Yippee!

John Key has announced that National will oppose ACT MP John Boscawen’s Bill to legalise violence aganist children.

So regardless of what Labour will do (and Trevor Mallard seems to be equivocal, although also appears to be firming up Labour to oppose), the votes of the Green, Maori and National parties should see this appalling Bill soundly defeated.

End of story! Larry Baldock, Bob McCroskie and the rest of the spankers will now have to go off and find another way to legitimise the abuse of children.

And big ups to Sue Bradford. A great victory for our kids welfare!

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Yippee!

  1. So a smack is child abuse ? Can the Greens please explain where they stand one day a smack is not child abuse the next day it is.

  2. Nobody has been convicted for anything that could reasonably be called a “smack”. One man was prosecuted for punching his kid, and he got sent to counseling, not arrested. Clearly the doomsayers were wrong.

    The Green position is that children are entitled to at least as much protection from assault as adults are, and that’s all the law change did. We strongly oppose moves to enshrine a level of acceptable violence in the law*, as that legitimises abusive behaviour at a low level.

    None of this has to involve parents being arrested for getting wild and smacking their kids, or for choosing a less effective method of discipline. If you’d listened carefully you’d see we’ve been welcoming moves to clarify that position and to put additional safeguards in place that don’t sanction violence against kids.

    *Which sadly is what every competing law, including both Borrows’ and Boscawen’s, have tried to do.

  3. John Key is kind of starting to win me over. His response to the hysterical smackers has been great. He’s being sensible. Unlike Baldock and the other fundies he has actually read the law, he knows it’s working.

  4. So a smack is child abuse ?

    Yes

    Can the Greens please explain where they stand one day a smack is not child abuse the next day it is.

    I’m not a Green but a smack became child abuse when we did the research and discovered that it causes irreparable harm to the child. Before than we were ignorant and just didn’t know any better.

  5. I’m not a Green but a smack became child abuse when we did the research and discovered that it causes irreparable harm to the child. Before than we were ignorant and just didn’t know any better.

    Keep in mind that there’s smacking and “smacking”. Research that defines smacking in such a way that it is clearly violence and painful for the child ends up showing smacking as having all the same negative effects as more serious child abuse. This is the reason why we do not accept the purpose of correction as a defense.

    There’s also “smacking”, ie. touching that may be unwanted or mildly unpleasant, but is not so clearly violent or painful. Research is inconclusive on this, with many studies claiming contrary results.

    The problem with trying to exempt the latter is that you end up defining an acceptable maximum level of violence against children, which in itself is a very troubling precedent given that nobody else is subject to proving unacceptable levels of violence if they’re assualted. Even beyond that principle though, it’s really hard to design wording that lets through “smacking” but doesn’t let through smacking. Every law thus far to propose an acceptable maximum level of violence against children has clearly left the door open for painful and harmful smacking, which defeats the point of the original repeal.

  6. Draco

    I’m not a Green but a smack became child abuse when we did the research and discovered that it causes irreparable harm to the child.

    Any links to that research?

    The reason for asking is that there is only one way to measure if any smacks that I received as a child that would later manifest in me as “irreparable” harm could only be ascertained if I had a twin who was bought up in the same family but was not smacked.

    I not for smacking either but lets get some facts straight, there is no absolute scientific method available to show that smacking does “irreparable” harm.

    That is just hyperbole. And just sets you up to be smacked (pun intended) down by the pro smacking lobby.

    One can never measure what harm is done unless you have the two options in the same environment. That goes for for sexual abuse, mental manipulation, bullying, etc.

    Without a yard stick it is impossible to quantify what harm is done.

    In fact you could say that NOT smacking does “irreparable” harm. Because it is unquantifyable (sp?), it cannot be proven one way or the other.

    Many people claim that the smacks they received as children did them absolutely no harm at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s