< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: More bullshit from the PC brigade

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.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

More bullshit from the PC brigade

I wonder about the intelligence of some people in the anti-smacking brigade. Actually, having thought about that introduction I don't wonder about it all. I know they're nuts.

Apparently a new study has been put out by the brigade which, surprise surprise, has received wide public support from children's groups. Save the Children, that highy objective, impartial, analytical group, released a study conducted by, wait for it, child advocate Terry Dobbs, that both say show an alarming (YES, ALARMING!) rate of physical punishment in New Zealand families. Not smacking per se. Physical punishment.

Naturally Sue Bradford reacted conservatively:

"Ms Bradford said yesterday that the research strengthened the case for repeal of section 59".

The Maxim Institute was spot on in their reaction;

"Smacking in the context of responsible parenting is altogether different from the use of an implement, which is abuse," he said. "We know that some parents are ill equipped to handle their emotions around children ... that doesn't mean you need to change the law."

YES. YES. YES. He is right.

Save the Children, Dobbs and Bradford are all WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Ask Peter Ellis what is wrong with asking 5 yr olds about smacking.
ยท Linked Article

Posted by Gooner | 9/29/2005 09:16:00 AM

16 Comments:

Anonymous spam said...

9 out of 10 children had been smacked - so Sue Bradford is therefore claiming that 90% of parents are criminals?

And the children were aware enough to respond that the parents apparently would later express regret. Well, there you go - the PC brigade's message is obviously sinking-in: all parents should feel guilty if they raise their child in any other way than the state-approved way.

If the kids are smart enough to know this, then they'll fairly soon catch-on to the fact that smacking is illegal. In short - they'll take the stance that they can behave however they like, and the parents can't do anything about it, or they'll tell the police.

9/29/2005 10:10:00 AM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

If the kids are smart enough to know this, then they'll fairly soon catch-on to the fact that smacking is illegal. In short - they'll take the stance that they can behave however they like, and the parents can't do anything about it, or they'll tell the police.

Teenage troublemakers are already aware of this.

9/29/2005 11:22:00 AM  
Blogger Gooner said...

And have been for many, many years Al.

9/29/2005 11:29:00 AM  
Anonymous spam said...

Yeah - but teenagers is one issue; 4 & 5 year olds might be another.

Teenagers don't tend to throw temper tantrums in public places..

9/29/2005 11:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Sam Vilain said...

I don't think that many people are suggesting that occasional gentle smacks followed by a cuddle for youths not yet able to communicate are a problem.

However, it is the parents that control their youths through threats of violence without trying to empower their children with the knowledge required to let them make the right decision for themselves that have the problem.

They might grow up a criminal, or worse - a fanatical Right Winger.

9/29/2005 01:10:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Sam, the Police Commissioners Office has already published a legal opinion stating the repeal of S59 will make all smacking illegal.

See here:
http://sirhumphreys.blogspot.com/2005/08/police-commissioners-office-smacking.html

9/29/2005 01:19:00 PM  
Blogger Gooner said...

Sam, I think you are wrong in saying a gentle smack followed by a hug won't be criminal. I'll show you you're wrong tomorrow (hopefully). I have a recent Court of Appeal case on child 'assault' which I will be blogging on. In this case, the father merely restrained his daughter by way of a hug and was convicted of assault. I will try to put the case on the SH for all interested readers.

9/29/2005 01:27:00 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

PLease do Gooner,
And BTW, how much of the so-called smacking by these kids' parents was administered in a calm controlled way with reasonable force in accordance with the provisions of S59?

That's what Save the Children havent told us.

9/29/2005 01:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My old family doctor used to say A smack on the bottom at 2 saves a lot of trouble at 22 Note a smack NOT an assault with a lump of 4x2 But of course the LEFT exaggerate in their pathetic attempt to label all good parents criminals Note Bradford and her fellow travellers never ever critise the real villians in this They always have excuses for their terrible behaviour Two faced morons all
gd

9/29/2005 03:04:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

I was very, very disturbed when I heard on the radio about this survey of children on smacking. Most of the children said that their parents didn't need to smack them, that something else could have been done instead that would be more effective.

Listening to this I thought, what kid would not say this??? My kids tell me that they are going to clean up after themselves after they beg me to let them take out many sets of toys out of the cupboard - most of the time they do not clean up after themselves without me making sure.

Anyone who thinks a five - seven year old is going to be able to predict their own behaviour better than their parent is, is seriously fucked in the head. That five - seven year old is not able to relate the number of times their parent has most likely tried to get them to do the thing they were smacked for in a variety of different ways before they were eventually smacked for it.

This gets me so mad.

The fact that this has come out now means that Save the Children et al are going to seriously push for that repeal.

9/29/2005 03:37:00 PM  
Blogger Gooner said...

Lucyna, that is why I put at the end of my post the bit about Peter Ellis. Those kids at Christchurch had words put into their mouths. How can a 5 yr old possibly say that unless the methodology of the survey said it for them.

PS: We need to think of a new name for Save the Children. How about Slaves to Children?

9/29/2005 03:52:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Gooner, there might be more to the Peter Ellis thing than meets the eye. Of course I don't know for sure and haven't really looked into it, but that's really a different issue from this one.

Save the Children is very interesting. There's a booklet out on them, on how they are funded by a trust fund or two and how their aims as child rights advocates have been very similiar to pedofile (however you spell it) organisations of the past. The people involved are a small group that reference each other's research and link up through multiple organisations to make themselves appear bigger. Every Child Counts would fall into this category.

Anyone who says they are for child rights are really aiming to destroy the protections that parents have over their children. Knowingly or not.

9/29/2005 03:58:00 PM  
Blogger Psycho Milt said...

AL: "Teenage troublemakers are already aware of this."

I have an opinion, based on admittedly no evidence whatsoever, that these bozos are the end product of non-smacking parenting. Having been raised from birth to be the centre of the universe, with every bad behaviour tolerated and nothing bad ever possibly able to happen to them, why would they bother to obey cops? Watching one of these wet liberal parents (no I don't think I am one, thanks for asking) trying to reason with a three-year old as though it were a fellow adult, is painful in the extreme.

9/29/2005 04:56:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

PM: My brother is one of said teenage troublemakers, and he was indeed the only one of the children to be raised with a few formerly new-age ideas such as keeping the baby on its front (bad idea - apparently he had a hard time sleeping), no physical discipline, and when it became apparent he had developed a problematic personality in his teenage years - "tough love".

Any teenage deliquent with half a brain these days will always cry about their 'rights' whenever someone threatens them with repercussions for their actions.

9/29/2005 05:05:00 PM  
Blogger Gooner said...

"Any teenage deliquent with half a brain these days will always cry about their 'rights' whenever someone threatens them with repercussions for their actions".

That's my experience. And they actually don't have any brain, let alone 1/2 of one.

9/29/2005 05:19:00 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

Just had a chat to Amie Richardson. She does the PR for the study. I know her from the Sunday Star Times. She does not work for Save the Children and it is her number that xjfappears on the Save the Children website, masquerading as a Save the Children contact. It would be interesting to see how much they pay her to promote this. She thought the report was online and she only has one hard copy herself.

The survey has a smaller sample of that conducted by the littleis lobby vack in July. Its crap. I`ll blog more in it myself when I get a hold of it.

9/29/2005 07:42:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home