Anti-Smacking Bill in NZ

[Gay-Guy]

It seems this issue in NZ is still debated after the bill has already been passed. My girlfriend listens to talkback alot and they always seem to bring this up every few days.

Anyway the common themes that come up in this debate are:

Anti-Smacking: Children need to be protected. If it is against the law to use violence towards another adult it should be against the law to do it to children.

Pro-Smacking: Smacking is done with control and is the only way that young children learn certain lessons.

I have to be honest and say I support the Pro-Smacking side. I see flaws in the arguments of the Anti smacking lobbyists.

Flaw One: Humanity WILL push the boundaries to the limits. As long as people have freedom of choice they will pretty much do what they want to do. People will not always choose the reasonable choice. Often people will choose what is beneficial for them personally. This is no different for a child and some would say because they are not a advanced cognitively as adults then they will often choose very selfishly. Scientific research shows that children have not yet developed a sense of global periphery and are VERY egocentric. Therefore trying to reason with a child when it comes to discipline will not work when a child realises that there are NO PHYSICAL boundaries a parent can do to make them behave.....the boundaries have been reduced to VERBAL persuasion.

Flaw Two: To suugest that children should be treated with the same rules as adults are regarding violence can only work if the children are given the same consequences as the adults. If it is against the law for a parent to smack a child because adults cannot smack adults....then it should be against the law for children to smack children or other adults......therefore they should suffer the same consequence of arrest and imprisonment. However it is then that Anti-Smacking supporters will say that children should be given different rules when it comes to smacking each other or smacking adults!!!

Flaw Three: Anti-Smacking lobbyists are pacifists in the sense that they are ultimately anti-violence. Yet violence as a last resort and the threat of violence is the only way society or on a bigger stage the world can be kept in order. You need violence to end violence. If the Allies were not violent in the way they dealt with Hitler then the whole world would be Nazis today. If the Americans were not violent when Sadaam invaded Kuwait then he would surely have Saudi Arabia as well by now. To abolish the use of violence in all of its forms in the hope that humanity will rise to simply "discussing" or "reasoning" their differences. People have strong wills and will often do ANYTHING to get what they want...which means the final ultimate form of confrontation ala violence will be used. In this case only violence will stop acts of violence.

Therefore I am not so much anti-violence as I believe the abolition of violence in all its forms is wrong. I am into the correct usage of violence in all areas of life. As a result I believe for it to be legislated on how I discipline my child especially in the area of smacking is very wrong and each parent should be allowed the freedom to make a choice whether they should smack in every situtation as long as it does not go into abuse.

What NZ should have is not an anti-smacking bill but and Anti-Abusive law that pulls up parents who overstep the mark.

 

[C A Iversen]

I'm not going to argue with a damn thing there. The parents who are the problem won't be changed by that law. They'll still belt hell out of their kids. It's the people who are only trying to help their kids who have stopped.

Look at discipline 50 years ago. Wasn't perfect, but a lot of kids toed the line.

 

[Steve-o]

We had a similar debate in my psychology class the other day, as this is also a very topical issue that the moment. It was more about violence than corporal punishment, but I did a bit of educational psychology last year so I can adapt it a bit.



One thing that helps me look at an issue like this is to break things down so I can have a more abstract view on things.



Definition of violence according to dictionary.com:



to punish or penalize in order to train and control; correct; chastise.



After reading these definitions you get the general idea that violence is untamed, insensitive and just plain bad. Definitions of discipline are mainly about punishing, training and conditioning to conform to set rules.

Corporal punishment/smacking is a combination of both, with the use of controlled violence with the objective of conditioning.



From debating and studying this I've picked up on the main opinions of what the anti-smacking and pro-smacking say about this issue:



That's what the anti-smacking lobbyists don't like. That corporal punishment relies on the judgement, understanding and motives of the individual applying it. Very understandable point. Here in SA, not too long ago, a principal of a rural school beat a 18 year old student to death with a stick for coming late to school. The lobbyist point to this as damning proof that corporal punishment is dangerous. They also argue that you can't use violence to punish violence, as it confuses the child and affects emotional development.



Many pro-smacking people argue that violence is part of human nature. History supports this, as every culture and/or civilization in the world had some form of violent conflict. Lets put it down like it is, violence gets results for good or bad. Practicing a controlled violence (smacking) can be highly effective. Civilization has rules and conditioning people to adhere to these rules is very important for humanity and our future development. Like GG pointed out, many argue that any living beings (people and animals) need set rules to live by to insure the safety of themselves and others around them. Using smacking with other forms of punishment is the best way to discipline a kid, as it focuses on the child holistically. Ignoring something that defies us as humans is unhealthy for proper growth.





After considering both sides views I'd have to say I'm for smacking. I got smacked as a child, so did all my friends, and we turn out OK. That is dependent on the parents though. My parents verbalised the rules and enforced with many things including smacking.

The 1st and most important thing is that the child must understand what he/she is doing wrong. So he/she has to be old enough to understand this, verbal or non-verbal. If I remember correctly the advised age to start disciplining is around 18 months old, anything before that is useless as the childs brain hasn't formed enough to grasped the concept of rules.

I don't have a kid so, I've might of missed some things as I've studied it as a subject, especially the more emotional side of smacking.

 

[sambãd5]

imo, both concepts are good, so long, as what steve-o said, the child knows what he or she has done wrong and understands whats going on. however im a "anti-smacker" myself, however i dont like the term.

what has really ****** me off, and the reason why i cant stand national, labour, the media, all people involved in this is the fact that it ISNT A ANTI-SMACKING LAW!!! OMFG ITS NOT???!?!?!? you say. it does say that as long as you have good reason, (which reason it states) and you dont actually hurt the child as such, then you can. it is a law that is one with good intent, but one of the worst written since the treaty of waitangi - if not worse. (in terms of quallity of text, not importance)

the fact was, after the (kahu?) twins died, it made there to be enough reason to change the law to help kids from getting killed. the FACT was that adults belived that using wooden spoons, hose pipes, bars, spatulas, wooden planks, sticks, pots, pans, kitchen sinks etc were suitable tools to dicipline a child. you might think wooden spoon - pla nothing. but you can leave bruses, and welts after using one. you had kids who came to school, with limps, who couldnt sit down because of welts on the ass. who had cuts and bruses up and down their legs. thats simply not acceptable. and sure as a white, semi-well off family, you might think, yeah a tap is fine, but maori and polynesian not well off familys do do this.

i think only NSW, is the only state/country in the world that defines what reasonable force is in terms of diciplining your child. and imo the definition should be, "a open handed light force that will not leave a mark, or cause medium to long term harm to the child" you cant hit a child hard, of even softy most of the time, because you are a fully growen adult, and they are a small child. they simply arnt capable of having the same intake of force than a adult.

then you have the other things we like to call facts. in victorian times etc, if you stole you got hands, fingers etc cut off for theft and crime, torture was a dicipline tool. through human evolution we have learnt that there is more effective tools to stop crime. instead of making people who stole bread amputees, we find out why they are stealing bread. now people will go, dont give me this prevention shite - how can you stop it? the fact is, you need to think long term. not 5 min before it happens. you need to think more months and years. you need to give people no reason to commit crime.

ok but going off topic a bit sure - but the principal of physical dicipline stays the same. we have learnt that there is more ways then smacking.

the other FACT is that in nz, and i know ive mentioned this before in another thread, but in new zealand, when physical punishment was ambollished from schools, there has been no single bigger rise in grades, attendance, morale, and general misconduct.



the one thing i fear about this thread is that it will get taken over by immaturity. alot of peoples opinions are on wheither you have been smacked yourselves, and i didnt. and i turned out fine too, a bit orange, but fine. but you cant just say that that is why its ok. because there is a family violence problem in nz. we have kids getting killed. its not just turning out better as a adult. its about not being a violent kid. or even making it to adult hood. it is a problem.

so my opinion is - personally, my choice is not to smack my kids. however, so long as you dont actually harm your child, then thats your choice.
my opinon on the bill. its utter dribble. its poorly written. it got incorrect media coverage. its a joke. go back re-write it. identify when to smack more clearly. identify what a smack is. and give it out to the media, dont let the media take hold of it like it has. and it shouldnt come accross how to raise your children, but there should be laws to look after the kids.

the kids are alright. the adults arnt.

 

[Gay-Guy]

my opinon on the bill. its utter dribble. its poorly written. it got incorrect media coverage. its a joke. go back re-write it. identify when to smack more clearly. identify what a smack is. and give it out to the media, dont let the media take hold of it like it has. and it shouldnt come accross how to raise your children, but there should be laws to look after the kids. [/b]

Totally agree...the bill was hastily written and the media really turned it into a real crazy circus.

I think the NZ Govt should have had more consultation before passing this bill as it seemed to be a reaction to what is happening in NZ regarding kids getting killed. Especially considering the public were not ready for it and the polls overwhelimingly pointed to people being agauinst it being passed.

NZ has a very big problem with child abuse. The reasons for this are wide and so varied ranging from social to personal issues and the answer to solving it let alone getting the problem reasonably fixed obviously won't happen overnight.

We here in NZ need the same clear cut policy as sambad pointed out that they have in NSW. The intention of the bill is good...but the way it was worded and the application of it is very vague and leaves too much open for the media to play with and stir up the public. It almost sounds like another treaty document stuff up indeed....so good points there sambad.

Finally as a teacher I have seen how schools have changed dramatically since they ruled out corporal punishment. It is very difficult to be a teacher in NZ...especially in the lower decile areas as the kids behaviour has dramatically dropped since 1990. Kids will be kids...that hasn't changed for decades...however the things that used to keep them in place has changed...therefore the kids have adapted their boundaries accordingly. My fear is that kids at home will now start to stretch their boundaries even further...particularly in the poorer Maori/Pacific suburbs. Just thinking about it makes me wonder if there will be any hope for schooling with teachers opting out for other careers in their droves.

 

[Macsen]

Phew, I thought for a minute that this was another ELV.

 

[goranski]

this smacks of liberalism

 

[Caledfwlch]

GG, teachers in Singapore are also facing the same problem. Its like the parents and students scare the teachers.

 

[Gay-Guy]

GG, teachers in Singapore are also facing the same problem. Its like the parents and students scare the teachers. [/b]

Yep...it seems to be a problem now in countries that you woud think some time ago had no problems. I have a friend that went to Dubai to teach and he says the kids give the teachers hell because they are rich and have contacts and lawyers who would sue the pants off any school or teacher who tried to "discipline" them.

I have found success as a teacher here in NZ based on having the foundation of looking scary...nothing more nothing less. The threat of violence that the kids see in me leads them to behave and think twice about having me on. This is tragic if that is the only way kids choose to give a teacher initial respect...if a teacher doesn't look like they spent some years in prison or played rugby league then kids try pushing their luck....because the only thing they have to fear in the school system is maybe a phone call to their parents.

I think that responsible parents will smack their children with restraint even if they are very angry at them. This bill and the way it is written threatens parents exercising that right and leaves parents with the only option of trying to reason with them. The parents or guardians that are actually the abusive ones will not think twice about the law and will carry on abusing the children...nothing will stop.

What needs to change is parental attitudes and perhaps education on how to raise children. Perhaps in NZ there is not enough support for parents and the resulting frustration makes parents do things they often regret. NZ seems to be failing in the way we raise our kids and how families are supported....gee....actually we are failing with how people in general are protected.

 

[redunderthebed]

Anti-smacking is pointless............its the abuse that we really have to worry about.Whilst we should be yelling from the rooftops that smacking children isnt the best way to parent (in my experience its never being discipline its being my mum at the end of her tether and one of us (me or sister) copping it ) i think putting them in jail or arresting them is not good and would in most cases where there is no abuse do more harm.

I dont like smacking and think its double standards that parents seem to think its okay to hit your children behind closed doors but if they went to the pub and belted someone they would charged on common assault.

 

[Laetca]

It all depends how and under which circumstances you're going to smack a kid. My mother told me she got me to stop playing with buttons on electrical appliances (harmless ones like the VCR, some more dangerous ones like the oven and such) by hittin gme on the fingers every time I started messing around with them. And I don't blame her for it. It's action instant reaction and that's how you teach a two year old what not to do.

Then again, if it's just a parent getting angry and losing it's cool, or working out work issues then I think they're right in putting a ban on things.

In the end, the parents should decide personally in each situation. I don't think teachers should be allowed to smack a kid, but I think they should be taken serious when informing parens of what a child did wrong, and the parents should then punish their kids as they see fit. Spoiling your child will never do them any good.

A law like that can't be succesful in my opinion because the matter discussed is a personal, family circle subject. No law will ever be perfect for all those different families living in one country.

 

[Prestwick]

The problem is how you prove that the issue was work or anger related rather than one of the child basically misbehaving.

Any ban like this cannot hope to be successful as it punishes the majority rather than the minority who will go on to abuse their kids anyway.

Let me make this pefectly clear: you cannot reason with a five year old.

If he or she wants something at a shop, you cannot explain to him that you cannot afford it, that you have to watch the bills and that you got hit a bit harder than usual by your income tax because the child has absolutely no perception that such things exist. In a child's world, it is black and white. You either can either have it or you can't.

As for teachers, in the UK they are their own worst enemy. Teachers Unions campaigned for an end to the cane, they urged parents to speak up more for their child and they've campaigned for a raft of measures which effectively put pupils (they're not students, they come later at University) in a comfort zone. They've pushed for writing in red pen to be abolished, for curbs on negative writing and a progressive focus on changing lessons, exams and teaching methods to benefit girls.

This has essentially ended up fostering a kind of aggressive, anti-social and male chauvanist generation of boys and young men who have absolutely no respect for teachers, headmasters or even the police. Teachers in the UK at both Primary and Secondary level have lost control of their classes.

My brother in law is a Primary School teacher in Nottingham. He teaches classes at the age of 5-6. He usually gets told at least once a day to "f*** off", usually by a child but sometimes also by parents who object to him phoning to inform them about their little darling's behavior.

 

[paretrooper]

the anti smacking bill is a crock becouse some people are still going to bash there kids.
like the do not rape or kill or rob bill works now. the avarge mum/dad that gives there
kid a tap on the back of the hand for being a **** in the store is up **** creek
becouse timmy is a little bastage when shopping. but it is not going to stop a ******
smashing the **** out of his kid becouse it cries while he wants to get
****** or high with his mates and the 6mth old baby in the next room just wants a bottle
or the 5 yr old gets up couse the sounds are keeping them awake!!!

 

[Gay-Guy]

My class last year of 12-13 year olds were dead against this bill. Even though they were the ones being affected and could get really good benefits now (Maori/P.I kids in South Auckland) by not getting a hiding anymore when I asked how they were planning to bring up THEIR children without smacking they freaked out! In fact even now they dread watching their little brother smash up their new PS3 and knowing it is against the law to give them a hiding.

With the punks who do overstep the mark and abuse kids....surely there must be a way to address this without going too far....it is like we cut off the leg to fix up a broken toe.

Personally I think NZ is a real pussy country and that we have simply lost our balls and turned into weaklings when dealing with idiots. We have a great system of protecting and looking after our criminals. When i watch Motorway Patrol and Police Ten Seven on TV I see people saying to police the same things kids say to teachers at school....the same lines...the same tricks...the same bull$%^t and the same attitude.

 

[Prestwick]

Most Commonwealth nations are like that. Look at Canada for example, Scotland already has an anti-smacking bill in place as well as a "Childrens Commissioner" to represent childrens interests...

The problem is that this is all part of ultra-liberal rhetoric. Rhetoric which patronises the people who they claim to be "protecting" or "standing up for" and villifies those who disagree with them.

Shtove for example, is a mild mannered Pro European. However, the worst he will say in a debate with me on Europe is "I think you're wrong on that one to be sure, to be sure, so it is" and leave it at that.

Other, more prominent Pro-Europeans across Europe won't think twice about listing you, a person sceptical about the new European Constitution, as one of the following:

- Insane.
- Racist.
- A member of the far right.
- Anti-Semtic and yet possibly Zionist (seriously, this has happened).
- Islamiphobic.
- Ignorant.
- A person who needs to be sidelined.

Simply put, if you disagree with the agenda of the ruling elite, you're going to get hammered and nowhere will you get hammered more than if you disagree with the agenda on social and education issues. So if you think that:

- Private schools are a good idea.
- Parents should be allowed to smack (within reason).
- Pupils should be fairly challenged at school without discrimination on grounds of sex or race.
- Unruly children should be dealt with more firmly.

Then I'm sorry sir but you're a racist, anti-semitic Zionist, who is insane, probabbly a member of the BNP who should be deported YOU SICK INSANE *******! GET OUT OF MY SIGHT GAYGUY!

 

[Gay-Guy]

Most Commonwealth nations are like that. Look at Canada for example, Scotland already has an anti-smacking bill in place as well as a "Childrens Commissioner" to represent childrens interests...

The problem is that this is all part of ultra-liberal rhetoric. Rhetoric which patronises the people who they claim to be "protecting" or "standing up for" and villifies those who disagree with them.

Shtove for example, is a mild mannered Pro European. However, the worst he will say in a debate with me on Europe is "I think you're wrong on that one to be sure, to be sure, so it is" and leave it at that.

Other, more prominent Pro-Europeans across Europe won't think twice about listing you, a person sceptical about the new European Constitution, as one of the following:

- Insane.
- Racist.
- A member of the far right.
- Anti-Semtic and yet possibly Zionist (seriously, this has happened).
- Islamiphobic.
- Ignorant.
- A person who needs to be sidelined.

Simply put, if you disagree with the agenda of the ruling elite, you're going to get hammered and nowhere will you get hammered more than if you disagree with the agenda on social and education issues. So if you think that:

- Private schools are a good idea.
- Parents should be allowed to smack (within reason).
- Pupils should be fairly challenged at school without discrimination on grounds of sex or race.
- Unruly children should be dealt with more firmly.

Then I'm sorry sir but you're a racist, anti-semitic Zionist, who is insane, probabbly a member of the BNP who should be deported YOU SICK INSANE *******! GET OUT OF MY SIGHT GAYGUY! [/b]

Lol so true to a tee!

And the people who make these ridiculous rules have no idea how to make their new utopian world work properly for them.....things get worse...so they blame the people at ground level rather than accept the fact that they made a huge mistake.

For instance.....I myself when it comes to classroom discipline bend the rules with my students....I am very fair and care about them immensely...but if one of them dares to cross me...I step out of my teacher shoes and relate to them South Auckland man to South Auckland boy....this is often frowned upon by the ruling powers above as it is not school nor ministry policy for me to cross these lines and often I am reprimanded for doing so....however when some kid goes crazy in school and is out of control....who do they call?.....none other than the me, the South Auckland thug and they want me to do my South Auckland thing....I just scoff at their hypocrisy and leave them to it until I decide I want to step in.

 

[C A Iversen]

Why when the majority can see the sense do we have to have this debate. The loony far-left have done major damage in NZ and other countries with this sort of "minority playing the minority card to rule" crap.

I totally agree with Gay-Guy on this subject.

My own take is this: A lot of people hate the idea, but we try to act sooo superior as human beings, that we forget that at the end of the day we are animals (mammals) and respond to the same behavioural stimuli. We should of course rise above base and destructive instincts, but there are only so many ways that we can really respond as beings to verbal punishment.

 

[Laetca]

True.
I think all living creatures learn at infancy what they can and what they can't do by getting hurt at some point. Dogs learn how much their biting hurts by playing with their siblings (can you say siblings with dogs?) and getting bitten a few times themselves.

I think the people who passed this law either don't have children themselves, or are part of the gorup of parents that tell a teacher to f*** off when the teacher explains that their daughter/son whacked some other kid on the head with a shovel while playing in the sandbox because that kid wouldn't hand over their football. Result, there's a kid in the hospital (a shovel is a very sharp instrument in the wrong hands) and there are parents who think their little darling didn't do anything wrong, it's really the teachers fault for not paying closer attention to whatever 20 kids are doing.
So basically, bad parents. So I wouldn't leave it up to those people to decide what I can and can not do to my children.

On the supermarket thing, I often see women with two or three kids, of which one starts wining for this, and then the other for that, and then the last for something else, and kids having tantrums and kicking and screaming on a supermarket floor. They always look so ashamed, the best thing to do at such a time is just ignore whatever your kid is asking for, and if it has a hissy fit, let it have it, it will calm dopwn as soon as it realises it isn't getting it's way. But you can't do that anymore. If your child starts yelling like a madman in a public place people start judging whoever is with them in an instant. And it's hard not to give in at such a time. And once you give in, there's really no going back :s

 

[Prestwick]

I remember when I used to pull that trick at a young age and Mum would say "just you wait until I get you outside..." and thats all it would take lol

 

[redunderthebed]

- Unruly children should be dealt with more firmly.

[/b]

How? beating the **** out of them sending them to jail............i would like to know.Because right-wingers like your good self say that us children need to taught respect and discipline yada yada yada but really have no solution/idea and are just bitter that kids will be assertive and wont tolerate s**t from adults as much and that attitudes have change.I fail to see how we should immediately respect authority figures just because they are they have to earn the respect to get it they way it should be.If the cop/teacher/whatever is a dictator and demands respect they are just going to be told to f**k off and so they should.