Larry Baldock on Campbell Live last night state:
“Every parent has become a criminal, whether they are charged or not.”
But Larry, um, I’m a parent and I’m not a criminal – at least not for that reason. I haven’t assaulted my kids.
Maybe the quote was edited out of context, but surely the point he was trying to make was “every parent who assaults a child for the purpose of correction has become a criminal.”
Of course, even if that were his point, he would still be wrong because (a) the new law removes a defence against assault not smacking, and (b) he is using the term ‘criminal’ in the popular sense of describing someone who has committed a crime, rather than the legal sense of someone who has been convicted of a crime. Legally, one solitary parent has become a criminal since the correction defence for assault was removed. And one is a lot less than every.
g.blog 
And on the other hand, Sue Bradford agreed today that if you a give your kida light tap on the bum you are a criminal.
So Sue Bradford is wrong too? Or is she as confused as you are.
I think, dave, the pioint is that if you don’t physically “correct” – whatever that means – your children, then Larry B is wrong, since not “every” parent does it.
That’s the most depressing thing about this debate – the presumption that “everybody” does it. It used to be OK to beat your wife too. Is that social engineering that we don’t think so anymore?
That’s not the point I was addressing. I was merely addressing point (b). Baldock said that every parent who smacks their kid is a criminal, the blog post refutes that explanation, and Bradford agrees with Baldock and not the explanation give by the blogger.Whether one person or 99% of parents smack their kids still doesn’t mean everyone does it – but that was not the point I was addressing because it is completely irrelevant.
Every parent who assaults a child for the purpose of correction has become a criminal. Bradford agrees with Baldock and both are right, even if Dewar may not agree.