Bradford's bad bill
Sue Bradford's Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill 2005 aims to stop force, and associated violence and harm under the pretence of domestic discipline, being inflicted on children. It won't do that at all and most people know that.
Yet Bradford, in the media, has repeatedly denied it is a bill to stop smacking, instead she says it is a bill to prevent the legal defence of reasonable force when smacking a child. That’s not the aim of the bill. This bill does not mean what it says. The bill actually means that any parent who *even threatens to smack their kidswill be breaking the law. Bradford's excuse to those parents who fear being caught out for doing something reasonable is that we should trust the police not to apply the new law if the force is reasonable. Well, Ms Bradford, what's the point of having a brand new law that the initiator of that law is happy for police turn a blind eye to. How stupid is that? Police turning a blind eye to the law was one of the reasons Prostitution laws were reformed. Now you wantto create the opportunity for police to turn a blind eye.
I actually happen to think Sue Bradford is one of the better MP's. We agree on many things but not this. Why does she want to criminalise what is reasonable without defining what that reasonableness is?
I`ll tell you why. She does not want to define reasonable force so all force is deemed unreasonable. That’s why the bill itself is unreasonable.
The bill actually turns what is reasonable into what is illegal. Meaning anyone who uses reasonable force on their child can be charged with assault and liable for * a two year prison term.
It must be remembered that * Section 59 of the Crimes Act is headed "domestic discipline" not "domestic assault, whereas Section 194 is headed "assault on a child", which as per the bill:
The use of force on a child may constitute an assault under section 194(a) of the Crimes Act
So, if this bill is passed, all reasonable force will be assault, which is crazy as if it was assault, it wouldn’t have been classed as reasonable in the first place, would it?
Child abuse is outlawed. All child abusers deserve to be caught and punished by law - including parents who do use unreasonable force on their child. That is covered by Section 194. Bradford wants to outlaw child abuse and even if her bill is made law, the law on child assault and abuse will not be changed one bit.
That is why her bill is unnecessary. It is making a reasonable action unlawful. It is a very bad standard for assessing the actions of caring parents.
*NB once links are accessed they require navigation
3 comments:
Haven't got time for a full answer but I agree with you. It could make any kind of restraint illegal or not protected. It will make any kind of force, including verbal force, say at school, potentially in conflict with the law. Cameron says you will only be able to do things with the child if the child agrees. Children will only legally be able to be removed from families if the Police arrest them, he says.
But I question, does it make reasonable force illegal or does it simply take away a definitive protection from parents with regard to being charged with physical assault?
What I mean is "Will there be or is there a law which says physical discipline is illegal, once section 59 is removed? Or will there be a kind of limbo guided only by common law ....? In other words what will the 'new law' consist of?
John
As I understand it, S59 will be repealed from the Crimes Act and the provisions of S194 will extend to domestic discipline for children up to 14 years of age, as well as assault, so domestic discipline will be classed as assault in all cases, rather than discipline. Assault is a crime, all physical discipline will be assault and therefore illegal and liable for an imprisonment term of up to two years.
The way things are at the moment parents and care givers are getting away with assaulting children with pieces of wood and other objects and getting away with it under the reasonable force clause.
Do you really want this to continue?
Post a Comment