When Sue Bradfords anti-smacking bill was going through the various motions in parliament, there was both strong opposition and support for the bill.
Those that supported the bill (which is now law) generally believe that any striking of a child constitutes abuse, no matter the strength of the strike or the circumstances surrounding it. This is a common belief that unified those that were in support of the bill at the time.
Unlike those who supported the bill, those who were in opposition to it were not so unified in there reasons, however they did have more reason to oppose it. A common reason for opposition to the bill was parents were worried that they would be prosecuted for what they thought was good parenting. Not wanting the state to control how we raise our children and the strong belief that smacking was not child abuse, these were some of the other reasons.
While I will express my views later on it thought it might be best to first have some perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hi Hayden
This is an interesting topic and it’s good you’re focusing on the legislative side of things. It is certainly a contentious topic and I'm looking forward to when you reveal your views. I thought I should look up in the dictionary just how ‘smack’ is defined and I was surprised at one definition which stated it is ‘to strike or send forcibly or loudly’. (Collins, 1986, p.1372). This is a stronger denotation than what I imagined a smack to be.
For most children a punishment such as deprivation of privileges or time-out works wonderfully. I think the Amendment to the Act deals fairly effectively with the concerns expressed by the public, recognizing that there are genuine (safety related) cases where a smack is appropriate and should not be punishable, but serving as a deterrent for other cases where parents who would previously be tempted to hit, will now need to adopt a non-violent form of punishment.
I think it is also positive to concentrate on stopping the cyclical nature of hitting, ie. if a parent was hit as a child, then that is a form of discipline they could tend to replicate on their own children. Therefore breaking the cycle becomes important. I notice there are tv ads on at the moment presented by former ‘hitters’ and the message of their reformation is positive.
I myself am not too clear on the specifics of the legislation on what you can and can't do (I'm assuming its more of the side of what you can't do) but I'll drop in my two cents here.
I don't have any children of my own being 22 years old (ha!), forget about humans for a moment here. If a dog is misbehaving or does something you want it to learn not to, some would give it a quick smack.
I'm not trying to say people are dogs, but think of this for a moment. Your kid is crawling around on the floor, finds a power outlet. Said kid finds a fork/knife/screwdriver and decides that it could fit into the hole. WHACK the kid would learn to never do THAT again. Minus the whack (bear in mind I am not a child psychologist or anything) but I assume the kid would continue trying to do something along the lines of that again since it draws such attention from the parent (like crying for food or a hug or what have you).
I may be completely off base but yeah, thats what I have to say.
Hi Hayden, great choice of topic! There's alot of controversy going on about it in NZ which is why it such a good topic to discuss. My opinion is that the act of making 'anti-smacking' law is ridiculous. Where I come from parents are the two people that love their children the most in the whole world! I mean my parents for example love me to bits, I know that for sure but that doesnt mean they never smacked me. I got my fair share of smacks when I deserved them. However I do understand that there are many cases of child abuse leading to hospitalization and sometimes death, because of these cases the government took such drastic measures to prevent their happening again. But I dont believe that a thing such as an 'anti smacking' law would prevent those types of parents from hurting their kids, I think what those parents need is parent rehab and parenting courses not laws. Because as you have pointed out, the stats have not changed. The anti smacking law is ineffective.
Again I want to say thats good stuff you've written there.
Hey just to answer your question Necrolust, my understanding of the law is that the only circumstance where it is legal to smack your child is if they are endangering themselves, the situation you mentioned playing with knife power outlets etc are some of these. This does however make things more complicated if a cop ask a kid if they were hit (abused) the kid is not likely to go into an in depth explanation of why they were smacked, hit abused or what ever you want to call it.
I think good on family first,
They are doing just that putting the family first. let me just say first I love kids and in no way want to harm them or abuse, fathers need to learn how to set a good example for their children to follow, i think that gets to the root of the problem.
I've been told Sue Bradford has no kids so therefore how has she any idea about raising a family and the responsibility of the parents to install moral behavior and common sense and discipline into their children. Or is she thinking the school will do that for them.
if we think today's young people are violent wait another 15yrs and see the outcome of the children that have never been told to pull their head in and have had no form of discipline apart from their play station been taken away from them and told to go to their room for time out and play their portable one.
This is the problem in my humble opinion
The government wants to control society and make everyone dress in pink and be all PC.
For me it's simple, Child abuse is cases like the kahui twins (has there been an end to that one yet) and the extreme acts of violence towards children. The father who flicked his son on the ear was for before he was about to get run over was absolute rubbish.
this country like it or not, and modern day law of most western countries were founded on biblical law, and in the book of proverbs written by King Solomon says it’s the responsibility of all parent to hit (literal translation is to beat with the rod) their children for correction. Mate the bloody criminals in the jails have got more rights than parents on the outside.
Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them with a rod, they will not die. If you beat them with the rod, you will save their lives from hell
(Prov. 23:13-14)
My point is, it should be the right of the parents to administer discipline and correction, cases like children taking their parents to court is undermining the parent’s authority and is just stupid.
They need to review this law and the law that constitutes abuse.
Post a Comment