Anke Richter has a post up on Public Address which takes an outsider's look at the smacking debate. And she hits the nail on the head in pointing out what its really about: pushing cultural change:
In 1957, Sweden was the first country to make hitting children illegal. The country was divided about it then, just as New Zealand is today. But half a century later, you'd be hard put to find a civilized Swedish parent who'd raise a hand against their child -- it would be like reverting to the attitudes of the Huns and Vikings.Other countries followed Sweden's example: not always in legislation, but with cultural change. In Germany, obedience, order and discipline had all become dirty words after the war. The radical student movement of the late 1960s brought about a humanistic overhaul of how people viewed children, misbehaviour and authority.
When I started school in Cologne in 1970, corporal punishment had been completely eradicated and wasn't missed by anyone. Twenty-seven years later, I became a mother. Long before then, smacking your child in Germany had become quite unthinkable. Good parents simply don't hit.
The short-term effect of the bill will be to make it easier for the police to prosecute those who physically abuse their children. But in the long-term, the bill will hopefully shift us from a society where violence against children is accepted and routine to one where it is unthinkable. Some will call this "social engineering". Some will argue that the government should follow public opinion, as they did in Germany, rather than lead it as they did in Sweden. But when we have some of the worst child abuse statistics in the world [PDF], I think the government is more than justified in taking a leadership role.
Oops I/S - I think you've made an error with your conclusion from the unicef report to which you link.
ReplyDeleteIt deals only with child deaths - and you've pointed out on a number of occasions, even a smack that is light AND minor AND inconsequential is violence and child abuse.
When you look at other indicia of child abuse - for example, the number the children in state care - you'd see that Sweden fares worse than NZ - with around twice as many children per capita removed from their parents.
Tautoko!
ReplyDeleteI/S, can you really endorse having those in power "pushing cultural change" without first winning out in the marketplace of ideas? What about when the conservatives regain power? You'll be in no position to complain when they use the same dirty tactics to push their unjustified agenda...
ReplyDeleteDo you still feel any allegience to liberal principles at all, or are you a plain leftist now?
This is not an outsiders look, this is a view of a person who, like yourself, has written a lot on the smacking debate.
ReplyDeleteThe Govt is not taking a leadership role in this at all. This is not a government bill. The issue was forced onto the agenda by the Greens. The Government was forced into its current role on this purely because Helen Clark would not admit that this bill bans corrective discipline and she is to scared to backtrack and to tell the truth.
Finally in 1957, smacking was not a criminal offence in Sweden.
The only role the Government is taking at the moment is one of misinformation for political gain.
Richard: can you really endorse having those in power "pushing cultural change" without first winning out in the marketplace of ideas?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, when it comes to basic human rights issues. And despite all the obfuscation from its opponents, that's what this bill is about. Beating your children is not a "personal choice", like what you believe or what you wear or who you spend your life with. It is not within the sphere of private behaviour which must be respected. Instead, it is a basic issue of protection from violence and of equality under the law - two things that go to the very heart of liberal values.
Winning in the marketplace of ideas is not a question of whether reform is justified, but of whether it sticks. And I'm fairly confident in this case. The New Zealand government played exactly the same game over racial and sexual discrimination in the 1970's, over homosexual law reform in the 1980's, and domestic violence in the 1990's. In many of those cases, opponents of the bills declared that the world would end in fire and brimstone and rampant sodomy if the law passed. It didn't; instead, attitudes shifted, we all got on with our lives, and within a few years people accepted that the government was right and that reform was justified. And I think that is exactly what is going to happen when the bill passes.
I think what the people of NZ have to consider is whether the right to beat their kids outweighs getting four weeks holiday, employment protection, a stable growing economy, not being conscripted to join Bush's wars, etc.
ReplyDeleteRich
ReplyDeleteExcept that John Key won't restore that "right". Certainly not if he needs the Maori Party, and probably not even if he can govern without them.
If the bill passes, and people want to vote for a return to the status quo ante, they'll have to do it in a referendum AND extract a pledge from the the leader of the opposition that he will abide by the result.
So they'd better word that referendum question very carefully!
Simon
Sorry, a follow-up: Are they actually allowed to change the wording after the signatures have been collected?
ReplyDeleteIt is:
"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
So the vote will obviously be "No' - and then what?
Graeme: "When you look at other indicia of child abuse - for example, the number the children in state care - you'd see that Sweden fares worse than NZ - with around twice as many children per capita removed from their parents."
ReplyDeleteThat is a pertinent observation, but you have overlooked the history behind NZ's "success" in this regard. NZ's reduced rate of children in state care is a direct result of a major policy shift in the late 70's early 80's which saw a much greater emphasis on attempting to keep children in the family situation and to deal with the family as a whole rather than to remove children.
The downside of this policy is - as we see today - an INCREASE of abuse of young people within the family. The upside is that as a general rule it is better for children to remain within the family unit - if at all possible! NZ has been a trend setter in this regard. As NZ has been a leader in the development of social policy in a number of areas. Where we lag behind though, is in the abolition of corporal punishment.
I have previously made comment myself that as far as I am concerned - the lasting effect of the abolition of "reasonable force" defence in s59 will be the requirement for parents to RETHINK their parenting skills. Its NOT difficult to avoid the tired screaming child in the supermarket. If you have thought about it BEFORE you place your child in that situation! (Or even if you want to!)
I think you will find even if you go back several hundred years child abuse statistics (if they were kept) were lower in Sweden than in lets say italy or morroco.
ReplyDeleteIt was sad for the poor french back when they were a super power and realised that those damn sweeds were kicking their ass in terms of child mortality. It was a bit of a scandal - of course they had probably been doing it for more than a thousand years it was just they started to notice.
"When I started school in Cologne in 1970, corporal punishment had been completely eradicated and wasn't missed by anyone."
ReplyDeleteI'm all for this Bill and A. Richter makes for interesting reading, however, I just read that corporal punishment in schools was finally banned in all 'states' in Germany by 1983. I was educated in German schools from '75 to '82 and I will never forget a boy (about 13 years old) in my class being whacked over the head with a book by an extremely frustrated teacher.
Anonymous asks "Are they actually allowed to change the wording after the signatures have been collected?"
ReplyDeleteNo. The form of the question is determined in advance - the Clerk of the House of Representatives calls for public submissions and formulates the exact question in consultation with the proposer of the referendum and other people, taking into account the public views.
I'd note that Larry Baldock has proposed two petitions:
1. "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"; and
2. "Should the Government give urngent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?"
I/S - thanks for the reply. I would like to get to the bottom of this, since it isn't often I think you're wrong. So let me outline the reasons for my current position, and then I hope you will let me know what you think of them.
ReplyDelete[Firstly though, for sake of honest inquiry, let's not muddy the waters. Everyone in this debate agrees that child beating, i.e. inflicting physical damage, is impermissible. The dispute is over the moral status of (non-damaging) light smacking.]
You write: "Winning in the marketplace of ideas is not a question of whether reform is justified, but of whether it sticks."
Surely there are some procedural limitations on the appropriate exercise of political power? Being "right" is not good enough. As protection against unjustified oppression, we should require any calls for coercion to first secure deliberative-democratic legitimacy through success in the marketplace of ideas.
That's not necessarily to deny that smacking may be objectively wrong; but if it is, then you ought to be able to convince other reasonable citizens of this. (If there's no reason for them to agree, this casts doubt of the objectivity of your preference.)
You suggest: "[imposition is okay] when it comes to basic human rights issues."
Is there a "basic human right" for children to not be (even lightly) physically disciplined? That seems absurd, like a "human right" to not be called nasty names. It devalues the notion to apply it so indiscriminately. (Plainly, a light smack does not call for UN peacekeepers!) Indeed, most people who were lightly smacked as children do not consider themselves to have thereby been wronged at all, let alone so greviously wronged as to have violated their "basic human rights"!
You write: "It is not within the sphere of private behaviour which must be respected."
Parenting? Surely we must respect significant diversity here -- within reason, of course. I discussed this in my linked post, suggesting that the appropriate boundary line is established by reasonable consensus. (Example: all reasonable people agree that physical abuse, i.e. causing lasting harm, is intolerable.) But reasonable people disagree about whether it's okay to lie about Santa's existence, or whether light smacking is a permissible form of discipline. (After all, a light smack does no real harm; just because it offends your sensibilities is no justification to coerce others.) Hence liberals should recognize state coercion in these areas as illegitimate.
Simply put: Bill proponents are imposing a merely personal value/preference that cannot reasonably be considered binding on others. It's sheer moral hubris.
You write: "it is a basic issue of protection from violence and of equality under the law - two things that go to the very heart of liberal values."
Children's interests must be protected, of course. But given that children are different from adults, the best way to protect and advance their interests will often differ from how we would treat adults. To insist that the law must never distinguish between adults and children would be idiotic. So mere appeal to "equality under the law" cannot (by itself) help your argument.
The key issue, then, is "protection from violence". Is light physical discipline properly understood as "violence", in any ethically loaded sense? I can't see any reason to think so. It's too trivial. Again, a light smack does a child no real harm. They don't enjoy it, of course, any more than they'd enjoy being sent to their room or just plain "told off". But that's kind of the whole point of discipline. It's unpleasant.
There are various ways of inducing such mild unpleasantness: emotional pain from verbal disapproval, physical pain from a light smack, psychological frustration from being incarcerated in one's room, etc. Why single out any one of these as being essentially different in kind from all the rest? It seems arbitrary -- a fetishization of the physical.
Whatever its precise form, the crucial thing is that the discipline is sufficiently moderate (undamaging), causes no lasting harm, and serves the long-term interests of the child. I see no reason to think that physical discipline must necessarily violate these requirements, simply in virtue of being "physical"! That's just unreasoned absolutism.
Or so it seems to me. Do let me know if you disagree.
Sending child to his/her room, or even yelling, does not involve inflicting pain as punishment. Corporal punishment is the intentional infliction of physical pain to punish misbehaviour.
ReplyDeleteBanning corporal punishment of children in schools led to far fewer physical injuries from the cane, strap etc. Likewise, banning corporal punishment of children in homes would reduce physical abuse in those settings.
Children’s rights to life, survival, development, dignity and physical integrity do not stop at the door of the family home, not does the states obligation to ensure these rights for children.
What child ever felt that the infliction of pain was for his/her own good?
How many times do we have to say that this legislation is about protecting the *smallest and vulnerable* in our society - not the biggest and most wilfully ignorant.
Ruth,
ReplyDeleteas richard notes - it is not unreasonable to give children slightly different rights to adults. They have slightly different responsibilities, different punishments if they break laws and diferent rights in terms of voting buying alcohol, porn and so forth. Meanwhile parents have obligations to care for children in various ways, prevent them from harmingthemselves etc - e.g. If your child constantly burns himself and you do nothing about it you could well find yourself in prison.
If we disagre with this state of affairs we could emancipate all children but I dont see that working to great.
Ruth, yelling in someones ear is painful, if it is your ear that is being yelled in.
ReplyDeleteDidn't you know that? Or are you deaf?
So, richard, plague, et al, you all think that kids should be thrashed and beaten half to death with bits of wood in the name of "correction"?
ReplyDeleteHonest answer please.
This country's track record in protecting the weak and the vulnerable is pathetic. And this is what it really is about - protecting kids from their parents. Surely you cannot dissagree with that.
Millsy, I have already stated my unequivocal opposition to beating (as distinct from smacking) children.
ReplyDeleteYou are simply dishonest to imply otherwise.
"And this is what it really is about - protecting kids from their parents. Surely you cannot dissagree with that."
What a stupid thing to say. Not every attempt at "protection" is worth supporting. (Obviously.) Suppose parents were banned from bathing their young children for fear of sexual abuse. Would you blindly support this, merely because it aims at "protecting kids from their parents"? Quit your fear-mongering; find a brain that's capable of discernment, and start using it.
heh, Millsy,
ReplyDeleteburnt
GNZ