Parliament is back this week, and everyone's favourite bill, Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, will be back before the House on Wednesday. Opponents of the bill have used the recess to pressure its supporters into backing away, and when I first skimmed the papers this morning, it was being suggested that they had succeeded - both the Herald and Stuff were reporting that the Maori Party might change its stance and back John Key's non-compromise "compromise". Fortunately, it looks like they were wrong: Tariana Turia has said that while the amendment will be discussed, the party is still strongly behind the bill in its present form. And she's quite clear on why:
She said at the weekend the present law allowed a legal defence against abuse. "We will not support abuse. We have got to show leadership. If we are looking at all the statistics we have got the worst statistics in the OECD."
National loves to bash Maori over child abuse - now next time they do it, the Maori Partry will be able to turn around and ask them why they are on the side of the child abusers, instead of trying to do something about it.
7 comments:
I/S (and Ms Turia): Unless your definition of "reasonable" is somehow grossly different from mine, then I don't see how the National Party or for that matter a significant number of NZers are child abusers, or consider the current law to permit child abuse.
How many cases have there really been where someone has gotten off the charges of child abuse because they successfully argued that the force used was reasonable?
Posted by Anonymous : 4/30/2007 04:24:00 PM
Oh for fucks sakes here we go again!!!
No Graeme. 80-85% of NZers are not child abusers, however 80% of NZ children have been subjected to some form of physical discipline in their lifetime according to the Otago research study "On The Receiving End?
http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/119-1228/1818/
And 45% of their participants reporting being hit with an object and 6% reporting extreme physical punishment (defined by the study as causing cuts, lasting bruises, or welts)
Even if you accept that an open-handed slap on a child is an acceptable level of corrective discipline (which is what the majority of the pro-smacking brigade seems hysterical about loosing the right to inflict) then that still leaves 51% of NZ children being subjected to punishment that is severe enough to be regarded as UNreasonable by any reasonable and so-called "loving" parent.
That is 51% fucking percent of children that have been subjected to UNREASONABLE force above and beyond the measure of a "loving smack" for fucks sake!!! What the hell is wrong with you people who cannot see that this is 51% of children who NEED this bloody reasonable force loophole closing????
Whether child abusers try to use this law or whether they have gotten off on it is beside the bloody point. We have the same archaic laws in regard to sedition which are seldom used either - but does that mean that we shouldn't dump them anyway?
The total disregard for the legitimate right to safety and dignity for our children by the pro-smacking brigade seems to border on the sadistic for me at times.
What kind of fucked society considers sadistic behaviour as "normal" because 80-85% of people want to participate in it?
Posted by zANavAShi : 4/30/2007 06:00:00 PM
Exactly. The majority are NOT always right. In fact throughout history the majority has been consistently wrong.
Posted by Anonymous : 4/30/2007 06:08:00 PM
I'd love to kick the shit out of a few pro-smacking child beater types...give them a taste of their own medicine so to speak...it will make me feel better.
A good kicking for childrens rights sound good. Those who belive a child should be stripped of a right to live in a violcence free environment deserve all they get
Posted by Anonymous : 4/30/2007 11:27:00 PM
Millsy, how would that make you any better than (for example) the pro-bashers who posted bizarre fantasies about killing Sue Bradford on a web site, or the pro-bashers who phoned Katherine Rich and threatened her children? So far the vast majority of the insanity in this debate has been from the pro-basher side. Please don't think you have to "even the score".
Posted by Anonymous : 4/30/2007 11:55:00 PM
Zanavashi,
Your use of statistics is unfair. A classical use of a wooden-spoon or strap isn't unreasonable. But, and it's a big "but", people who are pro-choice about smacking are prepared to believe that allowing such methods gives too much cover for abusive parents, so they're prepared to ruling such stuff out now.
The report you cite does not show that 51% of kids were subjected to unreasonable force, rather it suggests that 6% were. Those who are pro-choice about smacking are now prepared to set the bar of reasonableness artificially low to err on the side of caution, help draw a bright line for the clueless, and prevent false positive judgments of "reasonableness" about the 6%.
The rest of your note is just shrill emoting ("loophole", "hysterical") and question-begging (no questions of sadism or of threats to safety and dignity are raised by reasonable force (by definition, and setting aside flase positives in application) let alone by the erring-on-the-side-of-caution Borrows Amendment/NSW S 61 AA standard.
BTW, one can be in favor of some correction-permitting version of S 59 without believing that the permission in question is a matter of right.
With so many errors in so few lines I dare say that you may have an even worse batting average on the issue than i/s.
Posted by plague : 5/01/2007 01:48:00 AM
Spectator: it wouldn't. Beating people doesn't show that you're right; it simply shows you are bigger or more vicious (a fatal flaw in the theory of smacking as "good parenting", BTW).
Millsy: I'm noticing a decline in the quality of my comments section recently, of which your arrival is just one symptom. I prefer to have a clean comments forum without your sort of trolling, thankyouverymuch. If you can't moderate yourself, I'd appreciate it if you went and shat on someone else's doorstep.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 5/01/2007 09:06:00 AM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).