The following was sent to the Humanitarian Chronicle by someone who shall use the pseudonym, Jon Shannow.
When they vote tomorrow, far too many Christians in Aotearoa/NZ will allow their choices to be influenced by a single issue – the so called “anti smacking” bill. Voting on the basis of a single issue is always blinkered and unbalanced but voting on one issue that isn’t fully understood is downright stupid. There has been too much misinformation, rhetoric and emotion around this bill so let’s look at the facts.
Fact – We are one of the worst nations in the “developed” world when it comes to beating up our children. 8 to 12 children each year are murdered by the adults who are supposed to be caring for them. Sometimes these murders involve prolonged torture and abuse – Nia Glassie and the Kahui twins being two tragic recent examples. On top of this there are hundreds of cases of deliberate injury and maybe thousands more that don’t make it to the hospitals and the official statistics.
Our Crimes Act (1961) had a section which stated:
59. Domestic discipline—(1) Every parent or person in the place of a parent, and every schoolmaster, is justified in using force by way of correction towards any child or pupil under his care, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
In 1989 this section was amended to make corporal punishment in schools illegal but parents were still allowed to use reasonable force.
“Rightly so” you might say but it all depends on the definition of what’s reasonable. Is a smack on the bottom with your hand or a wooden spoon reasonable? How about a clip around the head or a whack with a belt? Or would you draw the line at a thrashing with a cane or a punch to the face?
People’s standards vary and what might seem reasonable to one parent might seem shockingly brutal to others.
Two benchmark cases in recent years concerned a father in Nelson who whacked his son repeatedly with a piece of wood and a father in Hamilton who struck his daughter on the back with a hose, in both cases leaving bruises that lasted several days. Both these fathers were let off under section 59.
When Sue Bradford put forward her bill in 2005 to revoke section 59, she was not trying to criminalize parents for disciplining their children in a responsible manner, rather she was trying to tackle our ghastly child abuse problem by closing a legal loop hole and making it clear that abusing a child under the guise of parental correction was never acceptable.
Her bill proved instantly and highly controversial. To tone it down Helen Clark and John Key added an amendment giving police the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents where the offense is considered inconsequential. With this amendment added the bill passed by a resounding 113 to 7. Those who blame the Greens or the Labour Party for the bill must accept the fact that the vast majority of our elected representatives voted in its favour.
The furor sparked by this bill hasn’t abated and after two years and an ongoing petition for a referendum, it’s still a red hot issue going into the elections. Conservative Christians have been at the forefront of the fray, loudly proclaiming their age old right to smack their children… in a loving, controlled way of course.
Which raises the question – is smacking children a good form of discipline? It’s certainly not the only form of discipline as Super Nanny demonstrated, week after tiresome week. Many parents consider smacking a last resort. Honest parents would admit that sometimes when they’re tired and frustrated, they lash out before considering their action.
I’m sorry to say I smacked my oldest son quite often. I used my hand and only smacked his bottom but I admit that often I smacked him in anger, not love, and sometimes smacked him too hard. My second son I smacked much less and my daughter I only smacked once. This is not because they were better children but rather because I was becoming a better, more mature parent and did not need to resort to this crude form of discipline to the same extent.
Humanity has also matured a little over the ages. Over the centuries cultures have considered it acceptable to whip slaves, stone adulterers, burn wives on their husband’s funeral pyre and hang men for poaching a pheasant. In the 1930s my father had a teacher who used to cane all the boys in his class just to establish who was boss. Even today some Christian groups in the USA believe husbands should have the right to smack their wives as well as their kids. Hopefully we’ve become a little more enlightened as we’ve been able to accept change rather than being reactionary.
Sue Bradford’s bill may well be an ineffective piece of legislation – but at least its intention – to combat child abuse – was admirable. The religious right claim that, because of the bill, good parents will be prosecuted for doing nothing more than giving their kids a reasonable smack but this is fear talking not fact.
Let’s say you’re a good parent. Your child, in spite of being warned several times, tries to run out on the road. You grab the child and smack him on the leg. Someone reports you to the police who pay you a call causing you embarrassment and distress. It’s a scary scenario but when the police discover the circumstances and ascertain that you are a responsible parent it is highly unlikely that the matter proceeds any further.
It’s possible that if more concerned citizens report what they perceive as abuse there will be cases of good parents being investigated but hopefully there will also be more cases of abusive parents being found and stopped. Surely preventing one child being killed – like Nia Glassie – is worth a few false alarms.
You may have heard of Rowan Flynn, a father currently facing assault charges. His eleven year old son reported Flynn to the police for smacking him with a wooden spoon. The police visited but took no action. A week later Flynn “clipped” his son around the face. This time the police arrested him. Mr. Flynn is fighting the case and has stated “I believe very strongly in smacking as a form of discipline. I’m a Christian, and believe it’s what I’ve been commanded to do.
Lots of Christians have spoken up in support of Mr. Flynn but is this a Christian standard that we really want to fight for – the right to clip our son in the face… the right to so antagonize our kids that they feel driven to call the police.
Please let’s pick our battles wisely. The whole fracas round Sue Bradford’s bill is such a misguided use of time and energy. Christians should be leading the fight against poverty; they should be out in the communities being Christ in action, addressing the causes that give rise to our epidemic of child abuse not getting hysterical about a well intentioned bill that in long run, will have little effect for good or ill.
Jon Shannow
No related posts.
Bravo. Well said.
No it isn’t; see the recent article cited on Christian News, where there is actual testimony from an organization which deals with the actual repercussions of this legislation, rather than unresearched hand-waving—
“We have stacks of evidence and testimony that good families have been targeted by this flawed law and that it has failed to deal with actual child abuse,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Families have been referred to CYF by schools, neighbours, members of the public, their children, and even their children’s friends for non-abusive smacking. And some families have also undergone police investigation.”
1. In other words, the police have to use their discretion. Just like judges had to use their discretion when prosecuting child abuse cases before Section 59 was repealed. Only now, instead of someone who is trained to evaluate a case in a detached way, with ample time to weigh the issues, the person using his discretion is an overworked, underpaid officer of the law. Yeah, that’ll definitely result in far less injustices being perpetrated!
2. And there goes due process. Liberals don’t seem to even understand that this term means, let alone why it’s important. The police are not supposed to have to decide these kinds of things precisely because if they did, there would be no due process. Technically, the law states that any parent who has done what the example above says is a criminal. The police are therefore obligated to arrest and prosecute them as such.
3. Furthermore, this is turning every child, nosy neighbor, do-gooder, and liberal attachment parenting advocate into a big brother spy. It’s a bit like George Orwell’s 1984; don’t let anyone see you doing something which should be okay, but is technically illegal. They’ll come for you.
4. And that, in turn, has the effect of overwhelming the police. They’re responding to trivial issues which shouldn’t even be on their radar, so their resources are stretched thinner to respond to important things which should. “Where were the police when little Johnny was molested and murdered?” “Oh, they were out trying to be judges and juries, arbitrating domestic disputes, and catching the real criminals: parents who had to be turned in by their own kids for smacking them.”
5. Even worse, now there is no legal recourse for disciplinary smacking, so when the police prosecute (as they technically should) the judge is also legally obligated to convict. If the parents used force against their child, then they are guilty under the law. They cannot be found innocent, by definition—even if the judge correctly discerns that the law is bogus and that the prosecution should never even have come before the court.
6. And it isn’t just smacking which is under consideration here. The law now no longer draws any distinction between adults and children for the purposes of prosecuting cases of assault. Is it legal for me to take an adult against his will and confine him somewhere? Say my boss and I were working on a project in our main office. He did something wrong, and I felt justified in physically moving him into my office and locking the door for the purposes of punishment (because I feel that timeout is much more humane than a swift smack, and I’d never hit my boss). Ignoring the obvious ludicrousness of the example, which just demonstrates the obvious ludicrousness of repealing Section 59, could I be charged with assault? If so, I can be charged with assault for taking my daughter and putting her in her room for timeout. Yet that’s the exact thing Sue Bradford suggested parents should do instead of smacking, if they’re worried about being prosecuted. Unless your child goes to timeout willingly, you’re still a criminal. So she’s advocating criminal behavior under her own legislation.
7. Do I even need to quote Jefferson? “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither”. This is just asinine.
8. And this is absurd. “Driven to call the police?” What if, instead of Flynn being a nasty blottus who unfairly beats his kid, as the article assumes—what if his kid is actually a nasty blottus who needs a good clip around the ear? The sort of child who will cynically take advantage of circumstances as only children can, and call the police on his own father?
9. Let’s do that. Let’s not vote for people who are obviously too stupid to understand the legislation they’re trying to pass, the principles behind it, or the effects it will have.
10. This article is part of the fracas; am I to assume it’s a misguided waste of time and energy?
11. Of course, Christ would have been the first to say that those who won’t work shouldn’t eat, and that only a man who hates his son would refuses to discipline him with the rod.
12. You mean sinfulness? Sure, we should be spreading the gospel. But that has nothing to do with child abuse in and of itself. And child abuse in turn has nothing to with discipline either.
13. I don’t know anyone who’s hysterical. But if the bill won’t have any good effect, then we should remove it. And the families that have already have been prosecuted unfairly are ample evidence that believing it won’t have any ill effects is just sticking your head in the sand.
Here’s something else to think out before voting tomorrow:
http://www.spareroom.co.nz/2008/11/07/the-outlaw-pages-how-much-change-do-we-want/
As someone who worked very closely with CYFS for the past couple of years, I can state that, at least in Auckland, they do not EVER investigate sitations that are not (by the original referral) deemed to be serious. They simply can’t. They are understaffed, under resourced and severely stretched past their limits.
However, I have seen police & CYFS being given some effective powers to investigate families whose children are suffering from abuse. It’s not enough, it’s not completely effective, and if you want to jump up and down about the fact that you might get an embarrassing phone call then go ahead. But if you’re more concerned about being embarrassed than you are about the fact that these people are actively trying to protect your child as well as many others, there is something very very wrong.
After working with children who had sustained traumatic brain injuries as a result of non-accidental injuries, my views on this have solidified. I personally do not care if innocent parents are embarrassed if someone checks their discipline technique – I wish someone had done that each and every one of the children I treated.
When you’re receiving new referrals every week, and these are just the kids who’ve sustained brain damage and been caught by the system, it’s appalling to realise what goes on in our country.
Earlier this year because of a legal loophole I watched a child be discharged back into the care of a non-family member after she received brain damage from his abuse. He went to jail for what he did, but a loophole let him out, and he’s back ‘caring’ for this child.
Any and every loophole that can be closed has got to be a good thing.
If you’re a good parent, and you know how to discipline, you’ve got nothing to worry about. If you’re a good parent, and you don’t know a different way to discipline – find out!
“And child abuse in turn has nothing to with discipline either.”
Sorry, but you’re incorrect on this one. Firstly, many families I’ve worked with truly believe they are disciplining their children – particularly when it’s the way things have been done in their family for generations. Secondly, this is the defence that many people attempt to hide behind – and it worked, often.
I’d love to be able to introduce you to the reality of the problem of child abuse, for you to spend time talking through adequate discipline techniques with families who truly don’t get that when their child doesn’t succeed at a therapy task it’s not okay to reach across the table and slap them across the face. Your ignorance is showing on this one I’m afraid. And I’d like to see someone who knows a thing or two about scripture & its interpretation to explain how old OT quote about discipline somehow gives you the right to hit your child.
Thirdly (this’ll be the last one, promise!), hitting children has been proven time and time again in the psychology literature (the real, peer reviewed stuff!) to be an ineffective means of long term behaviour modification. I do recognise the fact that it took me 6yrs at uni to learn better ways to manage challenging behaviour, and that this isn’t available to all parents – but there are places they can access to ask for support in learning new techniques. The problem for most parents, is that this takes a lot more time and effort than a smack. Shame people are so often prepared to train for work, sport etc, but not for their children.
I think the reality is that very few people seriously considered all the policies on offer, people wanted a change, and didnt consider what change to bring about.
In talking to a lot of people, they have no idea of the policy they voted for or against.
It may surprise the author that the party who was opposed to the changes of section 59 was also speaking out on our low levels of aid to development in undeveloped countries, in fact Gordon Copeland had spoken out about this often in his time as an MP. They also offered some practical policy to support families.
My problem with the changes to section 59 is the uncertainy it creates, it not clear. It also does nothing to actually address the issues of child abuse, which it was supposed to change, rates have increased rather than decreased since it was passed. Has the bill therefore been a distraction to the real issue.
I know this is an older post. But I just wanted to mention that I find it interesting that the author of this particular article needed to use a pseudonym…
It’s not necessarily that interesting – some peoples jobs prevent them from being able to speak openly. Anyone who works in CYFS, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Police etc etc cannot publicly comment on anything that involves government legislation – not saying that’s who the original author was, I don’t know, but it’s not necessarily because they want to be anonymous, rather they have to.
Marie, I can understand why that might interest you especially if you disagree with the position presented, but pseudonyms are a valid part of commentary on the internet. They are used everywhere.
In this instance, the explanation for the pseudonym has been explained well by Flendolyn, so hopefully that is adequate
Hi, I am Rowan Flynn, the father of four from Nelson referred to in the article. I would like to add some factual information, much of which has never yet been made public.
Firstly; Why were the charges against me, (which also included assaulting a female) dropped? The official police line was that they did not consider it to be in my son’s best interests to testify against me, but what was the real reason?
I can’t say for certain as I was not not part of the decision making process, but consider the following:
On the first occasion of my smacking my son that came to the attention of the police I had a witness, a female friend named Mary. Mary is strongly opposed to the smacking of children but had no concerns about my discipline of my son, she felt that he deserved it and what he got in no way amounted to assault! Strangely enough Mary was NEVER questioned by the police even though it was written in the statement of “facts” that she had been present. My son had told the investigating officer that she was there.
On this occassion the officer obviously did not consider the matter worthy of further action and took none, even though I made it very plain to him that I would smack my son again if his behaviour warranted it. Only after I had found it neccessary to smack my son again was I charged with assault for the first incident.
This raises a number of questions:
1, Why was an independant adult eye witness to the incident never questioned?
2, The incident concerned was iether assault or it wasn’t. If it was assault was the police officer incompetent in that he left my son in my care knowing full well that he would be “assaulted” again if his behaviour warranted it??
If it wasn’t assault then doesn’t it seem obvious that I was arrested on a charge of assault when the police knew that it was not an assault?? A trumped up malicious charge??
I believe that the charges were dropped because the police knew that if they pushed the matter through the court they had little chance of winning and would very likely have been publicly humiliated in the attempt!
This highlights another danger of Sue Bradford’s dopey bill: It is a powerful weapon for the police, or perhaps more seriously, angry ex wives to use against people who they want to “get”
The police had wanted to “get” me for some time after I had embarrassed them by writing critical letters about them to our local newspaper.
So keen were they to nail me on a serious charge that in their haste they failed to take the most logical and neccessary step; question an eye witness.
Anyone wanting to know more about this incident can write to me at gooneybird@windowslive.com
R. J. Flynn
Dear Mr. Flynn – I’m really glad you responded to my article. You have every right to put your side of the case and obviously you and your family know more about it than anyone else.
I have no right to judge you or call your account into question but can I plead with you, as one flawed father to another, to honestly examine your life – just between you and Jesus, who knows us totally and sees through all our lies and excuses.
At the start of your reply you ask why the assault charges – including a charge of assaulting a female – were dropped? My question is why were these charges laid in the first place? Did you hit your son in the face? Did you at least frighten the woman mentioned enough so she thought you might assault her?
For a moment forget the police, the courts, Sue Bradford and every other person you can blame and don’t try to claim that you’re vindicated by a verse or two from the bible.
When you look in the mirror do you honestly see a loving, forgiving, gentle person or do you see someone who has problems with anger and violence?
If you do have these problems (and brother we all have our issues)face them humbly, ask Jesus for forgiveness and get help. There are lots of good, Christian counsellors out there.
If on the other hand you deny your inner monsters and continue down a path of self justification those monsters will destroy you and further damage those you love.
I apologize for preaching – it’s just that I spent many years trying to justify and excuse my own wickedness but eventually and painfully I had to face it and find help.
None of us are justified in all our actions but all of us can be forgiven.
May Jesus forgive and help us both.
New Zealand laws are dumb. People should be charged with actual crimes rather than charged with things that “look bad”.
In response to this case – Without having to suggest that we cannot judge Mr. Flynn we should simply be able to look at the child. Is he dead? Is there any injury? If yes then Mr. Flynn should be charged and properly dealt with.
If there is no injury and the child is complaining to the police then perhaps he would prefer their form of discipline.
Grant – “New Zealand laws are dumb” – this is an uninformed generalization. Our legal system is one of the best in the world. Of course it includes some faulty legislation but it is constantly being reviewed and fine tuned. You should try living in a country with a corrupt and unjust legal system then you might appreciate how fortunate we are.
The same goes for our police force. The police aren’t saints and there’ll always be a few rotten apples but by and large our police force do a difficult job as well as they can.
One of the problems faced by our lawmakers and the police is that things aren’t simply black and white as you suggest. There are lots of gray areas which are hard to legislate and hard to police.
A child can be grossly neglected or mentally abused and bare no marks of injury. Even a harsh physical beating can leave little trace if the beater is smart.
That’s why we have to create a society where violence, especially towards women and children, is never ignored. This means if a child complains to the police it must be investigated. OK it may turn out to be a hoax which our police officers will quickly determine. If all complaints are not taken seriously then more horrendous child and wife abuse will go undetected, undeterred and unpunished.
We have laws that force the police and judiciary to ignore the law in order to serve reasonable justice. That’s a stupid legal system.
I’m sure it is a generalisation I made, but it is certainly not “uninformed” when the scenario is admitted in the article, “…Helen Clark and John Key added an amendment giving police the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents where the offense is considered inconsequential.”
If an action is an offense it should be punished as one. If an action is not an offense there should be no law against it.
New Zealand law is dumb, and there is an informed reason why it is so!
Really? Is that why it does so much to halt the crime rate? I think you’re confused. I think you meant to say that New Zealand is a nicer place to live than many other nations. Is that what you meant to say?
One does not need to fine tune or review a good legal system. One only has to work to avoid a good legal system being corrupted.
What, like Taiwan? Should I try living there for a while? Would that make my opinion any more valid in your opinion?
Grant – I do believe these are your words:
Hmmmm…. God establishes the authorities, they set the laws in place… you say they are dumb laws… did God set the wrong authority in place?
No. God did not establish specific governments. He established that there should be authority.
His idea is that there is a hierarchy of authority. That authority starts with His word. He then gives human government the right and obligation to carry out His laws. He gives land owners rights over trespassers. He gives Parents authority over children.
Naturally people will always attempt to usurp proper authority. Children will rebel against their parents. Parents should be able to settle those issues within the family. If they cannot then it is the government’s obligation to step in.
People will always usurp the authority of the government. The governments of the world have almost entirely usurped their obligation to God in that they:
1: Do not punish the guilty
2: Punish the innocent
3: Make stupid laws that bring a burden to the people
4: Steal and write theft into law
5: Take control of areas where they do not have authority
6: Make the people their authority rather than God.
It is the greatest defeat for a godly society when its government fails to teach the people by instituting and keeping God’s law.
What do you think God meant when He said that governments get their authority from Him?