This is scary stuff!
Having campaigned succesfully to get belting children made illegal, I am terrified by Phil Goff’s comments on Q&A:
The Labour Party appears to have made a u-turn on the controversial anti-smacking policy.
On TVNZ’s Q+A program on Sunday, Opposition leader Phil Goff said smacking in a disciplinary context should not be prosecuted.
This comes as the party looks to re-brand itself after the election loss and the loss of some very experienced old hands.
Goff acknowledges issues like law and order are big for New Zealanders, but says so are what he calls the “little things”, such as what light bulbs Kiwis should use and if parents can smack their children.
What Goff told Q+A about the latter signals a major policy shift.
When Paul Holmes asked if a smack, as part of good parental correction, should be a criminal offence in New Zealand, Goff said: “The answer to that is, no, it shouldn’t be a criminal offence, or we should not have people following up for a smack in that context.”
This is truly scary stuff! Holmes has bought straight into the anti-child “Family Fist” agenda, and the precise wording of the deliberately ambiguously worded Larry Ballock referendum developed to attempt to relegalise belting children. Goff either supports him, has been naively sucked into the child-beating agenda, or is playing an unprincipled political game to recruit votes from those who want to whack their kids.
For me, as someone who was a kid who suffered severe child abuse – by way of plum tree switch, leather belt, and wooden spoon – Goff is selling out all of us who were abused as kids, and all who eventually will be if you try to change the law to quantify the level of violence against chidren that is “acceptable”.