Body Shop supports smacking ban
The Body Shop has decided to support Sue Bradfords anti smacking billafter a staff vote. So has the Government -funded Public Health Association. PHA head Dr Gay Keating (who is also heavily involved with the Child Poverty Action Group) has actively lobbied for this bill, and associated issues, and has written letters to the editor using government funding. Just to indicate how these funds have been used, I have put one such letter in comments section - one that did not get published.
Go to David Farrar's blog on the issue, and read the comments, which have turned into a debate between of pro and anti smackers. Many of the pro smackers appear to have kids, and the anti smackers appear not to. Interesting.
Update Heres some info on the PHA.
The Public Health Assocation calls itself a "non-party political voluntary association," yet it advocates for policies along Government lines - such as prostitution reform - and is funded by the Ministry of Health. It's staff and executive - nearly all female- campaign for these policies - even those outside its mandate and communication plan.
It has formal alliances with most of the anti-smacking lobby groups. PHA staff, especially Dr Gay Keating has written letters to metropolitan dailies every week and has conducted media training every month to interested groups. Keating has to report to the Ministry with the success rates of the various letters and her staff have written a "letters the editor guide" for people just like you and me. In fact they will check any relevant letter post-submission to a newspaper, justti make sure it is along Government lines and is effective.
Perhaps you consider Green MP Sue Bradfords bill banning smacking is public health issue. If you don’t, do you think that the PHA should be lobbying on this issue in the name of "reducing health inequalities" using taxpayer money in exactly the same way as other Government funded organisations such as the Office of the Commissioner for Children?
Also , Someone tell me in a logical way why all physical discipline should be a criminal offence
But you wont, will you - because you can't.
4 comments:
Here's the letter Dr Gay Keating unsucessfully tried to get into the Dominion Post. Note the word "designed" and "not intended". Yep, it's the intention, not the reality these guys are spinning...
Editor
Despite public sorrow over high profile cases of child abuse, New Zealand is reluctant to take any action (Dominion Post 7 October). Any discussion about possible repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act gets bogged down in debate about parents’ rights to smack their children.
It is time parents realised that anti-smacking legislation is not intended to bag parents who succumb to an occasional light slap on the hand. Legislation is simply designed to step in when parents are abusing their children in the name of discipline.
Retaining Section 59 means adults who assault children can use the law as a defence. This defence is not open to adults who assault other adults.
More New Zealand children die from maltreatment than in any other OECD country but at the same time some political parties describe anti-smacking legislation as unrealistic. New Zealand can’t have it both ways. We are outraged and bewildered when parents who repeatedly use “discipline” end up killing their children but at the same time we don’t want any rules. Surely it is time for some realism.
Dr Gay Keating
I agree with DPF's comments - the people in the Body Shop are predominantly not parents and therefore do not have the experience to decide on such an important issue.
Why do these people keep linking the vile child abuse and murder with discipline intended for the child's good and administered in love.
Would they let there children put forks in power plugs rather then give then a smack when reasoning doesn't work.
I know the people I work with don't think this should be made a criminal act - but then they have all raised children (none of whom have been murdered as a result).
By the way - great to meet up with you today.
It's interesting how Dr Keating, like a lot of other s59 repealists, seem to refer to "an occasional light slap on the hand" as the only acceptable form of physical discipline. Well, as the father of a stroppy two year old, let me tell you that an occasional light slap on the hand just doesn't cut it. Even quite a firm smack in that area does not produce a tear! Her mother and I have been amazed at how she has so much resistance to what we believe would feel quite painful. Heck, I can feel it.
The thing is, she does the thing again anyway.
I have now found that a good swift smack on the bottom does a better job. I don't have to use as much force, and the resultant sting seems to produce the tears that tell you that the pain got through.
Gentle smacks can work sometimes. Even gentle words can work too. But sometimes it takes a bit of force.
With the older children, I found one good solid whack on the bum with a mixing spoon is all that is required, and that, not very frequently, because they have learnt. Unfortunately Mum broke the spoon the other day and I have to use my hand instead. I don't like that actually, but much preferred the spoon.
The bottom line is, these things work. Especially as the kids get older. Sometimes the mere displaying of the instrument of discipline brings the desired repentance.
Oh, by the way, my kids are all alive!
Please forgive me for remaining anonymous, this is so un PC it's not funny.
Dr Gay makes a few erroneous statements. The first is that people caught abusing children use s59 to get off. I've been actual reviewing cases. So far, I found several cases where the defence was tried, and failed. Occasionally, it has failed and convictions recorded when I was amazed (based on the information I could get) that any decision of guilty was unwarranted.
On some occasions where the defence was used, and it didn't help (the judge decided the force used was unreasonable) I cheered. The law works.
If people are getting away with abuse because the judge does not understand "reasonable force" then we need to tighten the law. Fine. That's what several countries have done.
However, the Sue Bradfords of the world want any form of physical discipline banned completely. That's what the repeal of s59 achieves.
That would then allow CYFS workers to remove children from parents custody without requiring physical evidence of abuse. That might be fine on the times they are correct, but the Swedish experience indicates THOUSANDS (and I am not making this up - links on my blog and can be found with some Google detective work) THOUSANDS of parents have lost their children for months, and some permanently, based on third parties suggesting a parent smacks their children.
Losing your mum and dad because they smacked you? The punishment does not fit the crime, even if you are an anti-smacking lunatic. They just can't face up to it.
And repeal of s59 will not prevent the real cases of abuse. Nor should it stop a judge from understanding "reasonable force" to administer discipline.
Post a Comment