88% of 54% want to allow children to be hit
So the NZ Public has spoken. 88% voted in the referendum to allow smacking to form part of ‘good’ parental correction.
- How often will ‘good’ parental correction be applied? Is good parental correction a daily smack?
- Who decides the frequency?
- What is a light smack?
- One person’s defintion may be very different to another’s.
Most dictionaries define a smack as being a hit.
So 88% of NZ of the 54% who voted believe in hitting children.
How soon will it be until Familiy First petition for wooden spoons to be allowed to be used for ‘loving chastisement’.
According to today’s Sunday Star Times:-
McCoskrie personally thinks it is OK for a parent to use a wooden spoon to discipline their children,
McCoskrie being one of the leaders of Family First.
McCoskrie is further quoted as saying:-
“I’ve always thought it would be better to give parents certainty and just say use your hand, and then you know exactly what the force is. At the same time, I hear mums say they prefer the wooden spoon and sometimes that has the same effect as an open-hand smack. I do have a problem with belts… we should stay right clear of that level just to avoid any doubt.”
Just how do you know what the force is? The force from a ‘gentle’ smack from a 200 pound man is likely to be very different from that of a 90 pound woman. Using a spoon would render assessing force even harder. Are spoons from hardwood good or bad? Does lacquer make a difference?
So open hands, which can be hard and wooden spoons are OK, but belts are evil.
No doubt Plunket or some other group will now be tasked with running classes on what constitutes good smacking as part of parental training.
Comments are closed.
“So 88% of NZ of the 54% who voted believe in hitting children.”
No. But nor do I believe that it should be illegal to lightly smack a child. If the law needs to define it, Chester Burrows had a good definition.
That might not be perfect, but it beats (no pun intended) the current law which makes it illegal to give a light smack for one reason (correction) but legal to give a smack of the same, and possibly greater force if it’s “reasonable” for another (prevention).
Voting against bad law wasn’t voting for smacking.
Ah, but are you representative of the majority?
“All my post did was point out that on one interpretation, a provocative one I will admit, it can be claimed that 88% of those voting approve of hitting children.”
Of course we approve of hitting kids.. 88% of us voted for exactly that, and in my case I had no interest in some “loving tap” in place of a good belt on the arse when it was needed. The semantics of taps, whops, belts, hits, smacks, beating
and thrashing interest me not because I grew out of that sort of crap 40 years ago.
And thats why Bradford’s crap came unstuck.. we are no longer living in the Sixties with all its excessive language baggage and “Make love, not war”. Old men and women harking back to their glory days when they were young, dumb and useless.
JC
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of smacking*, I’m not in favour of enacting laws which the majority of the population simply don’t agree with. It brings the law into disrepute and creates criminals out of people who would prefer to be law abiding citizens.
(* I don’t approve, but abusive smacking is adequately covered by other laws. )
Bill
Which of course is the point – Bad Law is Bad Law.
My post was drawing attention to the replacement of one ‘bad’ situation with potentially an equally flawed one. How to define a ‘good’ smack?
I have to admit though that the exultant attitude of some of the major proponents of the referendum is in itself deeply repugnant.
I’m with you on deeply repugnant.
And as for defining a good smack, I’m sure lawyers will be able to argue that one for hours at $400+ per hour. From their point of view it’s good business.
Hell, we can’t have facts ruining a perfectly good moral panic. Where’s the fun in that. Me, I’d much rather have some ignorant and dishonest spin funded by US fundamentalist pressure groups.
Well if you think that then you really need help with comprehension of the English language.
The question was clearly about whether parents should be criminalised by a smack,when administered as part of child’s upbringing.
One smack, anytime, any degree of softness or hardness and you become a criminal. Doesn’t matter that you are not caught, you are still a criminal. Go to jail.
Is that what you want for Kiwi’s. I wouldn’t think so and neither did those other 1.4 million.
Actually not the case I believe.
The old law was poor law, the so called Bradford law was poor law, I suspect any replacement will be poor law.
Also whether you wish to believe it or not many will still take this as meaning they can beat their children.
It will not stop them nor will any law.
All my post did was point out that on one interpretation, a provocative one I will admit, it can be claimed that 88% of those voting approve of hitting children. I know very well there are other interpretations, but that conclusion can be drawn if one wants to.
No, what 88% of the 54% voted for was to get the State out of parenting decisions.
Those of us with more than two functioning brain cells know perfectly well what a “light smack” is.
kg
Unfortunately that was not the question in the referendum.
Similarly, you may know what a light smack is, but the question is do all the rest?
All my post did was illustrate some of the contortions we may well now get into.
This is precisely why the amount of force acceptable should be well-defined, unlike the current law which, in theory, would allow you to break the legs of a child to prevent him from running across the road, if you could prove that said force was “reasonable” at the time (unlikely, I admit).
I do not disagree.
That makes the whole thing even more absurdist.
As I noted in my reply to Adolf, all I did was point out some facts.
Admittedly from a viewpoint calculated to raise a response, but facts they are.
With this sort of hysterical bullshit being spouted around the place it’s no wonder the nation can’t seem to get itself focused on improving its economic performance.
I used to get a whack around the arse with the back of a hearth brush and I knew at the time that it was well deserved.
Adolf
Whether you want to admit it or not a smack is a hit.
What I was pointing out was a fact. 88% of those who voted agreed with hitting children.
Another fact is that to improve the law we will now have to define what is and is not acceptable hitting.
Fact somebody will have to decide what is and is not acceptable.
None of that makes me hysterical. You are the hysteric with your over reaction.
Fact McCoskrie seems to want to hit children with wooden spoons.
All I did was point out some facts.