Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.
The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.
SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Plunket want to outlaw Smacking
They see the repeal of S59 as the first step. Right from the President's Report:
UPDATE 5:10pm : Plunket's 2004 Annual Report Page 66 shows that they are in effect a Government funded organisation. 84% ($27,089,000) came from Government contracts. I really dislike government funded organisations that think they have the right to lobby governments on the citizen's behalf.
I'm in the process of tracing the links between the government and the major organisations that make up the Every Child Counts group, of which Plunket is a member. Every Child Counts has put out a press release calling for Sue Bradford's repeal of S59 to go to select committee. Hat tip Big News Dave.
UPDATE 5:20pm: Joan Durrant's crap research.
Family violence such as the widely publicised murder of a young girl by her stepfather in Wairarapa this year brought the debate over the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act sharply into focus. I feel very strongly that we must work even harder to try to get this law – which allows parents to use ‘reasonable’ force to discipline their children – repealed.If anyone tries to tell you that the repeal of S59 will not outlaw smacking, think again. The aim of the anti-smacking campaigners is to outlaw smacking. That is what they are working towards! And they have the gall to link smacking to murder!
This year Plunket was part of a UNICEF initiative to bring antismacking campaigner, Dr Joan Durrant, to New Zealand. Her message was clear – if we are serious about decreasing violence against children we need to look at law changes first and then education. In response to people who suggest that “growing up with smacks didn’t hurt me”, Dr Durrant made an analogy with law reform on child restraints. Not long ago New Zealanders didn’t restrain children in cars and we had to work really hard to change the law in this area. As leaving children unrestrained in cars is now understood to be a risk factor for injury, so too research now shows smacking children creates risk. Smacking contributes to poor socio-emotional development and can impair parent-child relationships. Physical punishment should not be acceptable in any form and I believe the repeal of Section 59 is achievable – particularly if we all work together. Let’s make this one a priority.
UPDATE 5:10pm : Plunket's 2004 Annual Report Page 66 shows that they are in effect a Government funded organisation. 84% ($27,089,000) came from Government contracts. I really dislike government funded organisations that think they have the right to lobby governments on the citizen's behalf.
I'm in the process of tracing the links between the government and the major organisations that make up the Every Child Counts group, of which Plunket is a member. Every Child Counts has put out a press release calling for Sue Bradford's repeal of S59 to go to select committee. Hat tip Big News Dave.
UPDATE 5:20pm: Joan Durrant's crap research.
19 Comments:
I'm going to make an intentionally sexist remark here: many more boys than girls indulge in anti-social violent behaviour, the best punishment of which is mild physical punishment from an adult in a position of respect.
It's not exactly uncommon to find (physically) docile girls while the boys are out playing violent games. To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality (see cold grandiosity post).
And since when does a scientist refer to her own personal experience as evidence for anything? Dare I ask what she is a doctor of.
Nice example since there is now evidence that seatbelts are at least as effective as carseats, even for small children.
I agree with you AL, on boys and girls. Just by watching young children you can see the differences that cannot be accounted for by socialisation.
I have a great rebuttal of Joan Durrant's research somewhere, I'll stick in my update. Bascially her research is crap.
Herein lies one of the dangers. Durrant says 'physical punishment should not be acceptable in any form...'
But the Jordan Carters of this world say smacking wouldn't be prohibited. Just violence! Durrant says smacking is physical punishment and would be prohibited.
AAAAArrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Check word definitions there gooner - what does Carter consider smacking? Or more to the point, what will he consider smacking to mean at a later point in time.
"I have a great rebuttal of Joan Durrant's research somewhere, I'll stick in my update. Bascially her research is crap. "
Yup--but since when did that stop the media quoting fools like her as "experts agree.." etc etc?
It's a bit like all those Reputable Scientists quoted in global warming scares. You see the original scary allegations, but very seldom the rebuttals.
Gooner, the Jordan Carters either don't realise what this repeal will do or do realise and are lying about the effects. Not good either way.
Smacking is not the only solution to discipline, but in certain cases it is a necessary tool in the parents toolbox to create a well educated, well disciplined and well adjusted, polite member of society.
We're certainly not seeing that on the street. There's too much meddling in family lives these days because of one or two bad apples who soured the entire social basket for us.
Sometimes these things are pulled out of perspective and I think this whole anti smacking thing is just another example like that. We need to think of a slightly bigger picture than one small terrible example that tugs at our heartstrings.
I agree Tincanman. It is arguable that smacking is over-used, and that there are other ways. You will find that children love to push limits to see how much they can get away with. They also do not understand consequences, especially the serious kinds - electricity, roads, leaping off tables.
A smack can send a signal that there are consequences that parents are aware of that are worse than a smack - and the child learns limits.
But, yes, in my experience smacks are hardly ever required.
However, the do-gooder brigade have the wrong end of the stick (so to speak).
Smacking leads to excessive physical abuse like hugs lead to sexual abuse. Not. But go quiz the number of fathers now self conscious about showing physical affection to their daughters in public.
Exactly, we were just sitting in the waiting room at the midwives and this adorable little Asian boy was running around, wanting to collect another lolly from the doctor.
The wif waved him over and before I could help myself I'd stopped her and told her not to interact with other people's children.
The response was so conditioned I couldn't help myself.
The left loose me with their view on this issue.
The left correlate discipline with brutality. That is an utter nonsense and no change to the Crimes Act will prevent the meaningless deaths of children like James Whakaruru.
His thug step-father would have killed him regardless. Indeed, not once have these child-killers actually pleaded the section 59 quasi-defence, because ipso-frigging-facto the child is dead, how could that b reasonable?
No, the left simply wish to criminalise ordinary parents who would no sooner fly to the moon unaided than inflict the sort of gruesome harm being associated with the alleged mischief this law change seeks to redress.
I no doubt will be vilified by advocates including, regrettably Plunkett, but shame on Plunkett et el for making the implicit comparison.
I meant to record my childhood experience. I have no recollection of being smacked by my parents, but I may well have been. What it do remember that the threat of it was particularly effective. Yes a threat that could have been followed through with (but never was), now that really did work. I'd like to think that my sister and I have grown up well adjusted and with enormous respect for our parents, indeed, as adults we actually regard them as great friends.
The repeal of section 59 amounts to a denial of the ability to threaten discipline, because it criminalises to potential to follow through.
If one's values are established in the first 5 years, what right has a Government to deny parents the threat of discipline to shape behavior, and therefore the country of well adjusted citizens?
Would the repeal of section 59 have saved James Whakaruru's life. Of course not.
The repeal of this act not only criminalises parents, but allows social workers to make a case against some-one without requiring evidence.
They always like to say that they will only do this when the child is in danger blah blah blah, but unfortunately, that doesn't always prove to be the case.
I support strengthening and clarifying this section, not discarding it.
Zen, your comment illustrates the practical result so well. It's just what the left want though, control over how you choose to raise your family. They just can’t resist the interference.
From the front page of today's Stuff news:
"Survey supports end to smacking
27 July 2005
By ANNA SAUNDERS
Parents of under-5s think smacking is the least effective way to get children to behave, a survey says.
The study comes as Green MP Sue Bradford's private member's bill, which would remove Section 59's "reasonable force" defence from parents using physical discipline, is debated in Parliament today.
Child advocates say the findings suggest support for a law change is increasing.
The Littlies Lobby, led by Plunket and the children's commissioner, surveyed 1367 readers of Tots to Teens magazine. Just 3 per cent thought smacking was a highly effective way to guide children to behave well.
About 70 per cent said smacking was not effective."
I'd love to see the wording of the survey.
The thing that frightens me with the repeal is that when my wife and I have kids, someone could dob us in if we as much raise a hand against them, regardless of what they have done, it could be stealing etc. If that happens it is likely the police will be called, charges laid and then CYPS (?) will in all likelihood make applications to the family court that my wife and I are unfit parents and the kids will get taken away and placed int he care of some other person.
Is this making my wife and I think twice about having kids - no, but it does make us think we will be in a very controlled environment and have to be very careful in what we do. I don't want that, I don't want the spectre of potentially having kids taken away based on someone elses perception of how my wife and I raise them to be hanging over us.
I practice as a lawyer and the legal implications of any repeal of section 59 are massive. It is a shame the media haven't really picked up on it.
It is a load of crap, Keith. I mean I believe that there are more effective ways to get kids to behave than smacking. But, sometimes, if they've done something really bad, a smack is the only thing to get their attention as to the severity of the thing. Children are incredibly good at tuning their parents out and there are times you don't want them to tune you out, that you want them to know that what they've done cannot be repeated.
Oh and yes, smacking is not effective if that is all you use - it loses it's shock value.
Lucyna, it's a bit like having an "ultimate deterrent" isn't it? Besides, a properly administered smack isn't about inflicting pain--it has more to do with teaching children that there are some things that just aren't on, for their own safety as much as anything.
The whole thing flies so much in the face of commonsense it's hard to get one's head around the position of the anti-smacking people. It smells far more of State control over the family than of any real concern for children.
Post a Comment
<< Home