These anti-smackers provide crap research, don’t they?
Save the Children wants to save children. It is an objective group, which undertakes conclusive surveys with no bias whatsoever. The survey sample is amazingly high, reflecting the wide range of views. The age of people who are surveyed are representative of our population, and the margin of error is amazingly small.
So when they do a survey on smacking, surveying just 80 children, you know it is far more reliable than any political opinion poll. Except they don’t call it smacking. They call it physical punishment. This includes being whacked with implements like belts and spoons. More than 90 percent of the kids believed children were smacked as punishment and didn’t like it.
Green MP Sue Bradford, along with Save the Children, is using this survey as proof that smacking should be banned by removing Section 59 of the Crimes Act. Trouble is that the quotes from the children illustrate behavour that is outside the provisions of Section 59 - behaviour that is used at an "alarming rate". Not once does Ms Bradford say that the punishment meted out by the childrens' parents is within the provision of Section 59 of the Crimes Act.
Because it clearly isn't in most cases.
Like this quote, typical of those promoted in the survey report:
We get the same punishment, but my sister is woosier than me because when dad knocks our heads together, it does the same damage and like I cry for two seconds and she cries for ages and she never comes out of her room for like five hours or something” (boy, nine)
Here's a quote that wasn't in the survey
My Dad smacks me. He gives me a smack on the hand as punishment. It huts and I sometimes cry, but I know why I am getting smacked, and I behave better ibn future as a result.(boy, seven)
Bradford doesn’t want to ban smacking. She, along with the PC brigade in the United Nations, wants to ban parental authority. Do we have an "alarming rate" of smacking that is within the law?
The survey doesn’t tell us. Its a bit like asking children whether we should ban isc-cream.
5 comments:
The point you seem to miss Dave, is that an increasing amount of common law evidence, research, and opinion shows that parents seem incapable of staying within Sect 59, let alone within ludicrous guidelines of "smacking without anger" promoted by the righteous Christian violence brigade.
Wanting to ensure parents are clearly encouraged to find other methods of disciplining their kids by repealing Sect 59, is not an attack on parental authority, its an attack on parental laziness. Read some books, watch some videos, talk to other parents, and put away the belts, spoons, horsecrops, broccoli, and whatever else you currently use.
Graham, you are talking education, my post was on law change.
This is a matter of freedom, not the "christian violence brigade" The christian volence brigade is other people.
You dont need a law change to ensure people smack within S59 guidelines.
If encouraging other kinds of discipline was just an attack on parental laziness we wouldnt need to ban smacking or change the law. If everyone put away the belts, spoons and everything else, most smacking would be within the paremeters of S59.
Graham, what you seem to be advocating for is a law that bans illegal violence. Theres no need for that, we already have one. The point you miss is that there is no common law research that smacking within the provisions of reasonable force amounts to the violence you and I both condemn. Even the latest research doesnt mention it.
I have kids. Ive never hit them with implements - even brocolli, but I have heard that a frozen brocolli around the head is quite painful.
My wife and I read lots of books etc and used alternatives to smacking (mainly missing treats and time out)for a considerable period. We quickly dismissed the former as it meant the rest of the family could not enjoy the treat while there was a pouting child (understandably) who was missing out. We persevered with the latter but it was not easy. It involved a lot of struggling and screaming and having to lock bedroom doors and it did not seem to solve anything for long.
It all changed when my daughter asked to be smacked instead of being sent to her room. We saw what we should have realised all along, the alternatives were actually much crueller. That was the only survey we needed.
Interestingly it only took a couple of smacks and behaviour issues were a thing of the past.
This is not a promotion of smacking, I would not be so arrogant as to tell anyone how they should raise their children. However, every child is different and every family has different circumstances. They should be allowed to work through their own issues and determine what works best for them, as we did.
Andrew Davies
Hi Dave et al
Graham unfortunately is getting sidetracked in that whilst this seems to be about poor and dangerous parenting.
Even the the abusive use of violence against children.
The reality is that it isn't about that at all, thats a smokescreen.
The thrust behind this campaign is to deconstruct the judeo christian bedrock of relationships in society.
namely the relationships between the state, parents and their children.
the so called abuse of children is but one thread they are using.
the reality is that the campaign focuses on the minority when the majority of parents don't abuse.
but why should that get in the way of a good arguement even if they have to lie.
As an aside I listened to Sue Bradford at a pub one lunchtime and she lied barefaced to prove her point at one point. The barnados crowd were there and anyone who didn't agree with them was anathma and got the "eyeball" and look down the nose.
I used to give money to them but not now.
the reality is that state or those who want to run the state want the state to have all power and change the power position between parents and their charges, namely their children.
this is being pushed globally by NGO's at the UN and in regional forums.
The aim is for the child from birth to be a complete person legally with all the rights and priveledges.
there are some who think this should mean the all rights from 12 yrs.
indeed I remeber Labour wanting to move the sex permission age down to 14 though they wanted it to go to 12 and that had to be equal hetero/homo.
thankfully it didn't fly and they dropped it for now.
though the prostitutes collective has every right to go to careers evenings if one reads the law properly.
again it's about consequences and intentions.
at present a child is under the sway/cover/responsibility of its parents.
when it gets to 14 then 16 then 18 the relationship changes for various areas of it's life choices.
there are anomallies such as a 14 yr old girl being able to have an abortion (after being raped legally) without the parents knowledge or permission.
though technically no one has been able to show me which individual person takes over the parents rights without informing them.
that aside, this change in relationship happens as a graduated phasing in as they get more mature and can make surer and proper informed decisions.
Sue Bradford and her ilk want to have the state to have all power over individuals.
this means to change the relationhips between kids and their parents because that is the base of society.
we only have to see the rampant socialism ideals at CYPS to see where this can lead.
sadly many christians and jews don't see this for what it is.
but get sidetracked into the sub arguements and don't analyse the consequences of the changes mooted.
best
MikeNZ
You hit the nail on the head again Dave with your original article. The anti-smackers are always using selective, emotive language to further their aims. They are using a loaded questioning technique to produce the statistics that support their twisted argument. The bottom line as you and other commenters have made is that the ultimate goal is much more than abolishing smacking, it's abolishing parental authority. Indeed Ian Wishart's May issue of Investigate Magazine (if I remeber correctly) reveals the full social engineering agenda plotted from 30 years ago and now coming to fruition. He states how the new Caring For Children Act has now only given parents the legal status of Guardians. The feminist agenda is to make child-rearing the job of 'the community', whoever that is, and parents relegated to also rans. AS we know, this is not a conspiracy theory, this is actual, happening fact! By the way, please feel free to correct any facts I have mistated as I'm going of the top of my head a bit on this one.
Post a Comment