- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Smacking Sue Bradford


I admire Sue Bradford, she is an incredibly intelligent woman who has tirelessly fought for those who are weaker, her anti-smacking law is the exact type of symbolic legislation required for a country with one of the worst child abuse statistics on record within the developed world.

What has staggered me is the level of contempt those on the opposite side of this debate hold her in, so much so that she has now been threatened on the cyfs blog site. I supported the CYFs blogsite because of the totalitarian nature CYFs has towards investigating any complaints against it, leaving many parents frustrated and angry, but to now use the site to post violence against a person trying to ban violence is simply an intellectual flip flop too far, and I understand why you have lost your kids.

Sue inspires such hatred because of her broad working class accent and her membership to the Greens, to her enemies she represents all that they hate and write off as ‘politically correct’. One has to wonder at how much of this has been whipped up by the National Party MP, Chester Borrows who has told every reporter he can huff and puff on that Sue’s legislation will make criminals out of ordinary NZ parents – this is total, inflammatory bullshit and I do wonder how Chester sleeps hearing about death threats to Sue.

Let’s be very clear here NO PARENT WILL BE ARRESTED FOR GIVING A SLIGHT SMACK ON THE BUM!!!!!!!!!!! For the love of God, that isn’t what this is about, it is a statement to the country that we don’t beat our kids anymore and that there isn’t a defense to hit your kids, of course children should be disciplined, we all agree and know that children should be disciplined – but discipline doesn’t mean you should hit kids, there are better and more effective ways to discipline your children and if you really need a crash course on it, watch those nanny shows on TV.

I’ve heard the dumbest things come out of peoples mouth over this smacking issue, the stupidest has to be “what if my child was going to touch a power plug and I hit its hand, I’m going to go to jail” …….. how could anyone really ask that question and expect serious response? It is inane, of course no parent would ever be charged under such circumstances, there is more chance of America invading NZ than that scenario ever getting to Court!

The other eye roller is 'The Government is telling us what to do in our homes'! The Government also passed domestic violence laws that stopped you beating your wife in your home as well, I start to get the feeling that these are the very same people who violently oppossed Civil Unions, Homosexual discrimination and prostitution law reform - it is the fury of the provinces we can hear, that section of NZ community still smarting from the National Party loss who believe NZ has morally regressed mixed in with a disgruntled generation of males living in the power sharing shadow of MMP who believe political correctness has robbed them of machismo.

A legitimate comeback though is will this really change our appalling child abuse figures, and the answer to that is on its own, this legislation won’t be able to do that, but combined with other efforts, yes we can start changing the environment and start moving towards a violence free society.

What I don’t get is that if I hit my mate, it’s assault, if I had a kid and hit that, I’m safe – how come the weakest members of society get LESS protection?

Bradford braces for Smacking Bill battle
Green MP Sue Bradford believes her anti-smacking bill will become law, but by a razor-thin majority. The bill easily passed its second reading in Parliament last night, by 70 to 51. And it looks likely to pass its third reading, in about three weeks, when it is expected to received 63 votes. It needs 61 votes to pass. The bill would repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, which gives parents the right to use reasonable force to discipline their children. Several MPs voted for the bill last night only so they could then support a proposed amendment by National MP Chester Borrows that would define reasonable force. Six National MPs who voted for Ms Bradford's bill last night are expected to be told by party whips to support Mr Borrows' amendment, although some of those MPs are believed to be strongly opposed to section 59. Two New Zealand First MPs also supported Ms Bradford's bill so they could then vote for the Borrows amendment. If those MPs and all those who opposed Ms Bradford's bill last night voted for the Borrows amendment, it would have 59 votes - not enough for it to be passed, but enough to ensure three weeks of lobbying before the bill returns to Parliament.

26 Comments:

At 22/2/07 1:17 pm, Anonymous jo said...

I'm hoping that all the 'little extra bits' like it's okay to use reasonable force if.....blah blah. don't get added back in, the bills ammendment was to designed to remove the blurry line of what is actually an assault and not. I think the 'add in's' will only make it more ambiquious. Btw I have looked at the cyfs-watch site (like everyone else) and found it to be full of women haters..pretty weird.

 
At 22/2/07 4:54 pm, Blogger Dave said...

"NO PARENT WILL BE ARRESTED FOR GIVING A SLIGHT SMACK ON THE BUM!!!!!!!!!!! For the love of God, that isn’t what this is about,"

No, not really, it is about Parliament passing a law that they are quite happy for people to break. For people who want to smack their kids within the law (as they currently can) they want to be able to continue to do that within the law, particularly as most lawmakers in this case see nothing wrong with a light tap on the bum, even though many want to make it a criminal offence...

Y`know Bomber, some people actually like to live within the law.....

 
At 22/2/07 6:13 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

typical that you love ugly bradford martyn. there is an offence under the crimes act 1961 and the charge is "Assaults Child (and then "over or under 14"). this charge is regularly used so why do you think this smacking law is going to change anything? pretty much every kid to date receives a smack on the bum for misbehaving, and I'll tell you what : it works! this legislation simply takes away any small physical threat of punishment that is available in modern day. yes, verbal discipline regularly works, but physical smacks are very effective and act as a true detterent. this im afraid is political correctness to the max. this bill will not stop the child abusers/killers, because thugs like that act recklessly and a new law won't stop them...

 
At 22/2/07 6:20 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
But if all you are doing is a little smack - you won't be breaking the new law Dave

 
At 22/2/07 7:10 pm, Blogger bomber said...

typical that you love ugly bradford martyn.
That your opening comment denigrates Sue before you’ve even mentioned your argument doesn’t really help with the image that you pro-smacking people are all a bit mean and nasty now does it anon?

there is an offence under the crimes act 1961 and the charge is "Assaults Child (and then "over or under 14"). this charge is regularly used so why do you think this smacking law is going to change anything?
Yes and it has been successfully challenged in Court by Parents who have beaten their kids with objects, this law is more symbolic than that - this is an attempt to say to society that we need to start looking at non violent solutions. I am bewildered that concept is so difficult for some people.

pretty much every kid to date receives a smack on the bum for misbehaving
And no parent is going to be found guilty of giving their kid a smack on the bum, but when that parent picks up an object and beats the kid (as we have had in this country) that Parent shouldn't be able to invoke a defence that they are allowed to hit their kids.

and I'll tell you what : it works!
No, discipline works - hitting kids doesn't look like it does anything more than teach children that physical force gets you what you want. There is a huge body of evidence that suggests hitting kids doesn't work at all, so to try and pass a statement off like that and not expect it to be challenged suggests you need to read a little more.

this legislation simply takes away any small physical threat of punishment that is available in modern day.
Um, are you the kinda person that would have oppossed domestic violence laws because it took away any small physical threat you had over your lippy wife?

yes, verbal discipline regularly works, but physical smacks are very effective and act as a true detterent.
Again that is just not borne out by the evidence on the long term effects of hitting kids - again, we all know children need dicipline, but hitting them doesn't need to be part of that.

this im afraid is political correctness to the max.
Oh God, wanting to expand protection to the weakest members of society is political correctness is it? Did you ever hear what Marcus Lush always said about people who use political correctness as an arguement? He said it was because people didn't actually have the smarts to continue a debate.

this bill will not stop the child abusers/killers, because thugs like that act recklessly and a new law won't stop them...
Finally you are right - on its own this law won't change those who beat their kids, but in combination with other measures it can herald a major change of direction. For a country with such an appalling child abuse rate, I'm afraid your points come across as absolute denial of the reality on the ground.

 
At 22/2/07 7:28 pm, Blogger Dave said...

Bomber, are you thick or are you just playing silly buggers.

The bill makes all corrective smacks - light and hard - a criminal offence. If you commit a criminal offence you are breaking the law.

I am bewildered that you find this comcept so difficult.

 
At 22/2/07 8:10 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
Dave, dude - if you 'wanted to technically live within the law, because some of us do Bomber' - then you wouldn't ever play rugby or any other contact sport - because 'technically' tackling someone is assault. But no one gets prosecuted from a tackle do they?

Here is the counter to the criminalisation nonesense

Finally, a few words on criminalisation. Much of the opposition to this bill has been driven by those who are spreading the message that if section 59 is abolished suddenly tens of thousands of loving parents will find themselves arrested by police and prosecuted by courts for lightly and occasionally smacking their child.

While it is true that, if this bill succeeds, use of force for correction will technically be an offence, this does not mean that our already very stretched police force will be taking this kind of action. Police investigate maltreatment of a child only after a complaint. The investigation takes into account a whole series of guidelines such as the facts of the case, how serious the offence is and whether there are alternatives to prosecution.

Many minor and technical assaults take place in this country every day that are not investigated, and/or where no prosecution eventuates. This situation will not change with the passing of this bill.

There has been a real campaign of fear created around criminalisation and I am sorry that so many parents have felt so unnecessarily threatened.

The time has come to change this archaic law.

 
At 22/2/07 8:59 pm, Anonymous jo said...

Its a small victory for kiwi kids.
Well done Sue, you're a champion.
from my inner child xo

 
At 22/2/07 10:19 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well said bomber and it's nice to see the level of debate has risen since AB left.

don't stop

 
At 22/2/07 10:30 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
Oh he still emails me from time to time, he seems to think he and I have some type of relationship, it's all a little creepy, he was bitching about Tim. He reminds me how important it is not to hit children lest they turn out with his anger issues.

 
At 23/2/07 2:33 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The rugby tackle argument is pretty weak.

I not sure what the situation is when someone starts playing (whether they consent to the rules) but its hardly the same thing.

In theory the cops could still charge you for smacking (even lightly). The discretion is up to them. Occasionally people still get busted for weed possession (its still illegal) but 90% of the time the cops let them off. People are still gonna get charged..the new law is pretty gay.

 
At 23/2/07 6:45 am, Blogger bomber said...

...
What do you mean the rugby example is weak? I said that parents who lightly smack their kids won't get charged, Dave comes back and say's 'I want to technically live within the law', I pointed out that Technically Rugby tackles are assualts but no one arrests rugby players - it is the EXACT same thing.

Your call on Police discretion is more valid, but there is a saftey net to that, and it is this - IF the cops ever did arrest, it will be up to a group of that individual's peers to decide if the smack they gave was excessive or not - and you know what - that is the exact way it should be!

As I posted above over this whole fear (or is it guilt?) that some people are feeling about criminalisation, feel free to read them because based on your above post you didn't seem to read it...

Finally, a few words on criminalisation. Much of the opposition to this bill has been driven by those who are spreading the message that if section 59 is abolished suddenly tens of thousands of loving parents will find themselves arrested by police and prosecuted by courts for lightly and occasionally smacking their child.

While it is true that, if this bill succeeds, use of force for correction will technically be an offence, this does not mean that our already very stretched police force will be taking this kind of action. Police investigate maltreatment of a child only after a complaint. The investigation takes into account a whole series of guidelines such as the facts of the case, how serious the offence is and whether there are alternatives to prosecution.

Many minor and technical assaults take place in this country every day that are not investigated, and/or where no prosecution eventuates. This situation will not change with the passing of this bill.

There has been a real campaign of fear created around criminalisation and I am sorry that so many parents have felt so unnecessarily threatened.

The time has come to change this archaic law.

 
At 23/2/07 1:50 pm, Anonymous deano said...

I'm not in NZ at present, so have missed most of the furore around this issue, but it seems that savage instances of child abuse, which seem to be the target of this law, are crimes already. I think smacking in certain cases is an effective discipline tool. I was rarely smacked by my parents, but the threat of it helped keep me in line.

I think, though, that it could have a positive effect on society's total mindset towards violence, especially for the lower classes and poor, but at the same time make parenting more difficult for the middle class. Hmm, interesting to see where this goes.

 
At 23/2/07 3:54 pm, Blogger peterquixote said...

you photo of sue bradford don't do justice bomber, haha, she's something else, musch worser than that old photo, see newspapers bomber,
the cop is not interested in turning up to jail me for smacking my child,

 
At 24/2/07 11:10 am, Anonymous ScrubOne said...

The rugby arguement is stupid. In rugby, tackling is consentual. Smacking is, by definition, not. Also, no one is out to stop rugby tackles. There are several groups who want smacking stopped, (including naughty kids) and any of these can lay a complaint.

And the police have stated clearly, the will take all complaints to court.

Where this bill will railroad parents through the system.

That creates a climate of intimidation. It creates a climate where even non-smacking parents can fear having somone lay a false complaint - imagine a kid who doesn't get a bike for christmas and wants to get back at his parents. He's told in school that his parents can't smack so he rings them up and dobbs them in. The police call by and decide not to prosecute, but CYFS are called and remove the child.

This already happens under *current* law! This bill will make it far easer.

 
At 25/2/07 12:21 pm, Anonymous stinky said...

What part of smacking your children will soon be illegal dont you get Bomber!

Secondly what makes you so absolutely sure the cops wont charge people

 
At 25/2/07 1:40 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
And Scrubone - what happens when a tackle isn't consentual Scrubone and a fist fight breaks out Scrubone, you know one of those fist fights which gets instant replay status - how many cases go on to be charged Scrubone?

 
At 1/3/07 5:07 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We all know that this anti smacking bill has come about because of animals like the Kahuis and that bastard that killed Coral Burrows cant diferentiate between simple discipline and murder! So now all New Zealand must be made to question their love for their children and whether they are fit to be parents, every time we need to discipline our children.............MADNESS!

 
At 6/3/07 3:57 pm, Blogger Susan said...

Good to see you have such faith in the legal system, but as you so adequately demonstrate, the law can be interpreted by whoever, however, hence the many arguments.

I have four beautiful children, all of whom sleep through the night, behave well in social settings (unlike many kids i know who run their homes and parents) and love and appreciate their mum and dad. Of this I am so sure, I would make them available for interview. Everywhere I go I am commented on how great my kids are and yet surprise, surprise, from time to time they get a smack.

My kids are not suppressed, violated, abused or even timid creatures because of their upbringing and no cyf staff could ever bring them up better.

It would take just one disgruntled other who didn't like the way i looked at them to lay an unfounded complaint which by law requires investigation, to shatter my kids lives completely under this new law.

 
At 7/3/07 1:59 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My most pressing concern in regards to this anti-smacking bill is the potential for it to further denegrate the family unit or will it. Far be it for me or any individual to put forth an argument that any one thing is better than another. Surely two homosexual parents bringing up children will do just as good as a Father and Mother bringing up their child. Love is what is said to bind people together as we all strive for joy and peace. Why not try to be accommodating to everything and become the utopian society we strive for. The ultimate goal is to love one another as we love ourselves, the second greatest commandment? Who does this? Who is capable of doing this within their own power? We like to think that it is possible, but we know deep down that we can't, as a result "society" will try and rectify its own failings but depowering the individual because they can't be trusted to treat another individual with love.

 
At 7/3/07 3:24 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight, we are putting these future allegations of abuse into the hands of a police force which is overworked and one of its members whom has been acquitted, Mr Rickards has been covertly accused by our most esteemed Prime Minister of being a rapist. So our leader doesnt trust our police, our women sure as hell dont and we are entrusting them to decide whether a childs allegation is worthy to take the course of action which could destroy their future. To solve a problem, look at the root cause, has this actually been done? Why is it that the middle class is fine and the poor class beat their children and wives? Gross generalisation here. but who has hope? What is more powerful? The hope for a better future? or no you can't do that or we will take your kid off you and throw you into prison? Consensual sex, consensual tackling...

 
At 11/3/07 9:55 pm, Anonymous dlr said...

Lets start with a little look at Sue Bradfords deeds of late shall we. First she tries to tell us that she cares deeply for the children. Yet she proposes a law that gives the state, (CYFS and the Police) the right to destroy the family homes in which our children are and should be raised in. She quotes widely quotes statistics, studies and reports, some of which have some very disputable findings and are produced by the world wide lobby group which has an agenda to remove all parental authority from the home. She is incensed that any one should opppse her views and claims that any studies, statistics and reports that contradict her views are biased unfounded and lies. She has clearly said that this law will not stop the death of a single child. She has also stated that it will result in some good parents being fined or imprisoned for smacking their children. Have you seen the you tube video where she lies about the number of children abuse related deaths in Sweden. She has claimed that the unicef report released recently which shows how NZ is very bad at the way it reats children, but fails to point out that this report identifies broken families (CYFS special gift to our society), poverty (which Labour can't fix whit it's bribes), and substance abuse (sanctioned by this government in the lowering of the dirnking age, and the greens, who believe smokin dope is a good thing). She also fails to point out that half of the top 10 countries identified in that report allow parents to smack their children, and that the top country in that report is the Netherhlands which has not yet banned smacking, nor does she understand that 7 of the top 10 countries in the subjective wellbeing (thats's from the childs point of view,) allow smacking. Another interesting fact is to see how the relationship shows that the top countries for subjective well being have are not at the top of the material wealth stakes. Further more Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Norway and Germany all countries that have banned smacking fail to get into the top eight countries when it comes to Family and Peer relationships. One could infer that the countries that don't smack generally have wealthy but undisciplined, over educated and underloved children.

Sue also loves to redefine terms. Loving correction becomes assault in her vocabulary, and smacking is violence. Perhaps she should look these terms up in the dictionary.

By the way for those who are confused, the rugby tackle is definitely not assualt as it is consentual, and the intention is not to cause physical harm. A punch on the rugby field is however assault.

A parent smacking a child even with an implement is not assaulting a child, because the action doesn't fit the description of violence, as it's intent is not to cause physical harm, but to provide a very clear consequence to bad behaviour. The same smack for any other purpose is however assault. Lets be clear about this, and the bible is clear on this point to. Correction is a legitimate action by the parent even if it requires some physical reasonable force to be applied. Any one who says otherwise is a liar before God and will have to answer him for that.

After all didn't God punish his beloved people many times, striking some of them down for failing to trust him or obey his word, using foreign Kings to scurge them and take them into slavery, and then restoring them in love? Did God not sacrifice his Son to pay for our sins? He who says God doesn't want parents to smack their children is delude and decieved, and may God have mercy on them and show them the way of Life and HIS TRUTH?

This nation has been cursed by God because the Church has failed to stand up against the Government both past and present when it has sought to introduce unGodly and immorral laws.

Make no mistake about it. The repeal of section 59 is a direct attack against the family unit that God instituted in Genesis between Adam and Eve and is the core of every society in existance today. Without the family unit, society will unravel, violence like never seen before will rule, crime will increase and anarchy will reign.

 
At 14/3/07 6:02 pm, Blogger Sam said...

GOD SAYS SMACKING IS OK SO IT SHOULD BE OK, OK BOMBER?!

HE ALSO SAYS THAT WOMEN ARE INFERIOR, THAT HOMOS SHOULD BE KILLED AND THAT IF YOUR NEIGHBOUR PLANTS CORN AND WHEAT IN THE SAME FIELD, YOU SHOULD GO AND FUCKING STAB HIM.

OK BOMBER?!? OK!?

GET OUT OF MY FAMILY UNIT, IT'S MY FAMILY UNIT THAT GOD GAVE TO ME AS A MASCULINE MAN TO DO WHAT I LIKE WITH IT. IF I WANT TO PUNCH MY KIDS, RAPE MY WIFE, AND STONE HOMOS AND MY NEIGHBOURS THEN I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO!

Bloody liberals and all their anti family, anti-god, anti-anti-homosexuals, i know what their problem is, they weren't smacked as kids!


People who are anti this bill (and soon to be act, yay!) have absolutely NO idea how the judicial system works in this country. The act will stop horrific parents beating their kids within an inch of their lives and getting away with it, no judge, nor any police officer would construe the act to apply to light smacking, as much as Latin Smith or Chester fuckstick says it will - these people do not know a damn thing.

And anyway, why the fuck are you still smacking your kids, don't you know that there is a big difference between discipline and violence? I think some of these people need to attend a parenting course or something.

High five to you bombs, keep it real.

 
At 15/3/07 11:03 pm, Blogger Susan said...

Sam, sam, sam.
Do you even have kids you foul mouthed idiot.
Until you know God, until you know the law, until you know everything there is to know about everything (which by your comments you think you're almost there), please shut your foul-mouthed fingers.
You don't understand the bible so don't try to quote it.
You don't understand kids, parenting courses (which I've done) or anything of the sort.
You probably not even decent enough to have a wife. If you have, poor her.
Are you really that sure this bill was passed. Sue's pretty sure too, but we'll see.
I just love people who know it all.
Must get together some time and pick your brain - it's soooo huge.

 
At 22/5/07 6:09 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with smacking, though, is that it will always be pretty much possible to develop an appropriate checks-and-balances system for it. Lightly smacking a child may be legal but it shouldn't be because there's no Government official standing there while you're smacking your kid, observing the whole situation, and deeming if the reason why you smacked the child 'lightly' is reasonable. With light smacking, and indeed all forms of smacking, you can smack your child if they misbehave, if they accidentally spill milk, or just if you have had a bad day, and it doesn't make a difference under the law, which is so completely wrong.

 
At 21/6/07 6:40 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like Sue Bradford. I like her new idea as well, that 16 year olds should be able to vote. Currently in new Zealand, a person can leave school at 15, have sex at 16, get learner's license at 15, but they can't vote until they're 18. I think it should all be 16 years old - voting, learner's driving license, and leaving school. That would be much fairer to teenagers and if more fairness to teenagers and children is implemented into our society through legislation, then things such as crime will inevitably decrease. Sue, unlike any other New Zealand politician, cares about the rights of all people. That's my opinion. I support the Green Party primarily because Sue's in it and she likes to implement laws which are fair. Unfortunately, there are many adults out there, who like to supress the rights of children and teenagers and also elderly people and also Maori people. Well, it is my belief, and I'm pretty sure that it's Sue Bradford's belief as well, that laws should be designed and implemented which are fair to every citizen, not just the majority of citizens.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home