• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Anti-Smacking Bill in NZ

P

Prestwick

Guest
Oh come on now, this is exactly the rubbish that we have to deal with here whenever we want to do something to solve the problem.

We're not advocating "beating the **** out of them", we're talking about giving Teachers like Gay Guy the means to lets children know when they've crossed the line. Children should not even be swearing at that age and no, they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. This isn't being bitter about kids, if anything, its being bitter at the political elite who simply will not listen to the facts on the ground and refusing to do anything about it.

The kind of politicians who in the past have come up with quotes more or less exactly like "cop/teacher/whatever is a dictator" are the ones responsible for the gradual decline in discipline in schools and in young people generally.

On the contary, community figures like the police and teachers are those who come into contact with kids day to day and should have the respect of the kids because (especially in the latter) they're the ones who the kids need to equip them with the skills to actually acheive something in life.

Allow me to fill you in on a little experiment in the UK. Essentially they took about 30 young offenders ranging from 16 to 25 and put them into 1940s/50s style British National Service initial training. The training instructors were either currently serving or ex-Parachute Regiment or Royal Marine Commando professional soldiers.

The whole system of training was firm, assertive and aggressive. Those who told the instructors to "f*** off" were dealt with by calculated and targeted aggression and punishment usually things like pressure positions like being made to lean against a wall on the tips of your fingers or crouching on your toes holding something heavy on your shoulders. Other punishments would include being detained by the provost sergeant at which point the aggression and the punishments would step up a bit. Shouting in the offenders face, constant admonishment and punishment such as running on the spot with a barrell on top of you with the provost sergeant banging on the sides with his yardstick.

The whole emphasis however was to build a team as the 30 individuals were split into sections of 15. Everyone had to work together, help each other out with their kit, their presentation all the way to group tasks like the stretcher race.

The change was profound after two weeks. Increasingly, those who continued to cause trouble were sidelined by the group and even co-erced into behaving. The instructors were given respect as they had met them head on and stared them down. These instructors are exactly the kinds of people you're asking why they should immediately get respect.

After eight weeks, the programme turned out to be a success. The people who finished (about five dropped out in all) were absolutely changed people, some moved on to join the services proper while others had moved onto further education or to focus on things like youth work or entrepraneurship. They all link their change in attitudes with the "Lads Army" programme.

That is the kind of change we need. Of course authority figures need to show why they deserve respect but do not ever, ever dismiss them out of hand as they are the very people that we rely on to maintain order and produce the next generation in a modern democratic state.
 
R

redunderthebed

Guest
The instructors were given respect as they had met them head on and stared them down. . [/b]

Thats the thing prestwick there are far far far far too many poor community figures that dont deserve anything much less respect but as our hierachial system runs we must respect them according to them and get offended and shocked when we dont and then blame it on us young'uns and dont look at themselves.

Also maintaining order is too often just so the few can maintain power and control for themselves alone.
 
L

Laetca

Guest
So your solution is to just let kids run wild, without any form of control? Why don't you read Lord of the Flies :)

Or better, doing nothing about those kids, just kicking them off the school if things get out of hand, so they'll have to go to a school that isn't very good (where, if they keep up their behaviour, they will get kicked out again), or so they'll not get any education at all, so these kids can grow up to adults that can't find decent jobs because of their lack of schooling, and are bittered because of this, and usually don't have a big income.
These people either bring up their kids in strict way so they'll be disciplined and do better at school, making sure they do better then they used to, or they won't give a **** about what their kids do, who show even worse behaviour, and finally end up killing a 60 year old man on a bus because he told them to calm down and don't shout so loud on public transport.

Like Pete said before, you can't explain to a child that you can't afford a certain toy at that moment. Equally, you can't explain to a 10 year old that if they don't behave or respect their teachers, and if they disrupt classes their chances of a proper education are small, which will very possibly ruin their entire future.

You don't explain a dog how not to crap in the house, you train it not to do so, because they don't understand wha

So your solution is to just let kids run wild, without any form of control? Why don't you read Lord of the Flies :)
I believe that nowadays there are enough means of controlling the educating/police system to make sure individuals don't abuse it.

Maybe you think the best way to handle things is doing nothing about those kids, just kicking them off the school if things get out of hand, so they'll have to go to a school that isn't very good (where, if they keep up their behaviour, they will get kicked out again), or so they'll not get any education at all, so these kids can grow up to adults that can't find decent jobs because of their lack of schooling, and are bittered because of this, and usually don't have a big income.
These people either bring up their kids in strict way so they'll be disciplined and do better at school, making sure they do better then they used to, or they won't give a **** about what their kids do, who show even worse behaviour, and finally end up killing a 60 year old man on a bus because he told them to calm down and don't shout so loud on public transport.

Like Pete said before, you can't explain to a child that you can't afford a certain toy at that moment. Equally, you can't explain to a 10 year old that if they don't behave or respect their teachers, and if they disrupt classes their chances of a proper education are small, which will very possibly ruin their entire future.

You have to show them by means of something they can understand.
 
P

Prestwick

Guest
You know how they deal with kids in Spain/Belgium, Red?

They tie them to catuses...
 
C

C A Iversen

Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
- 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.


[/b][/quote]

The angry youth. Twisting others words to suit a childish agenda. You were probably very drunk when you posted the above drivel. Your "intelligent argument" is almost a feast of foolishness and I'm not sure where to start.

1. Where did Prestwick infer that children should have the "sh*t beaten out of them" or that they should be sent to jail?

2. Who are you to decide that he is to be labelled a "right winger"?

3. How do you know that the perspective of adults who would like corporal punishment to still be a last resort tool "are just bitter that kids will be assertive and wont tolerate s**t from adults as much and that attitudes have change"?

4. Your point "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". Why should authority figures as you call them, have to gain respect from youth or adult? Surely they are entitled to the respect that the position they are in deserves, by merit of having earned their position? Towards the end of the above point you state, "they way it should be", which I take to mean "the way it should be", by that do you mean to say that YOU can speak for society in general on how respect is to be meted out and distributed?

5. Your last statement. Bizarre and childish a rant that it is, I'll address it anyway. That's courtesy, of which you no doubt have some vague understanding. It reads, "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". I take it that you are saying that if a societal authority figure demands his natural right to be respected as a person and for the position that they hold, they should be told to "f**k off". Why? I presuming that the authority figure is not being treated with standard human respect and is demanding that as his/her right? Why is that wrong? You do claim that youths should be treated with respect as of right. Why not the authority figure?

6. Why did you choose to use offensive slang (impolite on a forum at least) in using the term "s**t", then choose to obscure it later? This seems hand in hand with many grammatical errors you also made, along with spelling errors and unusually bad punctuation. Hey, my post is undoubtably not perfect either, but at least try to look like you hold your views in enough esteem to actually type them with some dignity. Combined with the time you typed it, I believe that you were having a drunken rant. It's ok to be grown up and admit that, but will you?

Finally, I have to say that in my own personal view, you hold unrealistic views and have a childish vitriol in the manner which you post at times. You seem to me to be an individual with an inability to see that you are not always right, which is a part of growing up that we all must learn from.

I think you need to find your parents or care-giver, if you are under some kind of hospitalisation, have a big hug and get them to wrap you back up in the lovely cotton wool and blinkers that you've undoubtably been viewing the world from.
 
D

dalamin

Guest
The main question is can children be 'controlled' without resorting to physical chastisement.
In the home I think they can and would support any anti-smacking legislation.
However in schools there is a problem with many children being bullied or living in fear of being bullied.
Sadly none of the anti-smacking lobby have come up with an effective way of dealing with bullying.
 
C

C A Iversen

Guest
The main question you ask puts 'controlled' in a context which seems to infer that it's a bad thing. There are elements of control which are good you know. Like self-control and having control of one's living conditions and environment.

No one is suggesting "let's repress the kids". That's completely laughable. Children and young adults have been spiralling out of any sort of domestic or social control for a long time. As have many parents. I think there is a massive feeling of "you can't do this to me" and "I can do what I want" going through the upbringing of children today. This is not a blanket statement as some children are being bought up with great degrees of respect for both themselves and others. It's just that different things work for different circumstances.

If your child is 4-5 years old and reaches for the element on your oven or heater and is about to burn themselves, you should say, "Hey (name here), this can hurt you, stay back a little bit, daddy doesn't touch. It could hurt you bad". You shouldn't smack at that point. Kid's being kids, the little one will be wondering whats so bad about that attractive bright light and will try again. The parent should explain again, try different terms and try and get the message through. The kid may try again though and again. Then again and again. Each time the parent must try something new to get the message across. After all we don't want the kid to get massively painful burns, do we? Then finally if the child has continued to try and the parent has said and done everything possible to stop them, the parent should let them put their hand on the element when the parent has finally turned to grab some ingredients out of the cupboard. At least that's an anti-smacking person's view.

After that last possible explanation, I believe that a small tap on the hand and then an explanation that "this little owwie that you just got would be much, much bigger from that thing you want to touch". Then further the explanation, "Daddy/Mummy didn't want to do that to your hand, but you must listen or the thing will hurt you very bad. If you try again we will have to make that little tap a little bit harder and closer to what that thing will do".

I wonder how many of you anti-smackers understand the daily battle to teach children with out smacking them that responsible parents toil through? Responsible parents only use it as a last ditch response and if done with love for your child is much more effective than continual verbal explanations. These explanations should be used first as sometimes a child will learn from those alone.

I have not had to smack my child and don't plan to. If I run into a situation where I and my wife have tried every practical thing otherwise, then we will have to do it to protect our child. Not out of some sick sadistic pleasure, out of the fact that she is more precious to me than anything that exists and I want to ensure she lives safely and can learn from situations without having to experience greater and more painful harms than a smaller tap on the hand or bottom would ever do.

Looking at the attitude and decay of society today and it seems to me it's mostly caused by liberal minorities who control a more issue comprehending majority.
 
S

shtove

Guest
I'm a smackhead.

Small family get together weekend before last. Four fathers present with children - three of them were young "please obey me" types, under the eagle-eye glare of their by-the-book wives.

The children of the pro-smack father and mother were brilliant - polite, humorous, confident. Couldn't wish for more.

The children of the anti-smackers went around kicking ankles, chucking pointy toys, screaming, and then did a runner from the restaurant and had to be herded in from the road by the restaurant staff.

Some murmuring about how it's "not right", but the mothers are convinced that physical discipline is damaging to their babies - and so their babies remain babies.

Judgment should come from the family, and I suppose we have to question the division of authority between father and mother. It probably has a lot to do with the fact that both have to go out and earn a living to pay for ridiculous housing and education costs. Tricky subject.

Anyway, my general view is that some people are better parents than others, but it seems that weak parents are enjoying too much approval. And getting the state involved in intimate matters is to invite disaster. Tell them to **** off.
 
G

Gay-Guy

Guest
I absolutely deplore child abuse and would not hesitate to be violent towards a child killer given the chance...I have read the news time and again in NZ on how another child was killed and have actually wished I were in prison to deal to the killer. Children are often defenceless against the power of an adult and to kill a human at such a young age is unforgivable. To our shame here in NZ we have a VERY BIG problem with child abuse.

However in saying that children are defenceless I am also not naive....they may be defenceless but they are not innocent. Children are at the age where egocentric behaviour is at its highest. Almost everything they do at a young age is solely for their benefit.

This is not just to be seen amongst humans. Right across the animal kingdom there is a strong instinct to survive, to do what is neccesary, to get further ahead and to grow.

Unfotunately as a result of this primal behaviour a young childs who is trying to have his/hers needs met in the world will think very little on how that may affect others the harm that can be done.

An adult version of this behaviour of self interest coming before others wellbeing could be epitomised in its fullness in characters like...Hitler....but that is going too far off the topic.

Children will push the boundaries as far as they can....that is something that is intrinsically built into a human being...the need to self actualise.

Children will stop when they no longer feel the need to go any further or the boundary is too much for them to resist.

Children all develop differently and at different rates. Some children decide they can stop inappropriate behaviour of their own will.....others stop through bribes...others stop through persuasion.

Unfotunately there are those who do not stop thoer inappropriate behaviour with these methods.

When that situation arises where these children will not behave appropriately despite the discussions, reasonings, bribing, etc.....that is when physical force becomes the only resort left.

The Anti-Smacking lobby is rightly trying to stop child abuse. Good on them! I am so dead against child abuse as I am sure every here is...it is despicable.

However by disabling the right to "smack" and to label it as abuse is to disable a very effective method and quite simply the "final" method when everything else has failed.

Imagine disabling the Police from using force to apprehend or shoot dead a killer who is shooting up a high school because someone complained that Police were too abusive with force when dealing with criminals.

It is already now in NZ illegal if you tell a child who is causing chaos in the classroom to move their desk to the corner...this is seen as "exclusion" and damaging to the childs self esteem so is classed as ABUSE! In NZ a child who punches kids in the playground everyday is not allowed to be fully removed from the playground as detentions cannot exceed 20 minutes due to fear of the child being psychologically damaged. It is illegal to touch a child in NZ schools...so if you restrain a child from attacking another or if you assist the injured child to the sickbay or if you block a blow aimed at you from the violent child you are in danger of bring sued and sacked. Children can swear at you at school but if you swear back you will be sacked.They may steal from you, pop your tyres, diss you in front of their peers,defame you on Bebo, etc etc but a teacher must act within the rules and take it in their stride and attempt to teach them regardless.

NZ has people in power who abuse children...this I acknowledge...but as a result NZ has created laws that depower the majority who don't abuse and have left everything open to descend into chaos.

Where ever there are rules there will be those who push them and those who enforce them but if we disempower the enforcers then we have the descent into the abyss and ultimate self destruction.

Anti-Smacking lobby needs to think about what they are doing and realising dropping an A-Bomb may possibly take out their intended target but it will also take out everyone else...and then they will need to clean up the mess later.

Planning and consultation not rash legislation will save NZ. Especially when 80% of the country are saying no to a bill being passed.
 
D

dalamin

Guest
The school and home are two very different places.
Parents should be able to control their children without resorting to smacking.
In secondary schools there is a problem because there is an increase in bad behaviour and the ones behaving badly have realised that there isn't a lot the teachers can do about it. And so these kids get on a 'high' and perceive themselves as untouchable. These kids cause immense problems for the rest of the class.
To 'look after' the rest of the class I believe that as a last resort some form of physical punishment is necessary.

It would be interesting to know if the opinions expressed on this thread are based on personal experience of either giving or getting corporal punishment?
 
L

Laetca

Guest
So according to you dalamer, parents shouldn't be allowed to smack their kids, but teachers should be allowed to smack a pupil that is misbehaving?

How does that make sense to you?

By the time the kid is in secondary school it doesn't need more primitive ways of setting boundaries, or is that just my mistake?
 
D

dalamin

Guest
So according to you dalamer, parents shouldn't be allowed to smack their kids, but teachers should be allowed to smack a pupil that is misbehaving?

How does that make sense to you?

By the time the kid is in secondary school it doesn't need more primitive ways of setting boundaries, or is that just my mistake?
[/b]

There is a difference between physical punishment in school and physical punishment in the home.
Corporal punishment in school would be regulated and noted.
In the home it is not and the danger is that some parents would overstep the mark.
 
L

Laetca

Guest
Because of course there is no such thing as paternal/maternal love, and all parents have loose hands when it comes to their own children, and beat the crap out of them for their own amusement.

Aren't you over-generalising a bitt oo much when it comes to the parents? What if the teacher is a sadist?
 
G

Gay-Guy

Guest
Because of course there is no such thing as paternal/maternal love, and all parents have loose hands when it comes to their own children, and beat the crap out of them for their own amusement.

Aren't you over-generalising a bitt oo much when it comes to the parents? What if the teacher is a sadist? [/b]

If a teacher is sadistic they will often get caught out as it is very hard to do things privately in the school environment (though there are always exceptions). The home environment is a whole lot easier to overstep the mark due to its private nature.

I think the Anti-smacking lobby are simply trying to get some sort of enforcement happening on abusive parents. However what they should be passing is an Anti-Abuse bill and now an Anti-smacking bill.

Smacking in itself is not abuse. It is the way kids are being smacked...there are no guidelines in our laws so the anti-smacking lobbyists overstepped the mark and blanketed everything.

Already non contact forms of punishment are banned from schools (exclusion into a corner/more than 20 mins detention). What happens if these are banned from parenting? What happens when being sent to the bedroom or no TV is seen as abuse and is declared illegal?

Who is going to parent these children when the power to parent them gets diminished more and more?

Basically what should have happened in NZ is that they should have created guidlines for physical discipline in the homes and clearly stated what overstepping the mark is. If they have it in NSW then why can't they do it here?

I see this scenario in schools everyday. The people at the top want us to control our class. Some kids continue to play up despite everything in the system being given to them (detentions, home phone calls, etc). When everything within the current laws has been tried and quite clearly failed the people at the top revert back to the problem being a ground level problem...."the teacher is not capable of controlling this child it is the teacher's fault". I fear this will be the case with children who have become total renegades at home....they will cause havoc in society and when it all falls apart the parents or the schools will be the one to blame.

Let parents decide how they want to bring up their kids. Society can pretty much tell what is discipline and what is abuse. If we start making blanket laws just to address one aspect we are starting to enslave society. What is gonna happen next?
 
S

sambãd5

Guest
Already non contact forms of punishment are banned from schools (exclusion into a corner/more than 20 mins detention). What happens if these are banned from parenting? What happens when being sent to the bedroom or no TV is seen as abuse and is declared illegal? [/b]

c-mon, give the dog a bone for gods sake. i can guarentee you that that wont happen.





Smacking in itself is not abuse. It is the way kids are being smacked...there are no guidelines in our laws so the anti-smacking lobbyists overstepped the mark and blanketed everything.
[/b]



thats the underlining point. follow nsw. explain what it is.



the other one i loved pro-smackers is....



blaming "Bad parenting"



i swear, if you use bad parenting in your rant, then you must be thick as pig ****. surely. THE ENTIRE DEBATE OF THIS IS TO DO WITH, IM NOT LETTING YOU GOVERNMENTAL PIGS TELL ME HOW TO RAISE MY KIDS!!!11!!



the fact is parents NEED to be told how. i can guarentee you, that you ask a parent, even gay-guy whos a new father, that parenting isnt easy, and at least 70% of the time you simply have no idea how. i cant say that there should be laws telling you how to raise your kids, but its obvoius that the govenment needs to step in and teach basic compolsory skills. you could say, teach it at schools, but theres too much of a problem with attendance for it - more so for males im guessing. there should be mandatory classes for expecting familys, much like jury duty, forcing you to take classes on basic parenting skills. explaining how to feed, entertain, transport, teach, excercise, socialise and most improtantly now, dicipline you kid. im sure there are classes out there for this. but clearly not where they are needed, and im sure you might even have to pay for it.



it is a step in the right direction, however, its a step foward and a step left. kids do need pretecting. more than just physically too.



what also needs to happen is children getting prossecuted for crimes. out of school police cant drop them off at home, or even a small fine. whats happening with tagging right now is excellent. one of the best things ive seen to do with parenting in a long time. they get fined, and made to clean it up, along with litter etc. if a kid kicks a car door in, make the family pay for it, (because the kid is 14 and doesnt have a job before that debate starts) and then punish them. its gonna cost (you right wingers will love this" a hell of a lot of tax payers money to get these guys through the courts, but surely its worth it. surely.
 
G

Gay-Guy

Guest
The problem with getting the family to pay for it is that some kids don't care becaus it is not they who are paying for it personally....this is a bit like how parents get prosecuted if a child truants. Some children are quite happy for their parents or caregivers to suffer for their sake....some are quite happy for their parents or guardians to simply go to hell as long as they can get their way. Once uopn a time a child thought twice about social crime because they were afraid of the hiding they would get when the police took them home. Nowadays kids don't care because they know they can ring the police and claim child "abuse" and the parents will be arrested. There has to be a way to make children pay the price personally when they cross the line in society.
 
C

C A Iversen

Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
Already non contact forms of punishment are banned from schools (exclusion into a corner/more than 20 mins detention). What happens if these are banned from parenting? What happens when being sent to the bedroom or no TV is seen as abuse and is declared illegal? [/b]

c-mon, give the dog a bone for gods sake. i can guarentee you that that wont happen.





Smacking in itself is not abuse. It is the way kids are being smacked...there are no guidelines in our laws so the anti-smacking lobbyists overstepped the mark and blanketed everything.
[/b]



thats the underlining point. follow nsw. explain what it is.



the other one i loved pro-smackers is....



blaming "Bad parenting"



i swear, if you use bad parenting in your rant, then you must be thick as pig ****. surely. THE ENTIRE DEBATE OF THIS IS TO DO WITH, IM NOT LETTING YOU GOVERNMENTAL PIGS TELL ME HOW TO RAISE MY KIDS!!!11!!



the fact is parents NEED to be told how. i can guarentee you, that you ask a parent, even gay-guy whos a new father, that parenting isnt easy, and at least 70% of the time you simply have no idea how. i cant say that there should be laws telling you how to raise your kids, but its obvoius that the govenment needs to step in and teach basic compolsory skills. you could say, teach it at schools, but theres too much of a problem with attendance for it - more so for males im guessing. there should be mandatory classes for expecting familys, much like jury duty, forcing you to take classes on basic parenting skills. explaining how to feed, entertain, transport, teach, excercise, socialise and most improtantly now, dicipline you kid. im sure there are classes out there for this. but clearly not where they are needed, and im sure you might even have to pay for it.



it is a step in the right direction, however, its a step foward and a step left. kids do need pretecting. more than just physically too.



what also needs to happen is children getting prossecuted for crimes. out of school police cant drop them off at home, or even a small fine. whats happening with tagging right now is excellent. one of the best things ive seen to do with parenting in a long time. they get fined, and made to clean it up, along with litter etc. if a kid kicks a car door in, make the family pay for it, (because the kid is 14 and doesnt have a job before that debate starts) and then punish them. its gonna cost (you right wingers will love this" a hell of a lot of tax payers money to get these guys through the courts, but surely its worth it. surely.



[/b][/quote]

I can tell from your tone and generalised rant, that there's no arguing with you Sambad. On this issue, you have your eye-patch on and a view so complete and un-erring that no matter what anyone says, you'll be right. In your own mind.

No one needs your one-man "guarantees" that something will or won't happen. You can't guarantee anything.

The kind of polarised angry (sounding) ranting you have displayed, has held up for one and all, your qualifications in temperament and abilities of sound, calm, reasoned debate. I can imagine the results when transferred to parenting skills. Your extreme "my opinion is correct and law" sound will transfer and amplify back at you. Mind you, unlike yourself I have the sense to say that the above is just my opinion and not necessarily law.

"c-mon, give the dog a bone for gods sake. i can guarentee you that that wont happen."

LOL. You have no idea. New thinking from some parenting "experts" is already saying that "time-out" is at times "neglectful and unconstructive".

To my mind your post portrays you as one of the worst kind of knowledgable, child-less experts in a cheap $10 suit to go with it.

If you attack other peoples arguments disrespectfully on serious issues, this is just the kind of response you can expect.
 
G

Gay-Guy

Guest
The things that happen today with parenting were once seen as inconceivable. So in that respect to say that something will never happen is to ignore history.

In the days of the strap and the cane the softer punishments of being sent to a corner would have been laughed about if it were suggested that one day it would be banned. Now it has been banned. Detention after school used to be commonplace but now in schools younger than secondary school it has been banned. Whole lunchtime detention has been banned and restricted to 20 minutes maximum. A lot of these punishments would have been laughed at incredulously if it were suggested that they would be one day banned....but now they are.

In our school if you hit a teacher IT IS NOT an automatic expulsion. There is a long process involving teachers, parents, the board of trustees, police, etc. Finally they child is "stood down" which means they
ARE NOT expelled but they are to stay home for no longer than 3 weeks. If it were suggested that the hitting of a teacher would not result in automatic suspension many years ago it ouwld have been treated as "will never happen".....but now it does.

I could go on and on about how schooling consequences have deteriorated in NZ and how consequences at home have also deteriorated. Perhaps it would be fair to say that our future as a society may also be in jeopardy?

Certain politicians need to look at how "Tomorrows Schools" policies of no more corporal punishment introduced in the late 80's has made schools a place of unprecedented unruly behaviour. Why they think that what isn't working in schools should work in homes just shows they are more interested in anything but solving the problem.

When corporal punishment was introduced many teachers resigned immediately. Over the next few years many new teachers quit teaching. Ever since that time many adults do not look at teaching as a viable career option.

What we have now in NZ is many schools having to employ immigrant teachers due to the native NZ born teacher becoming rarer.

Sue Bradford (the politician who initiated this bill) did not smack her kids and brought them up very well as they are nice people. However her experience of being a parent does not reflect the average parent in NZ. Sue Bradford and her family grew up in activism...march after march...protest after protest....arrest after arrest. A family that is involved this intently in a cause does not have time for the usual family infighting that the average family experience because they are too busy fighting others outside the family. A family that is under siege from the otuside actually draws closer together to survive. This is the not average experience of a NZ family. Sue Bradford needs to realise WHAT IS the average experience of the NZ family....and more importantly...what are the extremes of the NZ family. It is from this viewpoint that she needed to draft her original proposal.
 
S

sambãd5

Guest
LOL. You have no idea. New thinking from some parenting "experts" is already saying that "time-out" is at times "neglectful and unconstructive".
[/b]

you got me on that one. but i can only assume that that is only a minority of people who think that, surely? and just out of sheer cuiosity, what do they offer?



sorry if i sounded pushy or anything, but i just shudder when the way things are presented can mean a totally diffrent thing that what it really is. even worse is what bradford did, and made a good thing bad, which then got made even worse.



parents do need limits. you cant argue with that. what these limits are you can. i personally think, like ive said before, open handed 'smack' without moving your sholder - ie. only elbow movement. this limits how hard you can hit, and angle. you cant give a kid a full on hit - which is why this bill has been drafted in the first place.



and i completely agree with gg on most things. hes the type of person you need to be talking to. islander teacher in a islander comunity. harsher punishments need to be put on kids. but thats been preached for ever. but now - things have been more serious. you cant kick kids out of school, without knowing whats going to happen with them. sure, they need to leave that school, but being swapped between 5-6 schools isnt helping anyone. the moment that kind of violence happens in a school, you cant pass the buck onto the next school. once the incodent occors, harsh punishment and then be taken to another school, but with many visits by social workers, police and a history and analysis of the pupil given to the next school.



i do think that parents should be paying for their childs fines though. sure you cant cripple the family, but there needs to be some sort of responsibility by the parents. its not fair on the parents by any means, but they are, obviously by this debate, the ones that need to step up to the plate.
 
G

Gay-Guy

Guest
i do think that parents should be paying for their childs fines though. sure you cant cripple the family, but there needs to be some sort of responsibility by the parents. its not fair on the parents by any means, but they are, obviously by this debate, the ones that need to step up to the plate.
[/b]

What this is doing is shifting the responsibility on the parent to fix up the kid but chances are that a kid in this state won't think too highly of their parents or of the parents consequences. With kids who are on the edge it may need something a bit more radical than a telling off and no TV, grounded, stay in your room for discipline. Parents are stepping up but they can only do so much. They will have even less power now with the Anti-smacking bill.
 

Latest posts

Top