< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: How to stop them from fleeing

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Monday, June 20, 2005

How to stop them from fleeing

The socialists have worked out a long term plan to stop our best and the brightest from fleeing our shores. If there was a way to stop other countries from welcoming our ex-patriots with open arms, maybe it would be worth implementing ... to help the GDP, of course.
The results or the Swedish smacking ban have made themselves felt in all kinds of ways. Swedish youths are well-known in continental Europe for their unruly behaviour. In the 1980's and 1990's, the Swedish embassies and consulates of the ski-resort countries of Europe sent letters to the Swedish Foreign Office to urge High School principals to stop their pupils from going ski-ing during their February sports week.

Smacking and the Law - A European Perspective
Sweden, that socialist haven in the North is onto this one. Their smacking ban is now bearing fruit. No one wants young Swedes in their countries, they are too ill-mannered and boorish now that the smacking ban has been in place for 26 years.

Those do-gooder, can't touch my kid in anger, scream bloody murder if you poke them with a blunt stick panty-waists will never see this one coming.

Yes, cunning ...

Posted by Lucia Maria | 6/20/2005 06:26:00 PM

30 Comments:

Blogger Ashley Clarkson said...

What a surprise...

...not.

6/20/2005 07:53:00 PM  
Blogger TomV said...

I work with a Swedish girl of about 20. She's mature, competent, calm, polite and twice the worker of any of her well smacked kiwi workmates.


...tom

6/20/2005 08:01:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

Every Swede I've known has been somewhat more serious and engaged with the world in a mature way than many of the Kiwis I came across when I last spent time there. It seems the Brtitish too haven't been smacking enough.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/britain-calls-in-army-to-control-drunken-yobs/2005/06/19/1119119726763.html

6/20/2005 08:17:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Obviously doesn't affect every single one. I mean I grew up being schooled in the wonders of the NZ social welfare system, and look how I turned out compared to you lot (not incl Ashley).

6/20/2005 08:39:00 PM  
Blogger STC said...

I don't know what is worse - your hysterical slandering of the Swedish as "unruly" or your complete inability to understand the issue of repealing Section 59.

This IS NOT a ban on smacking. Chances are the Police will find it in their discretion to not prosecute you for giving your child a light whack on the bum with an open palm.

It IS ABOUT repealing a law which has seen parents take to their children violently with objects such as planks of wood and riding crops - and have the charges dismissed. A bad precedent has been set.

Now tell me, why should the law afford protection to someone who assaults a child on the basis that the victim is a child and not an adult? It clearly shouldn't.

Lets treat this issue seriously, and without the usual hysteria.

6/20/2005 09:38:00 PM  
Blogger Berend de Boer said...

Hysteria? It is the discretion of the police not to prosecute? Haven't you read Lucyna's articles how that turned out in Sweden? There the police prosecute.

I'm sure the Left would be in favor of banning everything and let the police make the adhoc decision if they should prosecute.

Very sick.

6/20/2005 09:41:00 PM  
Blogger Berend de Boer said...

Lucyna, you think these side effects were unexpected and unplanned.

Not true. The next step is suitable chemicals to keep the population under control.

6/20/2005 09:43:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

It looks like the police aren't the first line of attack there - they get the social workers involved, who seem to have powers to remove children beyond conviction of parents. It all starts, apparently, with a request to take the child in question to a hospital for examination.

6/20/2005 09:51:00 PM  
Blogger docjok said...

It is my opinion that New Zealand already has more than sufficient laws to protect children from child abuse. Section 59 should stay - and not because some decisions might appear from the outside to have gone this way or that. Simply because, apart from obvious and recognised abuse, the government, and its agents have no business dictating how a family raises its children. A small example - I strongly believe that no man should ever stike a woman. I have raised my boys that way. The first time that either of my sons decided to hit their mother, they were disciplined appropriately. They have since decided that is not a very good option for them. The same them striking their sister (however sorely provoked). Now it seems to me that when they grow to men, they are not going to have any problems in this area - as it was sorted out quickly, and appropriately when they were both boys. So take the case of a 14yo who decides that it is ok to have a swipe at his mother, and has a high threshold to pain. Looking in from the outside, one could speculate that a certain type of punishment is over the top, or inappropriate. However, uncorrected this lad is going to grow up thinking that he can get away with stiking women or his mother. Personally, I have set of values that says one of my jobs in life is to protect my wife. Old fashioned maybe, but that is the way it is. That means protecting her from the violence of other men, and if necessary from my sons (though I doubt it is going to be a problem). This small example shows the sort of issues surrounding this subject. Is it better to let a boy grow up thinking it is ok to hit women, or to correct that? If so how do you correct it? I know what is right for my family, and would not persume to cast judgement on someone elses family situation - that I know so little about. What we need to do is define what society considers abuse - deal with it when it occurs otherwise butt out completely. I think that the current Section 59 mechanism, with juries of peers manages that issue pretty effectively. The problem with busybody social intrusion in other peoples familys is that there are no boundaries - it never stops. Sadly Section 59 or not is not going to stop child abuse. What Section 59 repeal will do is give a lot of well meaning but misguided busybodies some sort of excuse to be involved in other peoples families. That will be to the detriment of our society.

6/20/2005 10:03:00 PM  
Blogger Gooner said...

Stephen, it's not s 59 that's the problem when parents get away with that behaviour. Stop blaming it. Next you'll want to do away with s 48 which allows self defence. It uses the same threshold of reasonableness.

6/20/2005 10:47:00 PM  
Blogger Marianne said...

I agree that it is odd to have state interference re: smacking and I also think that the most interference comes when children go "off the rails" and society kicks up a fuss about how one failed to discipline one's children and now they are a blight upon society and all its glories.
(Stupid ambivalent society)
I smacked my children when they were younger but I wish I hadn't. It did no good. They understand language and also early bedtimes and electronic bans. You don't need to hit children and I would be horrified to see someone do it now I think.
Imagine if I hit you when you were being unreasonable (we are all unreasonable sometimes right?) You would be traumatised!

6/20/2005 10:53:00 PM  
Blogger Marianne said...

s 49 is about defending yourself when you fear for your life. Cute strawman argument but really Gooner - I just know you can do better!

6/20/2005 10:56:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Imagine if I hit you when you were being unreasonable (we are all unreasonable sometimes right?) You would be traumatised!

Marianne, errr .. no.

6/20/2005 10:57:00 PM  
Blogger Marianne said...

No what?
No you are not unreasonable? - ever?
(sure...)
No, you would in fact be snapped back into being rational if I hit you, rather than be traumatised?
No, you would hit me back and we would have a meaty street fight?
No, it is so upsetting you refuse to imagine it????

6/20/2005 11:09:00 PM  
Blogger Kimble said...

All you dorks that have said that you know Swedes and they are cool people, I knew a Swede once. He WAS an unruly dick head. So?

6/20/2005 11:12:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

LOL, Marianne, I was replying to the traumatised bit. Just to make it clear, I would not be traumatised if you hit me.

6/20/2005 11:20:00 PM  
Blogger GaryH said...

Stephen Cooper -

You are not being honest. This is a ban on smacking.

It is just not good enough for lawmakers to write law that relies on the "chances are the Police will find it in their discretion to not prosecute..."

If you really wanted to protect children from violence (intent to injure) you would be advocating a change to S59 to specifically exclude it as a defence, but also specifically allow smacking (no intent to injure). I do not believe this is beyond the abilities of the legal system.

The problem is that, from a social engineering point of view, you need to completely repeal S59, so that you can continue to promote the smacking = violence propoganda campaign. Only in this way can you continue the socialist agenda of breaking down the power of the family unit. This is, of course, fundamental to the utopia you seek.

Hysteria is, actually, an appropriate response to the Left's intentionally simplistic portrayal of a serious issue.

6/21/2005 12:07:00 AM  
Blogger TomV said...

I absolutely love how REMOVING a law from the statute books is portrayed as state interference. The inconsistency is delicious, but not at all surprising.

6/21/2005 09:15:00 AM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

TomV, the state interference will occur after the law is removed - do you not get that?

6/21/2005 09:58:00 AM  
Blogger Gooner said...

Really Marianne?

48 Self-defence and defence of another

Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

Where does it say 'but only if you fear for your life'?

Next please Marianne.

6/21/2005 01:06:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

We had a Swedish teenager inflicted on us at the UK arm of a multinational I used to work for, as a holiday job favour between our director and his Swedish counterpart.

He was a whiney lazy shit. There was nothing about London that he couldn't complain about, while he was actually getting a paid holiday in one of the coolest cities in the world.

It took all my self restraint not to spank him myself. However I did snap once and told him to stop whinging about the contents of his meat pie. Apparently British food wasn't fit for his consumption.

6/21/2005 01:27:00 PM  
Blogger TomV said...

Lucyana: No I don't get that at all.

I've tended to view the claims that the removal of specific reference to children will lead to state interference, as speculation at best and scaremongering at worst.

The Police have enough trouble chasing real crime.

The current administration is a crock and there is plenty of stuff they're really doing to attack them on. This invention of future behaviour as if it is fact is amusing, but not particularly credible, and sounds little more than hysterical to be honest.

There is no need for specific reference to children in the act. Neither the police, nor the government, nor the general public will tolerate otherwise good parents being dragged through the courts, and claims otherwise just don't sound credible.

6/21/2005 02:43:00 PM  
Blogger TomV said...

BTW I've asked before but no-one ever answers so I'll ask again.

How many people currently in prison in this country do you think weren't physically disciplined as children. Personally I'd love to see the study done.

To take it further I'd love to see a similar study done of beneficiaries.

6/21/2005 02:47:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

TomV, it's not about giving the police more work to do - it's about giving more power to social workers. The police will have to merely enforce what the social workers want them to enforce. They don't use the normal courts. This is what is happening in Sweden.

Read this article : How to Control Adults by Means of Children's Rights

6/21/2005 02:49:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

oops, wrong link - try this one

6/21/2005 02:57:00 PM  
Blogger TomV said...

Oh that is absolutely priceless!!.

Among other suggestions. Fix bullying in schools by bringing back the cane ROFL.
The article is an anecdotal rant with little or nothing to support it.

The defining moment for me re: smacking came when visiting friends of friends. Their 4 year old boy clipped their 3 year old daughter in a dispute over a toy, so the father grabbed him by the arm and smacked him repeatedly around the leg with an open hand punctuating his blows with the words "WE ...DON'T...HIT...PEOPLE...IN... THIS....HOUSE"

The author of the article you referred to had about as much insight.

6/21/2005 10:15:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

TomV, I've seen things like that too. When my youngest son was one, I went over to the next door neighbour's house with him. The whole time we were there, the neighbour was smacking her 1 and half year old on the hand for various things. When my son picked up one of the child's toy's, the girl would come towards him trying to smack him and then the mother would come after her to smack her. It was awful and I never visited her again.

The thing is, replace smacking with yelling and you'd get the same thing - disprotionate punishment for the perceived fault. If children learn this, then of course they are going to act it out towards others.

If that's all you got from the experience you related and the article I linked to, then I can see it will be useless even trying to communicate.

6/21/2005 11:18:00 PM  
Blogger Marianne said...

I don't think childrens rights and family values (or adults rights) are mutually exclusive.
I think children need very clear boundaries. I don't think they need to be assaulted (however mildly - why do it?) Parents need to be encouraged to parent well and to set clear nurturing boundaries (so hard to do!)
Love it that there is such a dear soul out there who could cop a thump without being traumatised (kudos to you Lucyna!) (Incidently - I would be completely tramatised if you hit me!)
Gooner is right about the honestly fearing for your life thing I said,[maybe that is if you kill someone in self defence (as in the objective resonableness test?)] Anyway Self defence is still way different: it is about defending yourself against an attack not disciplining a child. Gooner - does s62 apply to unreasonable force disciplining a child as well as self defence? In fact - what about a child using self defence as a defence against parental discipline - could even use it if the child was the one who provoked the attack so it is perfect. We can keep both sections and children can just fight back.
cool.

6/22/2005 12:45:00 AM  
Blogger TomV said...

Now just maybe I'm drawing a long bow here, but possibly the high levels of violence we see everywhere would fall, just a hint, if we didn't start teaching our kids, almost from birth, that physical punishment is the way to resolve issues or impose discipline.

As you say; children act out what they're shown, and that carries all the way to adulthood.

BTW not smacking does not equal yelling. The shout is most useful when you need a child to stop doing something immediately. Beyond that it is largely a waste of time.

6/22/2005 08:23:00 AM  
Blogger Ashley Clarkson said...

Tom - it probably depends on the child's temperament. I and my sister were smacked as children (not as the first resort of course) but neither of us go around beating people who don't give us what we want. Not in our temperament, not a factor of our religious upbringing either.

I am an officer in the Boys Brigade, and I can clearly point out the children who ride roughshod over authority because their parents don't discipline them properly. I'm not talking about using time-out (that often works, but not always, depending on the kid) but about parents who never disciplined their children in some way when they were young. Those who were smacked (or at least disciplined through other coercive measures) are often far better behaved, much more respective of authority and far easier to control.

Lets be clear here - smacking and time-out are both "violent" forms of discipline. They both involve the coercive intervention of one person (an authority figure) over another. If used inappropriately children may "learn" (I would suggest that they just as much may have a pattern of behavior confirmed) that that is a way to get what they want from others. But used properly it sets kids up to understand and behave properly in society when they are older (and avoid the intervention of the coercive, authoritative elements of society such as the police and judicial system). Whether the coercive intervention is physical or mental it doesn't matter, it still has the same effect on a child. And both taken to extremes will bring out the negative aspects of behaviour that we as a society seek to control/exclude.

6/23/2005 12:14:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home