Written By: - Date published: 4:10 pm, February 26th, 2008 - 55 comments
Categories: child discipline, dpf -
Tags: child discipline, dpf
National Party blogger David Farrar points to a criticism of the repeal of s59 by Sacha Coburn (“a Christchurch businesswoman, lawyer and mother”):
The Government should read this column and be afraid… The whole column is worth a read. And Sacha Coburn will not be an exception – there will be many more like her – left leaning liberals who don’t like this law.
I’m sure there will left leaning liberals who don’t like this law but what about being true to principles every once in a while? You might think this is an especially good idea when kids are being beaten to death rather more frequently than we’d like. Perhaps political pragmatism is all National does now.
Of course Farrar is free to peddle the party issue of the day, but it’s worth noting his selective reporting – conveniently ignoring this from last Thursday where Professor Yanghee Lee (not a Christchurch businesswoman, probably not a lawyer and I’m not sure whether she’s a mother or not), the United Nations’ new Chairperson of the Committee on the Rights of the Child congratulates New Zealand on our stand against violence to children.
“I applaud all politicians who supported the new law and thank you for your excellent leadership and example to other countries,” Professor Lee says.
“New Zealand’s pioneering tradition in advancing human rights is well known.
“I believe its influence on other countries in the region and throughout the world in bringing about the new legislation will be considerable.”
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Sue Bradford fighting the mod frenzy !! that would be a first her history has been littered with inciting mob frenzy.
Ancient perhaps you are guilty of gorging on your own crapulence.
For the record, I support this law. Good on Sue Bradford for introducing it, and Labour for supporting it.
I think there are challenging political issues around it, but what the hell. It’s a good law.
John Key grew in many people’s estimation when he brokered the compromise with Labour and the Greens. He spoke sense, and spoke to the middle ground that the Nats so desperately need. What happens now that there is pressure to allow the “spare the rod” brigade back in? Was he making his call on principle, or was he plugging the most politically expedient for a short term political gain, before reverting to his tendency to the right closer to the election?
He has lost a lot of votes (not yet registering on opinion polls) when Rich left; he will lose even more if he tampers with a sensible law for the protection of children. Sacha Coburn, get a life. Sue Bradford, take a bow.
Milo – I’m taken aback, but I appreciate your attitude! It seems to me that too many pepole are taking a shallow view of this law – that it makes ordinary parents criminals.
While I accept that this is an issue (no law is perfect), I believe that the compromise legislated at the 11th hour simply codified what was always going to be a reality. As Ari aid, you don’t get prosecuted for tackling someone in a game of rugby!
Perceptions may be reality, but law cannot be drafted to cater for this phenomenon.
I support the law change for two specific reasons I’ll put forward, which, in sum, far outweigh any objections I have seen by others, or personal misgivings I have.
1 – Police are more likely to prosecute cases where they feel abuse has occured. Police stated, in the months leading to the law’s enactment, that sometimes they would not prosecute because of S59, despite believeing that an incident of ‘punishment’ had constituted abuse.
2 – Changing attitudes. In a recent court case, a chile was briused after a parent lost their temper. The judge stated that the defendant “could have gotten away with this before, but not now” – concrete evidence the law is working. The debate has also shifted to non-violent forms of discipline – there is no way this can be a bad outcome for children.
P.S Simeon – the number of parents walking free under S59 is not possible to count, as I mentioned under my first point – there’s no way to tell how many cases were not brought forward due to S59′s very existance.
I’d be happier if the line around what’s acceptable was actually clarified. “Police have discretion not to arrest or prosecute” doesn’t tell me anything about what I can or cannot do to avoid the legal system getting involved.
We definitely moved the line – no major problem with that – but it was from one vague situation to another vague situation, really.
r0b said “If you want to draw the line somewhere else, fine for you, go start your own blog.”
I have! I was merely pointing out the irony of you taking the moral high ground on one hand, and getting on your high horse (moral or otherwise!!) on the other!
Cam:
But that is the case with all law. In the end it is up to you to decide what you do.
For instance, the law doesn’t say that you aren’t allowed to speed, thieve or murder. It just says that if caught there will be consequences. The consequences are often vague (there is a lot of sentencing discretion). The probability of getting caught is not really well known.
It is up to each person to decide what they consider to be acceptable behavior and risk levels. The legal system just provides a framework for judging those risks.
r0b – satire is fine, and as you say, there is a fine line. I’m sure I’ve crossed it myself, but from enthusiasm rather than malice.
BTW – did you see that Family First are now admitting that they were wrong to be so supportive of the woman from Timaru? At least they are publicly prepared to ‘fess up.
I think the issue is IV2, that they are not ‘fessing up so much as denying they ever supported her at all. In a sane world that would discredit an organisation but it seems the memory hole has no limit.
The state physically disciplines people constantly. They should stop beating these people with horsewhips and police fists. Bring in a new law.
So Bob is now pretending he didn’t support the case in Timaru? He is scum. Family First is a mindless, reactive organisation with no scruples and it/he will say whatever it has to in order to discredit and denigrate this law. Bob McCoskrie came out swinging for the case I mentioned above in Masterton, until the truth came out. Then he went silent, obviously lurking until the next case he can try to trump up. When is this travesty of a human being going to realise that:
A) the law isn’t making good parents criminals;
B) the law is working to prevent child abuse, and increase its reporting rate;
C) law can’t differentiate between ‘a loving smack’ and a parent losing their temper and smacking their children in anger, thus opening the way for more serious forms of child abuse?
He disgusts me and given the above, I think it os more of an ego thing. I hope he gets his fucking referendum, and gets thrashed in it by honest New Zealanders who put children’s welfare before their own egos.
I have!
So you have, good for you.
I was merely pointing out the irony of you taking the moral high ground on one hand, and getting on your high horse (moral or otherwise!!) on the other!
I only count one hand there Iv2, but I think I know what you mean. There is no inconsistency in supporting and using political satire but not crossing the line into personal abuse.
I don’t actually believe the repeal of s59 was necessary and it’s not going to stop child abusers hitting their kids, but what really frightens me is how worked up some people (eg Family First) get about it. I mean, honestly, aren’t there bigger things to worry about in the world today than whether you can smack your kid or pay for sex? A billion starving people for example?
I don’t actually see what’s wrong with the Clark/Fidel cartoon, all politicians should be legitimate targets of mockery. While it might be offensive, satire has always been a part of the political process. It’s a moronic cartoon anyway, comparing Clark to Castro is a bit like comparing Key to Chavez.
Equally, “Family Fist” is fine with me and other similar groups like the “For the Sake of our Children Trust” (wtf?) should be subject to continual mockery to expose the shallow inanity of their policies and purpose. People should be as free to mock religion as they are to believe in it.
r0b – satire is fine, and as you say, there is a fine line. I’m sure I’ve crossed it myself, but from enthusiasm rather than malice.
After your piece on HC’s birthday yesterday I’m prepared to believe you on that.
BTW – did you see that Family First are now admitting that they were wrong to be so supportive of the woman from Timaru?
No, I didn’t catch that, this is not an issue I follow closely.
“”Police have discretion not to arrest or prosecute’ doesn’t tell me anything about what I can or cannot do to avoid the legal system getting involved.”
Don’t assault anyone, including your kids?? !
“I’m a left leaning liberal but…”
Kind brings to mind “I’m not racist but…”
(indicently I’m finally back into my blog!)
Where’s the sense in this
You get arrested for clipping the ear of a ten year old, but leave a 2 year on the street naked while you go to the pub and that is okay. (so long as you don’t smack them)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4440229a11.html
HS.
On the face of it I’d say it’s ridiculous.
But then again, police often use their discretion about who to charge and who not to charge based on the totality of the facts. Which is IMHO a good thing.
For various reasons they choose not to share all those facts with journalists, who write stories anyway. As is their right.
Pascal
On Monday, police said the woman locked her two-year-old daughter and 10-year-old nephew out of her house to go the pub.
Despite the decision not to prosecute the parents, police will not explain why the parents are not to face charges.
They deny the reason is because they got the initial facts wrong.
Police also back the mother’s claims to them that she did not call the Waikato Times this week saying she had been “given the bash” by her partner.
One can only say God help the children in this family