Presumably the vote on the badly worded smacking referendum means that New Zealanders predominantly want it to be legal to punch your kids in the face or smack them over the head with concrete - that's what you voted for, right? With this sort of nonsense from the child nationalisation lobby is it any wonder so many voted the way they did.
I didn't vote, partly because by the time the ballot paper got to the UK, I had little time to respond and think about how I would do so. I also believed a bad sign would be sent by voting to endorse legal smacking, as too many parents use corporal punishment frequently ("you'll get a hiding" being the apt phrase), and don't need further encouragement.
I don't like the law as it stands, but I don't believe smacking is part of good parental correction - nor do I enjoy seeing the likes of Family First gloating about something that, in my view, is a practice that should go.
As I have said before, I don't believe smacking should be a crime, but I also don't endorse it. I reject Sue Bradford's agenda of nationalising children, but also the agenda of some conservatives approving of violence to teach kids "a lesson". The law should protect children from force that causes damage or which is sadistic, repeated and terrorising. It should not protect them from force to remove them from danger or restrain them from doing violence to others. There was little evidence the old law presented problems for prosecuting real abuse, that should be the focus of tweaking criminal law -and let reform of parental discipline that is NOT abuse, be a matter for debate, discussion and dialogue.
There is now a mandate to review the law - that review should aim at only criminalising behaviour which is clearly abusive - but that legalising that which is not, is NOT endorsing it.
After all, group sex is legal, but the absence of a law against doesn't mean the state endorses it.
I didn't vote, partly because by the time the ballot paper got to the UK, I had little time to respond and think about how I would do so. I also believed a bad sign would be sent by voting to endorse legal smacking, as too many parents use corporal punishment frequently ("you'll get a hiding" being the apt phrase), and don't need further encouragement.
I don't like the law as it stands, but I don't believe smacking is part of good parental correction - nor do I enjoy seeing the likes of Family First gloating about something that, in my view, is a practice that should go.
As I have said before, I don't believe smacking should be a crime, but I also don't endorse it. I reject Sue Bradford's agenda of nationalising children, but also the agenda of some conservatives approving of violence to teach kids "a lesson". The law should protect children from force that causes damage or which is sadistic, repeated and terrorising. It should not protect them from force to remove them from danger or restrain them from doing violence to others. There was little evidence the old law presented problems for prosecuting real abuse, that should be the focus of tweaking criminal law -and let reform of parental discipline that is NOT abuse, be a matter for debate, discussion and dialogue.
There is now a mandate to review the law - that review should aim at only criminalising behaviour which is clearly abusive - but that legalising that which is not, is NOT endorsing it.
After all, group sex is legal, but the absence of a law against doesn't mean the state endorses it.
12 comments:
So, you support the Chester Borrows amendment do you?
Fuck you you COMMIE.
1.6 million voted to get rid of the amended S56 and arguably to repeal Education act 139A too
this is the most overwhelming result ever in NZ.
We need discipline and responsibility back into our kids, not more leftism. Where the fuck do you live, the North Korean enclave of Wellington Central?
Another libertarian whose head is so full of left-wing progressive lies he's fucked from the start. (what a useless political movement they are)
Scott, do some reading and get over these halfwitted, equivocating ideas on liberty you have.
Good post. I didn't vote either.
And for those commenting above - some libertarians actually have the temerity to think the non-initiation of force is an absolute.
And quite frankly the attitude of most NZ 'ibertarians' to this issue has been rather creepy, considering the majority don't seem to have children. Liberty Scott has been a voice of reason in the debate.
I got my papers in the UK and voted "NO". Quite simple to do. Think it cost all of 62p to post back to NZ.
On a slightly related note, one outcome of what happens to naughty children:
Farmer recalls night of killing
I agree Ruth, the attitude of many libertarians to children is appalling. These "libertarians" seem to think that authoritarianism towards children is not just OK but necessary. Applying libertarian principles to children apparently causes them to be promiscuous or drug addicts or brats or whatnot. Talk about not believing in your own ideas. Liberty Scott has indeed been a voice of reason in the smacking debate because he at least sees children as people and not just as pieces of clay.
Anonymous 1: Yes I'm a commie, how dare I have a view between the feminist left and the "hitting kids is good" crowd. Little point arguing with slope headed thugs like you. Discipline and responsibility comes from fear of violence only if you're too thick to figure out another way of deploying it. Glad your kids are obedient out of fear not respect and thought you big tough man you?
Anonymous 2: Yes silly me, the fact I was smacked and knew what it made me think and want to do, and how it isn't what I want my kids to experience, couldn't POSSIBLY be why I have my opinion. I have opinions based on first hand experience. Parents should be allowed to use force, but it doesn't mean I must endorse smacking, any more than endorse a particular diet for children.
Ruth/Brian: Thank you.
OECD rank 22: Yes I could have done it too, I received it and sighed and for the first time ever, abstained.
Btw I learnt far more from being deprived privileges or being made to do chores I didn't like as a punishment, than being hit. I regarded being hit as awful, adults who did worse things than me never got hit, so being hit for me seemed grossly unfair and disproportionate.
Well said, Scott. Not much more I can add that would be of value, other than it's good to know there is at least one libertarian out there with a sensible view on children and parenting.
Brian I saw you were invited to put up a post about libertarian child rearing. I hope you do.
At a guess I think most libz seem to have had an authoritarian upbringing themselves. When you look at prison populations the vast majority of those incarcerated were hit as kids. No one has ever suffered from too much love as a child.
I have always encouraged my 3 children to challenge authority and demand rational explanations for rules - be it at school or whatever. That has had mixed results, but I would not have it any other way.
Ruth, I sent something in to PC.
No matter how you bring up your children, there are no guarantees about how they will turn out. That's the way it is with people.
No one has ever suffered from too much love as a child.
You really don't know very many lefties do you? If people were soundly thrashed as kids for ever suggesting they might join the Labour party, NZ wouldn't be in the mess it is now!
Post a Comment