Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 79000	2007-05-05 04:40:00	smacking bill amendment passed,bill WILL pass	markh (12164)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
547279	2007-05-11 14:27:00	No, unfortunately I highly doubt that if the bill had been passed the child would of lived. I guess i should of been more specific in the following. "I am 2 sided on this bill, on one side i hope it passes, but i don't believe that it will stop parents from hitting/beating their children". Children love their parents unconditionally, even if the parents that are bashing the **** out of them (i know from experience). The child only wishes to please the parent to make it stop, and no child no matter what they have done or haven't done should they have to put up with the inadequates of the parent/s. But my point is, Helen Clark herself said it was the words " Reasonable Force" that was the problem, hence why they want the bill to pass, to remove it from a lawyers defense of the accused. So instead of making a law, change the wording to "light smack" maybe. Adults are arguing that if the law passes they will have a criminal record for smacking their child, but while the adults are arguing about their rights as parents who's arguing for the child's rights? Our government is so worried about how the world is perceiving us as a child killing/abusive nation, that they want to make law changes that they believe will stop the abuse. But it won't. CYFS on the other hand, go after well meaning parents instead of parents that will eventually kill their child, however, it does take a call from someone that is seeing first hand or a govt official--the abuse someone is causing to a child, and by the pictures on the news last night of the 3yr old boy, some other relative must of seen them? a neighbor must of heard something...but they kept quiet.	Narmie (12196)
547280	2007-05-11 14:36:00	This proposed law is likely to make potential criminals, out of many good loving parents, who as a last resort to get through to a recalcitrant child have resorted to minor physical chastisement. It is they who will be caught up in the zeal of do-gooders, who believe that they know best for everybody. The pity of it all is that this legislation is unlikely to prevent people who are really abusive to their children from continuing to do so.	KenESmith (6287)
547281	2007-05-11 14:53:00	This proposed law is likely to make potential criminals, out of many good loving parents, who as a last resort to get through to a recalcitrant child have resorted to minor physical chastisement. Yes it will. But at the end of the day when all is said and done, do we really have a say in whether this bill passes? or is it up to the government? Actually, do we get a say in any law change? or do they just poll 100 people and make it on the majority vote?	Narmie (12196)
547282	2007-05-11 20:55:00	This proposed law is likely to make potential criminals, out of many good loving parents, who as a last resort to get through to a recalcitrant child have resorted to minor physical chastisement. It is they who will be caught up in the zeal of do-gooders, who believe that they know best for everybody. The pity of it all is that this legislation is unlikely to prevent people who are really abusive to their children from continuing to do so.What happened to that 3 year old should make criminals out of both that kids parents/care-givers. While I support the right to smack (and I mean smack, not beat), that 3 year old was beaten (eventally senseless), in the name of love (probably fuelled by alcohol and drugs and sheer cowardice). Once again, the questions get asked.. did noone else see these marks from previous beatings? Family? kohanga (or day care, where ever the kid went)? complete strangers? Yet noone said anything. Complete cowards; all of them :mad:	Myth (110)
547283	2007-05-12 06:22:00	Once again, the questions get asked.. did noone else see these marks from previous beatings? Family? kohanga (or day care, where ever the kid went)? complete strangers? Yet noone said anything. :mad: Exactly. And at the moment our law provides a defence for parents using "reasonable force" against their children. The effect is everyone turns a blind eye to abuse, thinking it is the parents right. Few people seem to ever comment on a child's right to be safe - in their own home. Murder is illegal - yet people commit it. So why don't we just repeal murder as a crime. Seems a bit pointless having it since murder happens anyway. Pedophilia happens too. Why bother making it a crime - doesn't stop it?	Winston001 (3612)
547284	2007-05-12 06:42:00	Repealing the S 59 defence isn't going to stop the worst offenders. There are some people who just should not be parents - lets say 3%. Then there is another say 15% who beat their kids because they honestly think they have a right to, and are doing the right thing in terms of discipline. Beyond that there is perhaps another 15% who irregularly hit their children with varying degrees of violence. Light smack through to a belt across the bottom. The problem with smacking is that it is too easy and has a limit. Hit a child, a dog, a horse, and eventually they get used to it. So you have to hit harder and more often. Then instead of the open hand, a fist, a belt, an electric cord becomes the tool. The point of changing the law is to influence our social attitudes towards violence. NZ has appalling statistics for child abuse and deaths. We're not going to save the 3% families but hopefully the rest will start to think twice and listen to other ideas. Most parents are fine but I've been surprised at how many middleclass kids get severely smacked/beaten. Parents get tired, harrassed, exhausted, and it is just so easy to lash out. We gotta stop this.	Winston001 (3612)
547285	2007-05-12 07:11:00	At which time I would like to thank my parents for the smacks around the backside they dished out . It worked . Cheers Ma and Pa . I'm glad I was reared in a time before the fluffy thinking ruined society, I can say with utmost truth that I wouldn't have given a damn about timeout or removing privileges . Goddamn, the crap me and my older brother put our mother through, no wonder she has such a slim grip on reality . Hell, Even my 3 year old son thinks the "naughty chair" is well worth it, He weighs up how much he wants to do something, does it, Then makes his way over to his "timeout" spot, At which time he will break into song, laugh, and say "Hi" to mommy and daddy . He has beaten the system .	Metla (12)
547286	2007-05-12 07:16:00	This law will stop violence against children in it's tracks. It is a complete mystery to me that a few children actually survived in the past without this wise and helpful panacea. It should soon stop child abuse almost as well as the way in which microchipping has completely halted dog attacks. :waughh: Tui anyone?	R2x1 (4628)
547287	2007-05-12 07:43:00	As I have previously stated, I was another who was bought up under the influence of the smack to the hand or the belt on the ass . Did me no harm . But in raising my own kid, I tend to avoid the smack until its a final resort . Usually a deep-throated growl lets her know that Daddys not playing this time (this works 60% of the time) . If that doesn't work, time for her to go to her room (she doesn't like being somewhere where she can't see whats going on); this usually works approx 35-38% of the time . If she still decides to continue on, then its a smack on the hand	Myth (110)
547288	2007-05-12 15:12:00	People who are inherently violent, just like any other criminal, commit the acts they do because they don't consider either getting caught out or the consequences at the time they commit the offence. Most wrong doers, only reflect on their acts when they end up on the wrong side of the law. Many parents who physically abuse their children, probably don't see their behavior as criminal, but people who as a last resort who physically chastise a recalcitrant or deliberately disobedient child should not be subject to criminal law so long as they do not use unreasonable force. Give thought to the supposition of a rebellious teenager who will persists in behaving in an anti-social manner, and does not respond to the turn the other cheek approach - unfortunately as we know by the time such an individual ends up in front of a Court, the chances are they will be dealt with so leniently that they only go downhill from that point. Sometime in their life there probably was a time when an attention grabbing disciplinary act could have changed the direction of their lives for the better. Bullies are are similar proposition, most bullies are physical cowards, and if dished their own back properly will back off. Some 15 years ago, my son,then 12 and not a physically large boy was subject to constant bullying from another boy who was physically larger quite more powerful - on my suggestion I suggested he report the matter to a teacher, and his response was that it would only make matters worse. I solved the problem for him, I taught him how to king hit this boy, and told him to go for broke next time this bully had a go at him. It worked a treat, I was called to the school because my son had dealt to this boy properly. The headmaster admitted that the boy concerned was a known bully, but categorically said it was wrong for my son to stand up for himself and hit him back - the headmaster was appalled when I told him I had taught my son how to look after himself as the staff at his school were apparently unable to prevent bullying - My son had a good outcome he was never bullied again whilst at that intermediate school. It is an unfortunate fact of life that reason and non physical punishments will not get through to some children at times - this is not supporting physical violence, it does not mean going over the top - it can be doing what is necessary to get the message through that enough is enough.	KenESmith (6287)
1 2 3 4