Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 100719	2009-06-18 08:16:00	Smacking Referendum - User Pays	Twelvevolts (5457)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
783459	2009-06-29 12:48:00	Twelvevolts you obviously missed my earlier post where I told you how a families life got turned upside-down by the fact their young boy is un-coordinated! Basically this law strips parents of their ability to discipline their children. Picture this (Honestly): You're 9 years old. You want to stay up late and watch TV (As all 9 year olds do), and not only that but you've found where your parents his the lollies in the pantry. Your father comes in, tells you nicely its bedtime and you need to hand over the sweets. Being 9 years old, and having found out from one of your school friends that adults cant do **** with this new law, you decide to tell him "No, I want to watch TV" and sit there. As a father, you cant do jack .. why? Because any type of physical contact can easily be misconstrued as physical abuse now. Lets string this out a little: Father picks up child, child starts kicking and screaming, the lollies fly everywhere in the commotion. Father pops the child in bed and closes the bedroom door walking out to clean up the lollies on the floor. Child rushes out and starts watching the TV again, sitting happily on the sofa, knowing that basically "Dad's luck has run out, if I make enough of a fuss, he's got no choice now but to let me sit here". Plausible? Under current New Zealand law, yes! I don't know about you, but I'm getting married this weekend. I would *never* lay a hand on my wife, no matter how pissed off I get (And together we've had some real doozy arguments). I plan to use the same respect for my children, save from the fact that at times some children *do* need a physical incentive to be obedient, or not be disobedient.	Chilling_Silence (9)
783460	2009-06-29 12:52:00	Just repeating what you believe doesn't make you right, Please read what you wrote there as the same applies to you. So where are all these cases of good parents suffering at the hands of this law? Exactly none so far. Even if there wasn't one would that still be a good reason for keeping a stupid law.	mikebartnz (21)
783461	2009-06-29 14:15:00	but I'm getting married this weekend. The best of luck Chill. Hope you don't need it. The luck that is.:)	mikebartnz (21)
783462	2009-06-30 05:17:00	Twelvevolts you obviously missed my earlier post where I told you how a families life got turned upside-down by the fact their young boy is un-coordinated! Basically this law strips parents of their ability to discipline their children. Picture this (Honestly): You're 9 years old. You want to stay up late and watch TV (As all 9 year olds do), and not only that but you've found where your parents his the lollies in the pantry. Your father comes in, tells you nicely its bedtime and you need to hand over the sweets. Being 9 years old, and having found out from one of your school friends that adults cant do **** with this new law, you decide to tell him "No, I want to watch TV" and sit there. As a father, you cant do jack .. why? Because any type of physical contact can easily be misconstrued as physical abuse now. Lets string this out a little: Father picks up child, child starts kicking and screaming, the lollies fly everywhere in the commotion. Father pops the child in bed and closes the bedroom door walking out to clean up the lollies on the floor. Child rushes out and starts watching the TV again, sitting happily on the sofa, knowing that basically "Dad's luck has run out, if I make enough of a fuss, he's got no choice now but to let me sit here". Plausible? Under current New Zealand law, yes! I don't know about you, but I'm getting married this weekend. I would *never* lay a hand on my wife, no matter how pissed off I get (And together we've had some real doozy arguments). I plan to use the same respect for my children, save from the fact that at times some children *do* need a physical incentive to be obedient, or not be disobedient. Although I am on this forum to primarily give/seek computer help I must agree with this.	PCT Joe (15018)
783463	2009-06-30 05:45:00	Although I am on this forum to primarily give/seek computer help I must agree with this. Why? It's wrong in the assumptions as to what is and isn't allowed. This section in the Police guidelines covers Chill's scenario "Also, a parent may send or take their child to, by way of example, their room against the child's will at the time the intervention is required. Force may be required to perform such a task and the use of reasonable force in such circumstances may be justified under this subsection i.e. to prevent the child from continuing to engage in the behaviour (s 59(1)(b) or (c)) or to restore calm. However, if the child is detained for a period or in a manner that is unreasonable in the circumstances, this subsection will not provide a defence to such action." www.police.govt.nz	PaulD (232)
783464	2009-06-30 05:53:00	...This section in the Police guidelines covers Chill's scenario... Note the bold text - it says that the police may choose to ignore it, but it's still illegal. The very fact of it being illegal is what most people are annoyed about, not how it's being enforced. Police guidelines are *not* the same thing as the law.	Erayd (23)
783465	2009-06-30 06:04:00	Note the bold text - it says that the police may choose to ignore it, but it's still illegal. The very fact of it being illegal is what most people are annoyed about, not how it's being enforced. Police guidelines are *not* the same thing as the law. Plus - the act of a police and/or CYFS investigation is distressing for the families involved. While they may not be charged, the fact that good parents are treated like criminals until the police decide not to prosecute is unacceptable.	somebody (208)
783466	2009-06-30 06:10:00	Note the bold text - it says that the police may choose to ignore it, but it's still illegal. The very fact of it being illegal is what most people are annoyed about, not how it's being enforced. Police guidelines are *not* the same thing as the law. You are wrong as well. The guide lines contain Section 59 with my bolding. You just have to give up force as punishment. "Section 59 states: "(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose 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. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."	PaulD (232)
783467	2009-06-30 06:18:00	Note the bold text - it says that the police may choose to ignore it, but it's still illegal. The very fact of it being illegal is what most people are annoyed about, not how it's being enforced. Police guidelines are *not* the same thing as the law. This is why I say the police have become judge and jury.	mikebartnz (21)
783468	2009-06-30 07:50:00	You are wrong as well... you just have to give up force as punishment.Nope - you forgot about the fact that clause 2 overrides clause 1, as stated in clause 3. If you're going to dispute my point by quoting legislation, you need to take everything that may have an impact into account. For your information, I've quoted the relevant material below, along with links to the sources if you wish to check their accuracy. Current legislation in force: Source: legislation.govt.nz Parental control (1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose 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. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction. (3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1). (4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.Noting that (2) overrides (1), use of force against a child is *always* illegal. (4) gives the police discretion on whether or not to prosecute, but that's all - using force against a child, for any reason whatsoever, is still always illegal! Now let's contrast the original versions: Source: legislation.knowledge-basket.co.nz 59 Domestic discipline (1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3), every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. (2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact. (3) Nothing in subsection (1) justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.As you can see, using force against a child for correctional purposes is permissed, provided such force is reasonable (i.e. not excessive), and takes the circumstances into account (3) refers to the education act as well - I've quoted the relevant bit here to remove all possible confusion. Source: legislation.knowledge-basket.co.nz 139A No corporal punishment in early childhood centres or registered schools (1) No person who--- (a) is employed by a board (within the meaning of section 2(1)) at or in respect of a school or institution administered by the board; or (b) is employed by the managers (within the meaning of section 35A(1)) of a private school at or in respect of the school; or (c) is employed by the management of an early childhood centre (within the meaning of section 308(1)) at or in respect of the centre; or (d) owns, manages, or controls an early childhood centre (within the meaning of section 308(1)),--- shall use force, by way of correction or punishment, towards any student or child enrolled at or attending the school, institution, or centre, unless that person is a guardian of the student or child. (2) No person who is supervising or controlling--- (a) on behalf of a board (within the meaning of section 2(1)) any student enrolled at or attending a school or institution administered by the board; or (b) on behalf of the managers (within the meaning of section 35A(1)) of a private school any student enrolled at or attending the school; or (c) on behalf of the management of an early childhood centre (within the meaning of section 308(1)) any child enrolled at or attending the centre,--- shall use force, by way of correction or punishment, towards the student or child, unless that person is a guardian of the student or child.Pay close attention to that last paragraph. What this section means is that corporal punishment at an education institution is illegal, except where administered by a parent or guardian. The current version of the Education Act was rewritten to exclude this exception, in the same amendment that replaced section 59 of the Crimes Act. You can find the actual amendment here (legislation.govt.nz). Noting all of the above, I'd say it's pretty clear that smacking your children for the purpose of correction was legal before, and now isn't. If you can find any possible way to dispute that, I'd love to hear from you - as far as I can see, the legislation is pretty black and white and leaves no room for ambiguity.	Erayd (23)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9