Saturday, February 24, 2007

Vain hope

There have been a couple of surprises in where support for Sue Bradford's bill has come from. For me, one was Paul Holmes, and today, The Press. Here's their editorial in its entirety. What do you think? You could let The Press know at editorial@press.co.nz

I will.

A ban on smacking is the right way forward for New Zealand
The Press | Saturday, 24 February 2007

The passing of the anti-smacking bill through its second reading at Parliament was a welcome step towards dealing with child abuse. It is to be hoped that the law change's tentative progress signals a new responsibility in the way New Zealand children are treated by their parents.

But the measure still faces major hurdles in its remaining parliamentary stages, notably from a proposed amendment in the name of National MP Chester Borrows, which would render Green MP Sue Bradford's bill almost meaningless.

Those MPs who had the courage to support the bill's second reading should not now allow its anti-smacking message to be diluted as it works its way through the crucial stages to becoming law.

Smacking children is an issue which can arouse strong emotions. The opposition to Bradford's bill is derived from a "spare the rod" mentality and the fear of the intrusion of State authorities into the rights of parents to discipline their children.

Just how far the most extreme and irrational opponents of the bill will go was shown by the CYFS Watch website death threat against Bradford this week.

But MPs have an obligation not to be cowered by the fear of a middle-class or religious backlash against them if they vote for the bill. In this respect, Labour adopted the smart tactic of block voting on the issue, making it more difficult for any of its individual MPs to be targeted for supporting the measure.

Other MPs who supported the bill's second reading but are now wavering should also stand firm.

They must regard the bill as an opportunity to demonstrate their own boldness and leadership by doing what is right for society, not what might seem politically expedient for themselves. That is part of the responsibility which should go with being a member of Parliament. They should not contemplate supporting the weak-kneed compromise being promoted by Borrows, which would still allow a parent to administer a trifling slap, defined as one which causes redness but only for a short time. In effect, it would create the logical absurdity of inserting a smacking provision into an anti-smacking bill and is simply an attempt to curry favour with those who want to retain the parental right to administer corporal punishment.

Trying to define what is trifling or transitory physical punishment has the potential to become a legal minefield. More importantly, it goes completely against the intent and the spirit of Bradford's bill. She quite correctly says that if Borrows' amendment is passed, then there is no point in her bill proceeding at all, and it should be withdrawn.

Those MPs contemplating supporting the Borrows amendment should be reminded of the recent Unicef report which found that New Zealanders ranked towards the bottom of developed nations in taking care of their children. The report was simply the latest in a seemingly endless stream of evidence of the extent of child abuse in this country.

By itself, the anti-smacking bill is not a complete answer to New Zealand's child-abuse problem, but it is one necessary measure in tackling this social ill. It sends a clear message about what is acceptable in the treatment of children – and that violence is unacceptable.

Those who raise the spectre of the police intruding into law-abiding families and asking trivial questions about the discipline of children are being far-fetched; they should reflect on another scenario, that perhaps the police will be able to use a law change to more effectively intervene earlier in families suffering domestic violence.

Smacking is a form of discipline which belongs to another age. Other forms of legalised violence have been outlawed, including the administering of corporal punishment in schools, which was banned almost two decades ago. The home should be at least as much a sanctuary to a child as the classroom.

Bradford's anti-smacking bill will not prevent the worst cases of child abuse, such as the death of the Kahui twins, for the origins of this sort of violence lie deep in our society. But the bill will play an important role in driving a change in attitude towards the treatment of children. It should be passed without amendment.




6 comments:

Berend de Boer said...

It is pretty pointless to engage in debate with the drive-by media. And as usual in the proponents response hardly any of the arguments of the opponents are mentioned, let alone debated.

Just as the violence in schools has increased significantly, so will this bill increase violence in homes.

It will make criminals of parents. And in the end we will be forced to put cameras in our home so nanny state, in the name of good, can monitor our compliance.

Anonymous said...

The law does not make parents into criminals unless the parents assault their children. Assault is wrong and doubly wrong on those too young to defend themselves. I understand the debate fully and many people I know are on the opposite from me. But if I were in parliament I'd vote for this bill. I went through "punishment" as a child and I would be very, very, very reluctant to ever spank a child.

Scotty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scotty said...

Anonymous. If smacking is assault, then I'd have to say assault is not wrong in all cases.

I am a young man in my 20's and was smacked as a child by both my dad and mum who love me very much.

I know this was good for me, and I believe and am sure others would agree that I am a well-adjusted citizen.

I do not feel tempted to bash/assault other adults when I do not get my own way or however the 'argument' runs.

I will however (no matter what the outcome of this proposed law change is) smack my children when I believe it is necessary, when I have children.

The government if it really wants to do something about child abuse need look no further than its own sponsorship of it. Yes that's right! Our government sponsors child abuse by its very own welfare system where poor parenting, anti-social behaviour, and financially impractical transitory sexual relationships producing many children to different fathers are all paid for by the tax payer.

International research is clear that the two-parent married family remains society's greatest weapon against poverty, depression, child abuse, and crime. It is not two parent families who smack their children that are the cause of our terrible statistics in crime. So let us not punish them. Let us look to the abuse that is caused by our welfare system.

Anonymous said...

Scotty: You say you were smacked and “I know this was good for me”. Perhaps that is true. Often using force against others is good for them. But does that justify using force?

Using force to stop people from smoking is clearly good for them. No doubt on that. But should it be done? Using force to stop people from staying up too late at night might be good for them. Using force to stop people from eating junk food might be good for them. I know people who say military service was good for them but that is not jusitification for conscription. Your logic is the fundamental argument of the Nanny state.

I happen to think welfare is a very bad idea. But if you think child abuse comes only from welfare families they you are woefully uninformed. My family was intact with two married adults, both employed. Yet my father was abusive and violent not only to my mother but to me and my siblings. No welfare there but plenty of abuse.

Scotty said...

Sorry anonymous! I was generalising. I didn't mean that this was always the case, rather that it is more often the case. I'm sorry that you had this terrible experience.

But I also don't think my argument is using the logic used by nanny state.

Fundamental in this debate is the fact that children are not adults. I'd argue forcing children to do something is a completely different scenario than forcing adults. Children need the direction of adults. And most direction, be it 'time-out' an instruction, or a paddle on the bottom are all examples of a force.

But this force is used over many years to train children to be responsible for themselves, so that when they are adults, they control their own behaviour without mummy or daddy having to stand over them and make them.