Pro-smacking lobby gets a new poster boy
Man beat daughter over church refusal, court told
A 55-year-old man who beat his daughter over the head with a lump of concrete when she refused to go to his Mormon church "does not understand what all the fuss is about", Hastings District Court has heard.Uluia Muliipu appeared in court after pleading guilty to one count of assault with intent to injure. Judge Geoff Rea said on February 22 this year Muliipu had become involved in an argument with his daughter who refused to attend church. He chased her down the street and back into the house picking up a lump of concrete along the way. He then whacked her over the head in a bedroom with the concrete causing skin on her head to split and start bleeding. They were both "covered in blood" and he kicked her in the face causing bruising.
Ummmm – he bashed his daughter in the head with concrete because she wouldn’t go to church and ‘doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about’? The pro-smacking lobby just got their new pin up poster boy!
posted by Bomber @ 2:15 pm
69 comments
69 Comments:
That's an extreme case and you know it.
It in fact shows the anti-smacking bill is not working. The bill was introduced with the stupid, completely unsubstantiated idea that it would reduce atrocious acts such as this.
I don't have statistics at my finger tips - but I think it would be safe to assume that child killings, serious child assaults, have not decreased since the bill was enacted - obviously if this had happened its supporters certainly would have made it known to all.
Uh, Wayne, by your logic, laws against murder are failing because people still kill each other. Oh wait.
Actually, to be fair, there is no indication of the daughter's age in the NZ Herald story. Considering the suspect's age, she could be in her 20s.
You are a handicap Wayne.
The bill was introduced to stop abusive parents using the 'reasonable force' defence in court.
It's a shame such a simple thing needs to be explained over and over again.
Uh, Wayne, by your logic, laws against murder are failing because people still kill each other.
There always was a law against assaults of this nature.
But the anti-smacking bill was needlessly added to existing legislation,with the aim being to reduce this sort of thing.
It has not.
The bill was introduced to stop abusive parents using the 'reasonable force' defence in court.
When was there ever in the past, ever a case where parents committed grossly violent acts against their children and got away with it using the 'reasonable force' defence? Can you come up with one?
Uh, Wayne, by your logic, laws against murder are failing because people still kill each other
In a way you are right - laws against murder are failing - not because they exist, but because they are not tough enough.
"Can you name one"
There have been incidents in the media where people have been let off after assaulting kids with a riding crop, vacuum cleaner pipes and 2x4s.
"There have been incidents in the media where people have been let off after assaulting kids with a riding crop, vacuum cleaner pipes and 2x4s."
That is not the point - was the kid seriously injured or hurt?
My father use to whack the shit out of me with a rubber hose - I survived - never stole another thing in my life and have kept out of trouble.
He also beat the shit out of me if I did not do my homework - the only lasting effect was I completed my engineering degree with honours, and went onto a successful career in the field.
Good greif so the test in your mind is 'seriously injured or hurt'
Pity your kids.
So the ends justify the means, do they Wayne? Chur bro!
And this one time my wife didn't cook my dinner on time so I gave her a good hiding, after that it was on time everytime.
Don't breed Wayne, no child deserves to be brought up by someone as warped as you.
You see Wayne-
you get a complete load of fuckwits like the commentors on this thread, who appear to think that someone bashing their child with a piece of concrete would have got off scot free prior to this law being passed (which clearly they wouldn't have)
those same fuckwits then wonder why the extreme side of the opposite view are complete fuckwits too.
Fuckwits attract Wayne, best just ignore them.
Shame on you Bomber for dogwhistles like this, I'm fairly sure these are the kind of things you accuse others of doing.
Don't breed Wayne, no child deserves to be brought up by someone as warped as you.
My daughter is doing very well - and I have never hit her (her Mum has a few times).
I suppose most of you here are happy about the recent case of a father being dragged through the courts, being criminally convicted for something very minor - I'm sure his kids will appreciate it very much that their Dad has been publically humiliated and made a criminal. Surely that will damage them more than being flicked around the ears?
And they will appreciate the criminal conviction even more I suppose, if their Dad loses his job and finds it hard to get another one to support them?
Some people here are just fucking brainless.
Everything is subordinated to some abstract principle - even the welfare of the very people the principle purports to protect.
R..Peter
Wayne would seem to indicate that "scot free" was his situation - by his own admission. Unless of course he stood up for himself and took his father to task on the whipping etc. ..I get the feeling he did not.
Concrete, rubber hose, whatever.
Point is, if you don't beat the shit out of your kids, then really this law has nothing at all to do with you.
Shame on you Bomber for dogwhistles like this, I'm fairly sure these are the kind of things you accuse others of doing.
Its about erecting strawmen - putting up something outrageous and saying your opponents support it(when they don't), attacking the thing outrageous, and then claiming victory over your opponent and feeling nice and warm and righteous.
But in this case it is just too transparent.
Pete R you say people wouldn't have got off with cases like this previously but they have - that's the whole fucking reason the law was introduced in the first place.
"most of you here are happy about the recent case of a father being dragged through the courts, being criminally convicted for something very minor "
You mean the father who punched his 4 year old child in the face?
Might be minor in your land Wayne, but not in the minds of those who saw it, the jury who listened to the evidence, or the judge who sentenced him, they all thought otherwise.
Hopefully it will stop him from punching his children in future, I'm sure they would appreciate that.
I to was hit as as a child and I turned out OK. I just can't tell the difference between a flick around the ear and a punch in the face.
Pete R you say people wouldn't have got off with cases like this previously but they have - that's the whole fucking reason the law was introduced in the first place.
Please list all the cases where someone has bashed their child in the head with a piece of concrete and got off.
I won't hold my breath.
Grant - So this guy would have got off before this law was passed?
If you really believe that then you are more of a threat to children than any parent that smacks their child.
Pretty funny though watching you halfwits try to justify your position.
Hey Paul - hope you haven't got kids if you can't tell the difference.
How bout you put your name and address up here and we'll just send CYPS round to make sure, aye?
Nothing to worry about, right?
There is no point providing examples to Pete R because he will just say 'that is not the point'
Talk about a halfwit.
People without children of their own are full of bullshit theories about how raising them should be done.
There is no point providing examples to Pete R because he will just say 'that is not the point'
So, No examples then Anon?
Didn't think so.
Really you guys - I've got kids of my own, 3 of them, only the middle one has ever had a smack, that was exactly once.
If I ever saw someone whip their kid with a jugcord or punch them I would stop them and call the police.
But to hear you fuckwits equate a man smashing his child in the head with a piece of concrete with a parent disiplining their child with a smack when the occasion called for it is just so much bullshit.
As I said earlier, then you guys wonder why Family First and those people get all militant about their view and start making ridiculous claims like....well....your guys.
Un-fucken-believable.
Really you guys - I've got kids of my own, 3 of them, only the middle one has ever had a smack, that was exactly once.
But to hear you fuckwits equate a man smashing his child in the head with a piece of concrete with a parent disiplining their child with a smack when the occasion called for it is just so much bullshit.
And here is the crux of the issue, Pete R has stumbled upon it all on his own. Pete R's definition of discipline was to smack his middle child once. That's his threshold - BUT Uluia Muliipu's theshold to disciplne was using a lump of concrete on his daughters head because she wouldn't go to Church. What was his comment Pete R? He "does not understand what all the fuss is about" . He is a loving parent who was disciplining his daughter, what's a lump of concrete to the head in comparison to her immortal soul after all?
Pete R's threshold was a smack to his middle child, Uluia Muliipu's theshold lump of concrete. So the repeal of section 59, which closed a loophole where the Court ended up protecting a parent for assaulting a child with the defence of 'discipline' has also set a new threshold that is clearly marked NOT to physically discipline a child so that Pete R AND Uluia Muliipu now know where the threshold is.
To hear Pete R to blame this on 'us' who support the reapel of section 59 is one of the most intellectually bankrupt things I've heard Pete R say on this site, and there's been a few clangers. Where were you in the 70's Pete R? I wonder iof you would've been jumping up and down with your fundy Family Fist mates when the laws that made rape in marriage illegal. Remember your fundy mates had the exact same debate back then as well - "you can't legislate the relationship between a husband and wife" - the same chant now isn't it, "you cant legislate the relationship between a parent and child".
You remind me of the people during the homosexual law reform in this country who screamed the end of the world was nigh when that was passed. The repeal of section 59 will stand, western civilization won't fall, and a new threshold has been created letting adults know that if they hit their child, trying to use the defence that you were disciplining your child will no longer be get you off the hook.
PS - Oh and btw way, Wayne, (Pete R's mate in this debate) - your post on 'Fag had it coming' was the most homophobic ratioanalization of murder I've ever had the misfortune of reading. I'm deeply disappointed and embarrassed for you.
I used to be very anti the repeal. I thought it was up to families to decide how to bring their kids up. I got smacked, but I deserved it, Didnt do me any long term damage. So whats the problem?
Now I am really not sure. In part because I will soon be a rather (and thus the issue is more real), but when you see cases like this there should be no defence. You hit a child with concrete because they wouldn't go to your cult. Fuck off to jail......
I dont know yet how I will discipline my child. If I were to smack, it will be irregular and not designed to hurt. Is that wrong? Seriously? Because I dont know.
But what I do know is hitting your child with concrete is wrong and indefensible.
....confused
And slightly off topic, I wonder how many of the public have actually read and UNDERSTOOD the full text of the law.Professor John Caldwell of Canterbury Uni recently picked section 59 apart in a recent interview on RNZ and showed how little people actually understood what it means to parents. When pseudo-fundies like Ian Munro are swayed to vote 'Yes' in the coming referendum then there is some hope.
Without reading most of the comments ... in the past this arsehole would have been able to plead innocence BECAUSE he was disciplining his daughter and depending on the judge he MAY have got off.
Now that section 59 has been repealed this is a straightforward case of assault - and so it should be.
The defence of "correcting or disciplining" by assault belongs in the same basket as men being unable to rape their partners because they have some kind of 'right' to sex.
The repeal of the defense of hitting a child because you're disciplining them won't stop children being assaulted BUT .
it will stop parents getting away with it... if you want to bin the 'anti-smacking' law then you may as well bin the charge of murder because murders still happen despite it being a crime, its just that people who DO murder get charged with it and punished accordingly
Enough time and money has been wasted on this issue, while the pro-smacking lobby is bleating about losing the 'right to smack' workers are losing jobs in wholesale layoffs ,unemployed parents are a bigger danger to 'family values' and standards of living than the right to smack will ever be.
Wayne said "I suppose most of you here are happy about the recent case of a father being dragged through the courts, being criminally convicted for something very minor - .."
I can tell you now it WASN'T minor, I have spoken to someone who knew one of the witnesses to the ASSAULT and that "nice caring" father PUNCHED his child ..HARD. Hard enough for one of the people who witnessed it to call the police.( not something most kiwis do lightly - especially when its a 'domestic' type event )
His assault just happened to occur just as Section 59 was being repealed and this rooster saw his opportunity to grandstand - from what I heard its a bloody shame there wasn't a cctv camera in the area because this guy would have had NO support at all if there'd been a video of what he did
If Peter R can't get Irony or satire what else doesn't he get?
It's quite simple, violence breeds violence.
If someone is prepared to act violently towards their kids in public what are they doing in private?
To keep on saying it was a flick on the ear when clearly it wasn't is being dishonest.
It seems weird that anyone would like to have the right to physically hurt their children in a loving way.
It said in NZ Herald today that the 'ear flick' father who punched his kid in the head still thinks he did nothing wrong.
We have a hell of a long way to go before we get to anything near zero tolerance for violence in this country.
So the repeal of section 59 has set a new threshold... so that Pete R AND Uluia Muliipu now know where the threshold is.
That's false Bomber. How would Muliipu know? He probably doesn't and he has already been to court. His actions were irrelevant to any claimed threshold.
It's sad Wayne has to lie about his qualifications. It shows he knows his argument doesn't stand on its own merit.
That's false Bomber. How would Muliipu know?
he does now doesn't he dave?
No he doesn't, actually Bomber.The report said he "still does not understand what all the fuss is about". THe Lawyer would never have brough up section 59 in trial like this even if the abuse was deemed to be correction (which it wasn't).
Bomber you a have a very warped mind to suggest this guy is a poster boy for those who like me see Bradfords anti smacking bill is a gross waste of the police and courts time.
The anti smacking bill is an inappropriate invasion on good parents who are trying to be good responsible parents to those they are responsible for.
You really need to GROW UP Bomber and face the real non PC world most of us have to every day.
Abused kids are NOT the result of smacked kids the issue is alot deeper a SOCIAL problem often due to irreponsible and selfish and immature parents. Sometimes due to extreme pressure such as lack of money to pay over charged power accounts.
In the Kahu twins case it was due to it been to easy to get benifit money by an immature mother to raise the twins..
i was obvious in the Hospital they were born in that the twins Mother was not wanting the children she should have been pursaded to ADOPT the twins out ...if they had been put up for adoption they would be alive today!
Take the Rotorua chid who was swung on a clothes line ..it was NOT been smacked the problem there Her life was abused becasue she had a SELFISH SELF CENTERED biological DAD and Mum who abandoned her into the fulltime care of a irreponsible immature 16yrd old who also had a lot of child abuse issues from a grossly abusive and irreponsible DAD
To Ruth I also say GROW UP Mason said he DID NOT punch his child ..that was a fabrication of a twisted PC women ..its a pity she instead of running to the Police and putting the Masons family through hell by laying a complaint.... didnt instead do the GOOD CITIZEN thing by offering Mason support and assistance to him with the problems he was having with his children ..but I guess Ruth you are one of these people who would also walk away as well wouldnt you when you see a da like Mason in trouble with his kids!!!!
Be careful Ruth in throwing stones at others childrearing problems ..... if you have kids and raise them the PC way. they as result may end up being another adult society reject and a burden on all of us, as trhey take to drugs alchol etc due to having no appropriate punnishment as a child
Our world NEEDS Dads like Mason who are prepared to actually care about their kids well being and spend time with them as they grow into adult hood
Good Families today do not need judical interferance on their daiy lives while they are being good and responsible parents they need understanding care and support from the society around them.
Thanks again invisible man in secret corners ;)
No he doesn't, actually Bomber.The report said he "still does not understand what all the fuss is about".
Actually his comments help educate him. They are perfect to point out to the judge that whatever punishment is handed out must be long to help him understand.
THe Lawyer would never have brough up section 59 in trial like this even if the abuse was deemed to be correction (which it wasn't).
To suggest his lawyer wouldn't have tried it on is silly, of course his lawyer would've tried it on, it's their job to.
Bomber you a have a very warped mind to suggest this guy is a poster boy for those who like me see Bradfords anti smacking bill is a gross waste of the police and courts time.
Winding up fundies is more a hobby than a profession.
The anti smacking bill is an inappropriate invasion on good parents who are trying to be good responsible parents to those they are responsible for.
Exactly the same arguement used in the 1970s when the fundies then argued that a law making rape in marriage would be an inappropriate invasion on husband and wives.
You really need to GROW UP Bomber and face the real non PC world most of us have to every day.
No way, did you just use PC in a debate on this blog? I just don't know if I can seriously continue a debate with someone who is going to bring 'PC' into any discussion. It's like a glaring signal you are a clown. Some may say that call is harsh, but it isn't is it? I'm with Marcus Lush on people who use 'PC'. But if 'Anon' you want to gain the legal right to hit your children, let's hear you out. By the way, if you are so forthright in your demand to gain the legal right yo hit your children, why not put your name to it? Why the shame 'Anon'?
Abused kids are NOT the result of smacked kids the issue is alot deeper a SOCIAL problem often due to irreponsible and selfish and immature parents. Sometimes due to extreme pressure such as lack of money to pay over charged power accounts.
Hey we all understand the stress that builds up, we also understand the need to eradicate violence in our society and as a symbolic gesture the repeal of section 59 meets that standard. But this is only a small part of the debate, the main issue which you seem incapable of grasping 'Anon' is that we had a legal situation with Section 59 that had the Court protecting an adult of assaulting a child. The Court is not there to protect the person who assaults in this manner, the Court is there to protect the weak, and a child getting hit by their parent is about as weak a member of society as we have, yet the Court under section 59 was protecting the hiter over the hited.
In the Kahu twins case it was due to it been to easy to get benifit money by an immature mother to raise the twins..
Ummm - what? The dole was responsible for the death of those two twins? You are kidding right? That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard, sweet Jesus Christ surely only Leighton Smith believes that? Grinding poverty, drug and alchol addiction, social decay and a vast history of abuse and generationally damaged people doesn't play a role at all - but the fucking dole did? I feel like I'm actually getting dumber the more I read what you have to say 'Anon'.
i was obvious in the Hospital they were born in that the twins Mother was not wanting the children she should have been pursaded to ADOPT the twins out ...if they had been put up for adoption they would be alive today!
Are you arguing for forced adoptions here? Of course it would have been better for those twins to have been raised by such a damaged group of people, but pray tell who is going to decide who and who can't breed please Anon? Are you going to be the person who decides who gets to keep their kids or not 'Anon'? What about me? You claimed at the beginning of this with some distaste I live in a 'PC' world, would that rule me out from having a child under your rules 'Anon'? Please tell us all who gets to breed?
Take the Rotorua chid who was swung on a clothes line ..it was NOT been smacked the problem there Her life was abused becasue she had a SELFISH SELF CENTERED biological DAD and Mum who abandoned her into the fulltime care of a irreponsible immature 16yrd old who also had a lot of child abuse issues from a grossly abusive and irreponsible DAD
This would be Nia Glassie, whose Mother was out working fulltime as a kiwifruit picker earning $600 a week to feed her family putting in incredibly long hours. She wouldn't have been eligible for the benefit you were blaming a paragraph ago as the reason this abuse occurs.
To Ruth I also say GROW UP Mason said he DID NOT punch his child
But a Court found him guilty of punching his son in the face! He can say what he likes but the Court found him guilty of punching his son in the face based on what the witnesses said!
..that was a fabrication of a twisted PC women
WTF? Are you on medication - what PC women? The Court was told he punched his son in the faced by 2 witnesses - how the hell did you come up with 'PC' (that word again) women?
..its a pity she instead of running to the Police and putting the Masons family through hell by laying a complaint.... didnt instead do the GOOD CITIZEN thing by offering Mason support and assistance to him with the problems he was having with his children
By what? Hitting them as well? How many other crimes do you witness that you don't report?
..but I guess Ruth you are one of these people who would also walk away as well wouldnt you when you see a da like Mason in trouble with his kids!!!!
Hold on, for someone who keeps saying 'PC' are you arguing for intervention from others in public between parents and children? Isn't your entire thrust of what you are trying to argue that you don't want intervention between a parent and child?
Be careful Ruth in throwing stones at others childrearing problems ..... if you have kids and raise them the PC way. they as result may end up being another adult society reject and a burden on all of us, as trhey take to drugs alchol etc due to having no appropriate punnishment as a child
Oh. My. God. Where the fuck do you get off?
Our world NEEDS Dads like Mason who are prepared to actually care about their kids well being and spend time with them as they grow into adult hood
And this is where I get off, 'Anon' I don't think I've laughed so long or so hard. Thank you for reminding us all how weak your side of the debate is. Thank you for blowing $9 million on this referendumb.
Apparently Sue Bradford says the anti-smacking bill was not enacted to reduce child abuse.
Well, for what purpose then does it serve?
I'll answer for the bill's proponents - it is to erode the authority of parents over children, in the service of a broader leftist ideological agenda. An agenda that if people are not actually equal, they should be forced to be equal. Thus the lazy bum deserves the same as a the hard worker, there are no dull students and bright students (and the examination system has to reflect this), there are not and cannot ever be any differences between achievement levels of groups, and of course.
Making children legally equal to their parents in all respects, fits into this agenda quite nicely.
Bomber, the guy kicked the kid in the face and the cops used pepper spray on him. Since you are equating this case with smacking, do you consider that police, after pepper spraying a guy who kicked his daughter in the head and whacked her on the head with concrete, should have taken section 59(4) of the Crimes Act into account when deciding whether to prosecute - and treat this as a smacking case?
if not, why equate this with cases where this discretion is allowed?
Geeze Wayne are you funny or what?!
You should do stand up comedy you are so funny!
If you are serious this is just a load of crap!
It may come as a surprise to you that there are families bring up children in non violent environment who are not part of this "leftest conspiracy".Their children have a normal child / parent relationship and are not on their way to Hell in a hand cart.
Jeez wayne alright - the bill was not bought in trumpeting that it would end assaults like this , it was bought in to remove the "out" that some people were using, that they were disciplining their child and therefore had a right to beat them.
It has also served a useful purpose in that it HAS raised awareness of HITTING children.
I've bought up two boys - both grown up now and NEVER once did I assault/ hit/smack them. Just as my husband would never assault/hit or smack me if I was doing something 'wrong".
Our sons are both great young men now..GREAT young men !
They were disciplined by firm use of the word 'no" and lots of positive feedback when they did good.
They never ran in front of cars or onto a road because from an early age we were very firm in making them get out of our car on the footpath side of the road and if in a carpark we made them stand stock still until we took their hand. ( I say this because I hear so many people say that they "have to hit " kids to stop them running onto the road ...bullshit. If your kid runs onto the road its because you've been slack in teaching them the perils of roads.)
Our first child was bought up in a house with an open fire place and a wood stove - he was taught the words " HOT " and "OW " very early on and stayed away from fires.
Hitting children is as barbaric as hitting women, more so because they are so little and innocent and trust parents so much.
If you "have to hit/smack" your child, then you're not bringing them up intelligently.
Its good that people are talking about the issue, its a real shame that there are so many Neanderthals about who won't see that there are a million other ways of TEACHING children beside whacking them.
Do you not ever watch programmes like "supernanny " etc, there for all to see is plain evidence that smacking and shouting doesn't work and that children are BEST disciplined by intelligent parenting.
Get your head out of your arse Wayne - only bullies hit.
Rena - the way you have brought up your children seems to have worked for you. And that is all well and good.
But that does not mean the same will work for other families.
The facts are there are a whole cohort of young thugs out in society today, who fear nothing and no one.
If some of these same young thugs had been taken aside by their Dads or even the police and given a tremendous beating, they would soon loose their arrogance.
I will admit that I was considered a problem child in my teens - I smoked a bit, my Dad beat the crap out of me and I stopped smoking. I don't smoke today, have never done drugs.
I stole some loose change from the car - got a massive beating for it - I am an honest person who has never been in trouble with the law.
I repeatedly got in trouble at school -had to bring home daily behavioural report cards. Bad comments from the teacher would mean a single punch at best, or a hiding. I have since done quite well academically and professionally.
I for one know that if I did not live in terror of disappointing my dad, things could have turned out much differently for me.
The facts are human beings respond best to fear, especially aggressive young men. That is why places like Singapore have some of the lowest crime rates in the world.
The way you choose to bring up your own children, short of assaulting and seriously injuring them, should be the business of the parents only, and no one else.
The fact that not one person here can claim that the bill has done anything whatsoever to prevent serious child abuse, means that it should never have been passed to begin with.
And if it can be shown in future to reduce real cases of child abuse, and save lives, I will be first to change my mind.
Ha Ha , Bomber equates me smacking my middle child once with a guy bashing his child in the head with a piece of concrete.
Thats all you need to know to realise how far out of the loop Bomber is.
Then he goes on to talk about my fundy mates. Huh?
Just to be straight -
Bomber your attitude towards this is so over the top as to make you look like a complete idiot. Likewise the opposite end of the spectrum ie Family First plus various god bothers too look like complete idiots.
Paul - Didn't you like the thought of CYPS coming to check you out?
Funny that.
This is the best you've got as a come back Pete R? 'Ha ha bomber compares me to a guy who bashes his kid with concrete. Ha ha bomber is a far out there idiot' - that's the best you've got?
Wow, that's pathetic.
The facts are human beings respond best to fear, especially aggressive young men. That is why places like Singapore have some of the lowest crime rates in the world.
Wayne tihs is just bullshit and makes your rationalization of homophobia and apologist position on China seem reasonable.
The way you choose to bring up your own children, short of assaulting and seriously injuring them, should be the business of the parents only, and no one else.
Nonesense.
The fact that not one person here can claim that the bill has done anything whatsoever to prevent serious child abuse, means that it should never have been passed to begin with.
Laws against murder don't stop the murder rate, so we should dump that law?
And if it can be shown in future to reduce real cases of child abuse, and save lives, I will be first to change my mind.
No, there are so many fallacies in your point of view you aren't capable of that type of logic I'm afraid Wayne. Sure I thought you were a Communist State Official at first with your insane defense of China's internal aggression, but your ultra authoritarian social views suggest you are too extreme even for the Chinese One Party state.
I don't think I can disagree with you more on your wild assumptions on how people operate.
The facts are there are a whole cohort of young thugs out in society today, who fear nothing and no one.
If some of these same young thugs had been taken aside by their Dads or even the police and given a tremendous beating, they would soon loose their arrogance.
So being arrogant deserves a beating?
Don't you think Wayne, that these kids were violently beaten as they grew up, becoming angry young men who associate communication with violence?
I for one know that if I did not live in terror of disappointing my dad,
So Wayne, being in terror of your father is a good thing?
You want children not to learn right from wrong, but only to learn to fear their father when they do something he doesn't like?
The facts are human beings respond best to fear, especially aggressive young men.
Well if its a fact Wayne, then you will have evidence to back this up.
Links please.
The fact that not one person here can claim that the bill has done anything whatsoever to prevent serious child abuse
The fact is Wayne hasn't read the bill, and doesn't understand how it works.
Ha Ha , Bomber equates me smacking my middle child once with a guy bashing his child in the head with a piece of concrete.
No he didn't, perhaps you need to reread what bomber said.
Btw bomber, can't wait to see Slater dragged through the court, re internet defamation.
Btw bomber, can't wait to see Slater dragged through the court, re internet defamation.
WHOA - what? He's done what to who? DETAILS PLEASE ANON!
Bomber as of interest I put my post under anon as I was in a hurry and I was having problems with the computer recognising my sign in. I usually go under the non of paulinem.
Yes Bomber I can talk with authority I have raised FIVE children they have all gone on to live a good normal life ..and no they don't hate me or their dad and yes he is the same dad to all of them and yes he was in the same home as they were as they grew up ..you see we put their needs first before our own ...No they d not have hang ups
No they are all well employed two are married seemingly well..no they were never in trouble with police or any other authority ..no drug and alcohol problems...
There are times a child specially a small child of say 4-to 8 needs punishment and where a light smack is the best option to discipline a child when they break boundaries a child of that age and maturity know and understand very well.
After that yes other type of punishments are required such as TV been turned of sitting in the corner and don't make a noise or else ... they need to realise that Mum and Dad are the boss they rule the children.... the children do not rule and control their parents ...but I guess you would see that as controlling child and therefore depriving him of his rights ...yeah right and we wonder why our world is in such social mess!!!!
Cheers paulinem
Nia Glassia the benefit was set up to assist the solo mother to be able to STAY home and look after her children especially those of Nias age ... its a pity her mother didn't put her kids needs and wants ahead of her own ..she would be alive today if she did...and Bomber I notice you didn't mention Nia's biological Dad...MORALLY and legally he is RESPONSIBLE for that child upbringing as is the mother ..where was he during the Child's torment ...oh that's right in Australia enjoying life shagging his latest fling ..ah to heck with any responsibilities he may have left behind in NZ.
Yes Bomber I do believe the benefit needs to be looked at in the Kaha twins case the income her mother received from the state was a factor in why they were not adopted out By the way Bomber ADPTION is not a dirty word if you think so you seriously need to get over your problems ..and give me a break
Bomber the cold reality in the real world of NZ society we have many kids whose only reason their parents kept them and not adopt was the availability of benefit money ... when these immature parents realise that far from been a income they are actually an economic burden is when like the Kahu twins their life becomes a living hell.
Or they could abort the child heah why give it a life by adoption better to murder it I guess to some in our society !!
YES I do say offer assistance when in the Mason case instead of being a bitch and running to the Police the other witness was her SON so yeah he wasnt unbiased was he..he would have been a good witness well schooled by his Mum!!! Mason was in trouble one of his kids had fallen and hurt himself he was the only adult with the kids ..the other was being a very normal impatient little darling ..she could have walked over and asked if she could do anything to help such as helping the injured kid while Dad got the naughty 4yr old under control ..maybe also calming the by now excited Dad with maybe a little acceptable humour about naughty kids who drive you to despair.
Get a Life Bomber raising kids is a very honorous task and required unselfish dedication ...it also can press all the mental buttons inside you. Now thanks to the Christchurch women many parents will be scared stiff to take their kids on a public outing such as a bike ride because if something goes wrong there could just be another bitch or a guy like you her lurking around and instead of offering help and assistance with the problem run to the police.
PARENTS need society to UNDERSTAND to SUPPORT TO CARE TO ASSIST in their honourous task they do not need Bradfords interfering Bill
By the way if I sign ammounous again its becasue I need to get ready for church :) and I cant be bothered taking time to work out what I am doing wrong with your blog sign in :)
Cheers Paulinem
There are times a child specially a small child of say 4-to 8 needs punishment and where a light smack is the best option to discipline a child when they break boundaries a child of that age and maturity know and understand very well.
Simply not true, there are many ways to discipline a child that don’t involve hitting them. The fact you have raised 5 and don’t seem to get that says more about you than me.
After that yes other type of punishments are required such as TV been turned of sitting in the corner and don't make a noise or else ... they need to realise that Mum and Dad are the boss they rule the children.... the children do not rule and control their parents ...but I guess you would see that as controlling child and therefore depriving him of his rights ...yeah right and we wonder why our world is in such social mess!!!!
This is as nonsensical as your previous post Paulinem.
Nia Glassia the benefit was set up to assist the solo mother to be able to STAY home and look after her children especially those of Nias age ...
Hold on, you were claiming the benefit was the problem, now you are saying Nia Glassie’s mother should have been at home on the benefit? You can’t keep track of your argument Paulinem. Admit it, when you attacked the Glassie family, you didn’t actually know anything about how hard the mother was working before you started mouthing off did you?
its a pity her mother didn't put her kids needs and wants ahead of her own ..she would be alive today if she did...
Jesus Christ, where do you get off? Her mother was out working hard hours as a kiwifruit picker, and you blame her for the abuse metted out by the men in her house? You aren’t just self righteous, you are offensive. It’s Christians like you that would make Heaven so awful.
Yes Bomber I do believe the benefit needs to be looked at in the Kaha twins case the income her mother received from the state was a factor in why they were not adopted out
Benefit for Kahui case is the reason babies died, not having a benefit in the Glassie case reason child died. You can’t have it both ways Paulinem.
By the way Bomber ADPTION is not a dirty word if you think so you seriously need to get over your problems ..and give me a break
No Paulinem, Adoption isn’t a dirty word, forced adoption is and that is exactly what you are arguing for, so again Paulinem – who gets to keep their baby? You don’t like me, do I get to keep a baby? Who decides who get’s to breed Paulinem?
Bomber the cold reality in the real world of NZ society we have many kids whose only reason their parents kept them and not adopt was the availability of benefit money ...
Oh god, people having baby’s for what the grand sum of a couple of hundred bucks per week, try living on those ‘riches’ and you’ll quickly agree that bludger myth is just bullshit. Sure there are some who are deluded who do it, but to suggest the majority of solo mothers are doing it for money is just a nonsense.
when these immature parents realise that far from been a income they are actually an economic burden is when like the Kahu twins their life becomes a living hell.
R-I-G-H-T, so the decades of intergenerational abuse and damage and grinding poverty that has been allowed to fester in these communities that have been left behind has NOTHING to do with it, ikt’s the benefit. This is a joke.
Or they could abort the child heah why give it a life by adoption better to murder it I guess to some in our society !!
I’m sorry, did you compare abortion to murder? I think this is where I opt out of wasting my time debating with you.
Well, it looks as if there will always be parents out there who see 'smacking' as their only option - thank heavens for this debate and for progs such as Supernanny because maybe - just maybe a percentage of new parents will see that children respond BEST to non violent 'correction '.
One of my sons,, at age 7 or 8 , took some money from a cash tin in our small business and spent it on cakes for him and his two cousins.
I showed him that i was angry and I EXPLAINED to him that he was stealing and that he was stealing from the family coffers ( long talk about how hard we all worked to get that money )- his reaction still sticks in my head, he wept and apologised and said he'd never EVER steal again - and he hasn't.
Now I could have whacked him, but what would that have shown him ? That parents get so angry sometimes that they lash out .
I always remember a conversation I had around the same time with a parent whose son played League with my son, we were debating hitting children, he was a firm believer in smacking. he said to me " everytime Luke does that I hit him " to which I replied " you mean he keeps doing it ?" " Yep " he replied " so i'll keep smacking him till he gets it " .." doesn't that show you that hitting doesn't work ? " I asked .....silence.
Geez Wayne, it'd be great if you would stop hitting your kids and use methods which show you're not losing your self control .
When my parents hit me it just gave me the message that they were at the end of their tether , I never stopped to think about what they were "hitting me for."
Bomber.
In regards to Slater, the police are investigating allegations made by Pearl Going.
Old news, but nice to see the police and lawyers looking seriously at internet defamation, which is going to be a major issue in future.
What I find interesting is Slaters reasons for his hatred and vitriol towards Ms Going (from todays online Herald):
Blogger Cameron Slater, known as Whale Oil, confirmed he was behind a website about Going started in June last year.
He said he had never met her and they had spoken on the phone only once.
Slater said he took exception to Going being included in a list of up-and-coming Auckland socialites published in the Herald on Sunday's Spy pages because he challenged claims about her background.
Took exception to Ms Going's social standing?
What a vile piece of shit Slater is.
There are times a child specially a small child of say 4-to 8 needs punishment and where a light smack is the best option to discipline a child when they break boundaries a child of that age and maturity know and understand very well.
paulinem:
If the child has the maturity to understand they have done something wrong, don't you then have the maturity to explain what exactly it is they did wrong, without resorting to smacking?
Nia Glassia the benefit was set up to assist the solo mother to be able to STAY home and look after her children especially those of Nias age ... its a pity her mother didn't put her kids needs and wants ahead of her own ..she would be alive today if she did...
So the DPB cause people to murder their children, unless they are working, in which case the DPB would have prevented them from killing their children?
paulinem, want to go back to school and learn how to construct a coherent argument.
YES I do say offer assistance when in the Mason case instead of being a bitch and running to the Police
You have to understand paulinem that normal people go to the aid of the victim, not the attacker, and normal people call the police when they see a crime being comitted, they don't view "running to the police" as a bad thing.
Btw, you call the woman bitch numerous times, do you have a problem with women paulinem?
By the way if I sign ammounous again its becasue I need to get ready for church :) and I cant be bothered taking time to work out what I am doing wrong with your blog sign in :)
It's not hard, it just takes time and patience, a bit like raising kids.
Do you smack your computer too paulinem?
Peter R
I wont tax your limited intellect trying to explain satire in my comment.
I don't know why CYPS would be interested in visiting me but they are welcome anytime.
Perhaps they should give you a visit?
After all you have admitted to using violence on a child in your care.
So why don't you put your details?
omber, the guy kicked the kid in the face and the cops used pepper spray on him. Since you are equating this case with smacking, do you consider that police, after pepper spraying a guy who kicked his daughter in the head and whacked her on the head with concrete, should have taken section 59(4) of the Crimes Act into account when deciding whether to prosecute - and treat this as a smacking case?
if not, why equate this with cases where this discretion is allowed?
Bomber, are you going to respond to serious questions or just the ones you have a quick and easy answer for?
Bomber, are you going to respond to serious questions or just the ones you have a quick and easy answer for?
Dave, I don't tend to waste time on stupid questions. It isn't what the Police would've charged him with that matters, it's the type of defence his lawyer would've mounted that counts. The defence under section 59 that the lawyer would've tried to claim the would've been that father did it as discipline and as such this tradional god loving Dad should have a mitigating circumstance under this defence from assault for disciplinary purposes. That defence removed was the point of the repeal of section 59.
Bomber - you really stuffed up here, a real blooper:
"Laws against murder don't stop the murder rate, so we should dump that law?"
The fact is if we removed the legal prohibition against murder, it would be a fair bet to say the murder rate would rise.
What's more we simply cannot draw from experience and compare a situation where murder was ever not illegal with the situation where it is illegal (as is the case all over the world).
But we can with the anti-smacking bill. We can compare the situation in respect to child abuse before smacking was made illegal and after smacking was made illegal - and after a few more years or so, if this ridiculous bill is not repealed, and we should have enough data to draw even stronger conclusions.
And if the data suggests that incidents of child abuse has dropped, and the bill saves lives, and that there is a causal relationship between the implementation of this bill and the hoped for decline in child abuse, I will change my mind.
A section 59 defence would never have even been considered by the most deluded lawyer in the country in this case. It simply goes too far, perhaps even for the family first idiots to embrance this fool as they have every other child bashing hero so far. Its a bit too much even for them, which is saying something (that and they probably don't like mormons either).
"The fact is if we removed the legal prohibition against murder, it would be a fair bet to say the murder rate would rise."
Well done Wayne I think you are starting to understand.
Try this:
The fact is if we removed the legal prohibition against smacking, it would be a fair bet to say the smacking rate would rise.
Paul:
Prohibition against murder is to prevent murder and nothing else.
Prohibition against smacking was brought in claiming that it would reduce child abuse and child deaths at the hands of their parents.
The law against murder is probably doing something useful, and somewhat successful in achieving its intended aim.
The anti-smacking law, has so far not achieved its intended aim. Nor is it likely to do so in future.
"The anti-smacking law, has so far not achieved its intended aim. Nor is it likely to do so in future."
I wouldn't be too sure about that.
Surely you are not making yourself a criminal by physically chastising your children?
it's the type of defence his lawyer would've mounted that counts. The defence under section 59 that the lawyer would've tried to claim the would've been that father did it as discipline
Wrong again Bomber. It is the type of defence that is successful that counts.Also the real object of repeal was not to remove the reasonable force defence, repeal of that defence was to allow for the point of the law which was that abusers couldn't use it successfully. If it was never used successfully there would be no need to repeal it, would there?
Family Fist
Prohibition against smacking was brought in claiming that it would reduce child abuse and child deaths at the hands of their parents.
Wrong again Wayne.
You haven't even read the Act have you?
What's more we simply cannot draw from experience and compare a situation where murder was ever not illegal with the situation where it is illegal (as is the case all over the world).
Ok Wayne, you want a real example, try rape within marriage.
It used to be legal to rape your wife, now it is not.
If we removed the legal prohibition against rape within marriage, rapes would increase.
Nowadays, most people, including you I am sure Wayne, think it is incomprehensible to have the right to rape your wife.
Give it 20 years, and your children Wayne will think it incomprehensible that anybody would consider it acceptable to strike their child.
If it was never used successfully there would be no need to repeal it, would there?
But it was Dave.
I can't give you specific examples, because the names have been suppressed to protect the child, but people have successfully been let off beating their children with riding crops, vacumm cleaner pipes...using reasonable force as a defence.
but people have successfully been let off beating their children with riding crops, vacumm cleaner pipes...using reasonable force as a defence.
The point is not what was used to beat the child - but the degree of injuries sustained - an open hand can do as much damage as a vlacuum cleaner pipe.
And if reasonable force succeeded as a defence - the force used probably was in fact reasonable.
And by the way you say that the anti-smacking bill was not brought in to reduce child abuse, to save lives. Well, can you then please explain, what exactly it is for. You have not been clear.
And if reasonable force succeeded as a defence - the force used probably was in fact reasonable.
????
Reasonable force suceeded, in spite of the injuries sustained , precisely because they could hide behind section 59.
And by the way you say that the anti-smacking bill was not brought in to reduce child abuse, to save lives. Well, can you then please explain, what exactly it is for. You have not been clear.
A) It is not my job to educate you Wayne.
B) Why are you arguing against the Act when you haven't even read it?
Post a Comment
<< Home