17 Comments so far:

But police is being called to attend cases of "smacking". It's not as you say "about removing that as a defence for abusive parents who beat the shit out of their kids." because we still read about kids being abused, beaten to death regardless of this law.

I read about a journalist that answered the door to two police officers because the neighbours called 111 saying she was smacking her daughther - when in fact it was the daughter crying - like every evening - when going to bed.

Sometimes last year I thought a police officer would show up at our door because Isabella cried every night when in bed - so loud that I could hear from outside one day I went to put the rubish out.

Sorry but this law did not reduce the dead children in this country. But increase the fears in parents.

Given the situation where so many kids are being abused and beaten in this country I would rather the police turned up to check out something, than not. Sometimes it will be the right thing.

The law is not going to stop people abusing children - the anti-smacking bill removes one means of defence that they have.

If the laws actually stopped people doing things, we wouldn't have murders, drugs, rape .... however this bill means people who ARE doing the wrong thing can be prosecuted and not get off on a technicality.

Police are not interested in arresting people who give their children one smack. But if police turn up when a child is screaming, that's better than not.

These guys get out of jail cards by saying "I was just using the necessary force" when in fact they were beating, and worse. There should be other things than this.

What about that guy in Chch who is now being taken to court because he used an open hand to smack his kid for going through the street on a bike when he was already told no to?

Natural reaction for a distressed parent who could imagine the boy being run over by a car. But the police decided to prosecute. Hardly an abusing parent I'd say...

You don't need to smack children. There is no excuse.

Aside from that, the media will always publicise the cases where something gets out of hand. There are always edge cases that make better stories than the ones that work. 

At what point is it acceptable that a 'natural reaction' should be to turn to violence? Is this behaviour we want to say is OK?

Oh my god I love you so much and you almost died ... whack.

Nice. 

I totally agree with you Brenda!

There's no excuse for smacking, violance is completely unacceptable! If people can't control their anger, they should attend a parenting course or not breed at all. Full stop. 

And as Kai already said: your last paragraph is a brilliant idea... :-) 

And your question, "At what point is it acceptable that a 'natural reaction' should be to turn to violence?" sums it up.

That is the question that people shoud be asked NOT, is it OK to smack a child.

I also find it strange that is TOTALLY agianst the law to hit an adult (even if they were about to run onto the road) but a child (defencless?), yes. 

...were those who took their little kids to the marches against the bill last year, making them hold up signs demanding to keep their daddies' right to discipline them. Shudder.

Thanks for the great post. If it's your natural reaction to turn to violence when you can't cope with a situation then that's a sad and scary thing. What about being a role model instead and living and acting by those same principles that you want your kids to respect? Worked for my parents. 

In Chch a similar group asking for signatures for their petition had a sign asking people to protect 'a loving smack'. My boyfriend joked that we should point out the stupidity of this by setting up a stand next to them with a petition to bring back the right to physically discipline your wife - you know, it's a loving smack for the little lady's good:)

The ferocity with which people are claiming their right to smack their children is scary and the amount of people who think that arguing the bill doesn't stop abuse is proof the bill should be abolished boggles the mind.

I presume you don't have children.

I have three.  It is estimated I will spend up to 200K on each of my children during their lifetime.  

The scarey thing to me is that  NZ'ers such as yourself think it is perfectly normal to let some faceless, nameless beuraucrat who has never, and who will never spend a cent on my kids.  Yet you want them to have the right to come into my home and tell me how to raise them.

The only thing that surprises me is arrogance of people who consider this to be entirely acceptable. 

... you are wrong.

if you're somehow correlating the amount of money you will spend on your children in their lifetime with your right to smack them, you're ever more deluded than the idiots who petition for this law change.

i do have children. i've never smacked them. i never will. the law does not change that for me.

i agree with kai below - if you feel you have to smack your children, and you'll fight for that right, you shouldn't have them. 

Your analysis is completely incorrect.  The bill most certainly is about criminalising parents who under any circumstances smack their children.  In fact, in its first appalling form, it outlawed ANY physical contact, or ANY form, including verbal forms of correction.

The fact is, that the year after we banned corporal punishment in schools, expulsions increased by 34%.  Within four years they had increased by 112% prompting the MOE to issue policy directives insisting teachers lower the standard of behaviour they were prepared to accept.  Further, the supposed benefits we were meant to get (better behaved, more peaceful children) have never eventuated, if anything, behaviour of children has become much more violent.

After this disastrous experiment, it is inconceivable that people could be so stupid as to inflict this fundamentally flawed law on parents.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4501941a6000.html?source=RSSdominionpost/headlines_20080429

Sweeeeeet!