L

Anita- Parliament didn’t purposely give police discretion in prosecuting speeding – nor did it overturn a SOP that specifically criminalised light speeding. They did a very simliar thing with smacking when they passed the Domestic Violence Act. Had they included the SOP in the bill we wouldn’t have had the S59 Amendment.

“Would it be naughty for me or mummy to smack you?

He said “yes” and so I voted.

I did consider just saying “naughty for me or mummy to hit you” (yes I know, poor coversational grammar) but that would be a little leading and I’ve often noted children are much more conssitent than adults. For some reason he thinks smacking and hitting are the same thing…

I voted NO because children have the same right to live in a violence-free society as I do.

… is the ‘because’. It implies a positive connection between the condition (children’s right to live in a violence-free society) and the action (voting no). How does the action improve the condition in this case?

L

a) Parliament considers driving 52 kph along my street to be speeding and they give the Police discretion over decisions to prosecute. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

b) My vote was about what I believe, not about what Parliament believes nor about what I think of the current law. Your argument is also irrelevant.

Is it this – I will cause you pain to show you that I don’t want you to do what you just did, otherwise you might get hurt and experience pain. I reinforce my love for you by emphasing my concern for you with pain.

Or more like – i got a fright and realised i wasn’t watching you and because I got a fright and got scared i hit you so that you wouldn’t do that to me again.

We need to front up and admit that hitting a child via a smack or whatever is HITTING them. And i don’t care what the law says i will never hit my boy, even if they legislate to force me to do so.

Nope. The paragraph you refer to is in relation to flogging children in a cold, meditated, ritualistic manner. Among other detrimental effects to both parties, the application of violence in such a way simply reinforces the child’s determination to, next time, not getting caught. It just doesn’t work. If parents are unable to formulate a variety of punishments that do not involve violence then they are neither sensible nor concerned.

Reminds me of waiting outside the headmaster’s office for another “six-of-the-best” for having been caught letting down the tyres of a teacher’s car. Two days later the said car disappeared. No one was caught and no one “learned their lesson”.

Are you saying it would be ok to smack a 3 year old boy but not a 3 year old girl? Or a 3 year old but not a 7 year old?

I think a smack is a quick way of emphasising disapproval, but that doesn’t make it a moral way.

To take a less emotive example, I have a cat; I can’t reason with him, I can’t explain why he shouldn’t do things, or even what he shouldn’t do. But I have never smacked him even though it would be a quick way of emphasising disapproval and would probably have changed his behaviour. I have used a variety of other techniques to teach him what is and isn’t acceptable, and it seems to have worked.

My point, smacking may work, but that doesn’t make it either necessary or right.

I think your explanation would be called “status strain” in social movement literature.

That is that the Christian right are struggling with that fact that they used to be considered the pinnacle of moral, upright, aspirational social mores, but now that status is at risk from

a) the expanding of the definition of the moral behaviour to include previous moral pariahs – for example same sex couples; and
b) changing moral judgements that makes some of their specialness less special – for example a move away from valuing religion and Christianity; and
c) changing moral judgements that say that some of their behaviours are bad and wrong – for example saying that good Christian child discipline is wrong.

So they’ve gone from being recognised as the best of the best to seeing other people overtake them, and being told by those upstarts that they are less than perfect.

I should write more on this when I have time, not to mention PC in 25 words :)

I don’t even understand your point. As a 37 year old I have a right to live free from violence by my parents, you are arguing that if I was 7 years old I shouldn’t.

Thanks for your comment. It had crossed my mind to not bother posting back the voting paper because of the John Key National Government Inc’s statement that the referendum result was meaningless. Given that, I didn’t really want to be play any part in $9 million Monument to McCoskrie Public Onanism and thought I would save the nation the cost of my postage. Then I saw your comment and realised that my vote cancels out your vote. Excellent.

On my way back from the post office this morning I was wondering if you are ignorant, along with the hundreds of thousands of other frightened New Zealanders, of the fact that the legislation as it stands today actually permits violence against children? Did you know that it is okay to use violence against children provided that it is for the purposes of:

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

Paragraph (d) is the source of much confusion in relation to the wording of the referendum question because “good parenting” is already covered.

If you’re not ignorant of this fact, perhaps you could trouble yourself to put together some words explaining what other criteria you see as necessary to further protect the right of children to live in a violence-free society?