Monday, November 20, 2006

will smacking be outlawed?

The Select Committee report on Section 59 of the Crimes Act, released today, provides no assistance as to what is the likely outcome of legislation to ban smacking. What it does indicate is that Labour and the Greens do not just want to remove reasonable force provisions, they want to ban smacking, something that they denied all along.

The committee has defined the purpose of the bill as to "make better provision for children to live in a safe an secure envirement free from violence" by recommending that smacking be banned. The majority of committee members considers that smacking is violence that should be unlawful, and that banning it will ensure that children will live in a safe and secure environment. Of course this is rubbish. Furthermore, they have decided that although smacking for correction should be banned, if any force is used to prevent a child from engaging in criminal activity, that is OK.

Now a threat of assault is a criminal activity. So if a kid threatens to hit his parents or raises his fist to do so, a parent can strike back within the law, as long as it is not correction, under this recommendation.

Yet, despite concerns from lobbyists, who seem to think the select committee has recommended repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, the real test is next year when there will be a vote on Chester Borrow's supplementary order paper which will allow parents who lightly smack their children to be protected from prosecution.

Which is closer to my position on the bill.


Anonymous said...

I've got an idea...

Lets modify the Bill so that only those who cannot tell the difference between force and violence cannot smack.

then only the proponents of the bill will be banned.

Sue Bradfords inability to conceive of any form of physical correction other than a whack to the head is particularly disturbing. All she ever talks about when discussing discipline is a bashing, or whipping or beating or whack to the head or some such. It's little wonder that someone displaying such an obvious predilection to extreme abuse is concerned about abuse. But the rest of us can tell the difference.

I just reckon she must have been whacked around the head too many times as a small child...

Anonymous said...

great idea anonymous!

One other problem is I don't think they really will be able to enforce this Bill. We parents will find ways around it, if it becomes law.

Murray said...

Will making smacking illegal cut into David Benson-Popes leisure activities?

Dave said...

Well, after the latest revelatins on the investigate magazine blog.. not a chance!!!!

Anonymous said...

In my submission to the committee I made reference to the fact that I thought that this wasn't about smacking at all but an idealogically driven position.

I stand by that and think that Sue Bradford and her ilk have behaved unethically and without integrity in the way she/them have camoflaged their true intentions from the public.
transparent and honest - NOT.