nicely with their friends etc because they want to keep playing with them, not because they're afraid of a snack.

[Barrie]

How come no one has answered my question from way back. How come you want the freedom to be able to hit (smack) your vulnerable young child but you do not complain about interfering nanny state saying that you cannot smack (hit) your your 22 stone bikie neighbour.

simply because its a laoded question

but to help mabe if it was worded as the theme of this discussion, in non provoking words

How come no one has answered my question from way back. How come you want the freedom to be able to lightly smack your young child that you love, care for and would do anything to help them but in this case they need instand reminder that after repeated donts, but you do not complain about interfering nanny state saying that you cannot smack your your 22 stone bikie neighbour or your little old lady neibour.

Very very simple answer, they are older and should know different. If they continue to break the laws, you have the policy to come in and "smack" them

In my glass factory, I have had several children run down the back which endangers them. Their parents tell them not to to it after I point out the dangers. Children come back for 30 seconds then dissappare again. I mention it again and have been told on several occasions that I should put a wall up or fence the area off. All the children needed was to be controlled and stopped from trying cause them selves problems by the parents but as the parents cant control their children, it becomes my problem.

My neibour accross the road, whos "mother" dosnt belive in a smack, had her son attack my daughter with a hammer. The mother would not do a thing about it and when I went to try and talk to her, she put a non trespass order on me (first and only time I had ever been to her place). Next time it happened he chased my middle and youngest daughters down to the rear of my section. I cornered this child and knocked him to the ground by pushing him. I told him that if he gave any of either my kids or neibours kids a hard time like this again, I would knock his block off.

This child has now grown up and I get along really well with him. He even thanked me for helping him when he was "young and stupid"

[livingart]

This child has now grown up and I get along really well with him. He even thanked me for helping him when he was "young and stupid"

i have a few of those as well barrie

[twinkles]

see i'm a bit of a hypocrite there

if a teenager was picking on my kids i'd have no problem giving them a solid whack.

As for the glass factory, i was brought up going to glass shops and displays with my mum, and i knew that if i decided to be silly and run or anything at the supply places i'd be waiting in the car. Since its far more fun getting to look around i behaved. If someones kids were acting up in a dangerous place i owned i'd have no problem asking them to leave. Although i guess its different when you want the business and don't want to offend the parents.

[livingart]

i see a lot of kids interacting with their parents, some leave me saddened for their futures and anyone involved with them when they get older

[majik]

I think the defenition of what a "smack" is should be clearly defined.

As most rational parents know this would be classed as an open handed smack on the bottom or back of legs (if you miss while the child is running away).

To some people a smack is classed as being hit with something ,being hit anywhere that suits,and even a beating.To these people that is all they have known so that is their definition of a smack.

"what is the difference between smacking your 22stone bikie neibour or your kids"

That is the point exactly.......

You can smack a 5year old but there comes a point when your kids are too big to smack.

Some where along the line you need to have controll before your child gets too big to smack.

As has been said for some kids smacking does not work some will always push the boundries .

Without boundry pushers we would never of climed the highest mountains or sailed far off seas boundry pushers are importent .

But need to be guided as to what boundries to push.

[alanmin4304]

We all obviously have different views, which is good---stops the world being as boring as. The problem is that smacking is not defined so people put their own interpretation on it. The people that beat their kids honestly believe that they are handing out good parental discipline.

The law will not stop smacking or beating up kids but I think the world would be a better place if people looked at being consistant with their requirements and consequences and try to find another way. "Smacking" in my view teaches kids that violence is a solution and I think all it does is make society a more violent place. You are teaching your kids the way to get on and live in society and violence is not acceptable when they grow up so why would it be when they are young. I repeat---I never hit my kids and they came out a lot better than fine.

[suphew]

I think the defenition of what a "smack" is should be clearly defined.

As most rational parents know this would be classed as an open handed smack on the bottom or back of legs (if you miss while the child is running away).

But this is the core of the problem, have to seen the clip shown on TV a couple of times of a mother hitting her young girl on the bottom with an open hand?? She's holding her by the arm and whack whack whack the poor kid is being lifted of the ground shes hitting her so hard.

IMO the problem in New Zealand is there is still this view that violence is okay so long as it happens against young kids or on a sports field. Listening to talk back last week over the rugby brawl in Auckland I couldn't believe the number of people that rang to saying things like "it's just young boys with passion getting the better of them on the field", what a load of rubbish, they are young lout's that have been taught by their parents that when some one's not doing what you want the answer is to hit them. I wonder if those same people are going to defend them when these louts wife's don't do what they are told. It seems that 80% of NZ are going to support them when their kids don't do what they want.

[jc360]

From where i stand i heard examples being given of;

Anti-semitism

Wife bashing

The Crusades

Rugby Brawls

Born Again Christians

Non of these imo go any where near the actual causes of child abuse. Something which no-one here has, from what i can see go any where near.

it is really obvious that the people here (on both sides) are great parents and want the absolute best for their children. this is very heart warming.

People think it is actually OK to put a child into drying machine, hang them from a clothes hanger. Give a toddler repeated closed and open handed strikes to the head. To even kick them when they are on the ground and to slam them into a wall. To practice life threatening wrestling moves on them for the entertainment of their mates.

This is the problem; No respect for human life, or the need to nurture it (lack of empathy).

Sue has proposed that the anti-smacking law deals with this issue. Obviously it does not.

No child has ever been hospitalised from a light smack on the backside (*which this law calls illegal)

many young men believe that it is ok to sleep around at a very young age, with no comprehension of the ultimate consequence of this action (new life). When that new life is brought into the world well who now becomes responsible for that life? The same young man who cares little for anything in this world.

The fact that NZ rates relatively among the highest in the world in statistics for; Abortion, Teenage Suicide, Family Abuse, Binge Drinking, and Child Abuse, Teenage Sex, Teenage Sexually Transmitted Diseases, is very relevant. These things all deal with the issue of respect for human life don't they??? (your own and other peoples)

Good NZers all seem to scratch their heads, and mutter "Why would they do something like that?" Truth be told we don't want to know why, because it reveals the extend to which our nation is embroiled in aspects of inhumanity that scares us, and rightfully so.

I started this tread because of frustration at Sue, because it seems that she has an ulterior-motive. Anti-Church.

Im almost embarrassed that i needed to start this thread to; 'get it off my chest' so to speak. i thank all the people here for their comments, i HATE seeing people smack their children. But thats not the issue!!! We want to try to protect the most vulnerable of our nation the best we can, made impossible by the fact that the people we need to protect them from are their own parents. (tears now)

From what it sounds like your all really great parents!!!! (we all have our own issues to which is very endearing)

i think the fry need a feed.

[livingart]

in a nutshell then lack of caring about or understanding the consequences of your actions?

[Zev]

What worries me as a mother of three girls, is that no matter what morals you try to instill in your children, by whatever method - how they behave as teenagers is ultimately dictated by their peers.

[alanmin4304]

My views are pretty obvious I think. One of the biggest problems is that parents are not cosistant. The kids that play up in the supermarket have no clear guidelines on what is expected and what the consequences are if it doesn't happen. If the conseqences are enforced and the rules are clear life would be better for kids regardless.

We do have a violent society and rugby is a war game.

[suphew]

Sue has proposed that the anti-smacking law deals with this issue. Obviously it does not.

I think this belief is the is the reason the referendum even had a chance, and is a view propagated in the start by the media to make a story out of nothing and then pushed by a small but loud group, family first. Sue didn't pass a new law, Sue removed a ludicrous clause in a law that says, you are not allowed to use force or violence on your wife, or your neighbour, or someones else's child, or a rugby player, or anyone else, unless they happen to be your own child in which case you can go for it. Because of the sensationalising by the media the Police were given the option to prosecute at their discretion, so good parents who give their children a light smack aren't going to be prosecuted. But parents who are in court for smacking the bejesus out of their kids are no longer going to be able to use the defence of reasonable force as happened in the past. She removed a loop hole, she never promised she was going to fix all the woe's of the world.

[alanmin4304]

I think you are right in that the law change was proposed after a court decided that hitting a kid with a large stick was OK.

[twinkles]

and wasn't there another case where a mother belted her child with a horsewhip and got away with it as reasonable force? Who wants to see that allowed again.

[Barrie]

the simple answer is (or course) no-one want to see kids beaten up

The problem is now that if I see my neibour give their kid a light smack, my neibour can have the police called on them and be charged.

THIS HAS HAPPENED

Sue Bradford would have been better off putting her efforts into say totally banning cigarates or booze

Some good parents have been visited by the police

some good parents have been charged

still kids are dieing from abuse

still kids are being badly beaten

so tell me, what use at all was this law change?

If a law is good then I would have thought some good to NZers would have come from it but I see an increase in killings and beating

No reasonable NZer would condone kids being laid into but to send a kid to bed early or with no dinner is every bit as cruel and have longer lasting effects

Ask any teacher

Why not target parents of kids that go to school with no breakfast or lunch or no shoes and warm clothing?

All these things are things that the efforts of sue bradford would have made a difference had she truly been interested buy instead she took the easy way and targeted good parents that dont beat kids, dont send them to school hungrey or cold.

[alanmin4304]

If the law change was so bad why are the politicians not willing to change it? It is alright blaming Sue Bradford but at least hitting your kids with a horse wip or a 4x2 is no longer regarded as smacking and acceptable " good parenting"

[BikBok]

at least hitting your kids with a horse wip or a 4x2 is no longer regarded as smacking and acceptable " good parenting"

it never was regarded as acceptable by the majority of NZers.. and even amongst many who have lost their temper and done exactly what they said they never would do or wanted to. The cycle of violence DOES need to stop but the law which punishes responsible and restrained parents is not helping one iota.

[smidey]

The cycle of violence DOES need to stop but the law which punishes responsible and restrained parents is not helping one iota.

the cycle of violence is getting worse in some areas of society

[suphew]

Why not target parents of kids that go to school with no breakfast or lunch or no shoes and warm clothing?

The nine million we just wasted on this pointless referendum would have got a lot of those kids shoes and a feed.

The problem is now that if I see my neibour give their kid a light smack, my neibour can have the police called on them and be charged.

THIS HAS HAPPENED

As far as I know the only case that has been to court was the guy with his kid on a bike, riding onto the road? If you look into the whole story the Police visited the guy, and just warned him, he then went to the media and made a big deal out of it. So they looked a bit harder into it and after interviewing the neighbours they took him to court and he was found guilty of punching his kid in the face. With the way the law was it's likely he would have gotten away with 'smacking' his kid in the face because he could have pleaded reasonable force, if the police had even been called in the first place. If the guy is willing to do that to his son on a public street I wonder what goes on behind closed doors.

[alanmin4304]

Unfortunately the whole of society is becoming more violent. It is no good saying parts are becoming more violent (but not my part). The reality is that 80% of kiwis that voted want it to be legal for them to be violent with their kids. We need to look closely at our society but we refuse. As stated earlier we have some realy bad things going on here. We have a lot of abused kids (and it is not in any particular part of society). We have one of the highest figures in the world for people in jail (but we can't see that it is not working and still want to lock people up for longer but don't want to pay for it.) We want to make it legal to use violence on our kids so we can teach them that violence is the way to get what you want. We call an all out punch up on the rugby field a hard game. We have that many people in jail that we are going to put the next lot into containers and put the management out to private enterprise, yet we cannot see that something is not right.

Lets face it---we live in a sick society. The only way to fix a problem is to firstly admit that we have a problem and I don't hear a lot of people saying that.