It’s likely that in August you’ll participate in a referendum on the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
First let me say that this blog, like all blogs, is only opinion. You are entitled to yours. This is mine. For me this referendum is a misleading, misguided, retrograde step and an expensive waste of tax payers money which could be much better used to actually help families parenting in Aotearoa/NZ. The eventual cost will be getting on towards 10 million dollars which could do a great deal of good!
The wording of the referendum is biased and misleading. It assumes that smacking is part of good parenting. That’s not a given. Just because it’s traditional doesn’t mean it’s right. There’s lots of evidence to show that “reasonable” smacking does more harm than good. I’m no expert but from my own experience I know that the more experienced and better I became at parenting the less I smacked my kids.
The whole question is so slanted. If it were phrased by the other side in this debate in equally strong terms it would read “Should brutal assaults on children be allowed to slip through a loophole in the law?”
Sue Bradford’s amendment to the crimes act was well covered in our blog article Smackdown 08. In the two years since it was passed, her bill hasn’t made a huge difference to our country’s horrendous child abuse figures – it was never expected to- but awareness of the problem has definitely increased. Thanks to the bill and some good TV advertising, the message about domestic violence not being OK, has been clearly heard.
In those two years no responsible, loving parents have been jailed for smacking their kids. The fears spread by Family First and others have proved groundless. To prove their case the pro-smackers have distorted facts and defended some very dodgy characters but the facts are clear. No parent has been prosecuted for giving a child a light smack to the bottom or hand. The only parents who have anything to fear from the law are those who assault their children with, for example, a punch to the face and they are people who deserve prosecution and whose children require the protection of the law.
If this referendum achieved its goal and actually brought about a change to the law so that once again there was legal defense for parents who hit their kids – it would be a big backward step. Fortunately this referendum is non binding, which means that even if is supported by a majority of kiwi voters (and polls suggest it won’t be) it doesn’t affect the law. John Key has already stated that he has no intention of changing the law. Both he and Phil Goff have condemned the referendum. So at the end of the day this referendum is an expensive waste of time and we must wonder about the wisdom of those who have misguided their followers and forced this referendum upon a public who will probably reject it as thoroughly as they rejected the Family and Kiwi Parties at the poles who largely built their campaigns around protesting the changes to section 59.
How we Christians love our hobby horses and how eagerly we ride them into crusades as ill advised as those historic land grabbing expeditions to the Holy Lands.
When you come to vote please don’t think that by supporting the referendum you’re striking a blow for the family and Christendom. You’re not!
Vote yes if you want to defeat the referendum. If you find that the wording of the question means you can’t vote yes – and this is a measure of how unfairly loaded the question is – then either don’t vote or scrawl RUBBISH across it.
If you vote no – be clear that you are battling a bogus problem – a non existent attack on parent’s rights to discipline their children. You would be using your energy better battling the real and horrendous problem of child abuse in Aotearoa/NZ.
Choosing the right battles to fight is so important and we expose our faith to mockery when we, like Don Quixote, charge against windmills. The right to hit your kids is not a great Christian principle that we should be fighting for. Let me reiterate – good parents who correct their children in a reasonable manner have nothing to fear from the law as it stands in our country. Parents who beat their children, causing physical and mental harm, should be exposed and prosecuted like all others guilty of assault.
Related posts:
Well said. I don’t think the question could be anymore loaded. If you (they) really wanted the people’s opinion, you (they) wouldn’t word it like /that/.
I agree.
I say – Don’t encourage them. Don’t vote.
I agree to a point, i’m not a fan of smacking for discipline. But answer this… Can you physically place your child in Time out, as part of positive parenting? According to the law… NO! and could it be investigated? The Head of the Canterbury police child abuse unit says he can’t say whether or not they wouldn’t prosecute for a light smack or physical discipline (I have the Audio).
According to Sue Bradford herself the Law is confusing and misleading (I have video). Families commission’s Chief Jan Pryor agrees that the law could be made clearer.. (I have Audio). . This is not about smacking it’s about bad law. And bad law needs to be corrected – I don’t want the old law reinstated, because I like the fact that we are moving away from a violent society. I just want it to be clearer for parents like me.
I also agree this is not a Christian issue… for me it’s about being a parent. If I can force the govenment to listen and make the law right, then maybe a No vote wouldn’t hurt. But it sounds as if it won’t matter anyway. (The law would have been better the way Sue Bradford had it in the first place.. At least it was straight forward and I knew where I stood.)
Scott – thanks for your perceptive comments. I agree the law as it stands is a mess. I guess it’s the old camel=a horse designed by a committee syndrome. Too much input from too many people.
As I read the current law you could physically place your child in time out but as a preventative measure not a corrective one. As if anyone could make that distinction! It’s a nonsense.
I would be all in favour of a petition which called on parliament to revise the current law to make it clear, concise and consistent but that is not the thrust of the referendum that has been presented by the religious right. The aim of their referendum is to make smacking legal and thus reopen the loop hole in the law which gives abusive parents a legal defense. This I believe would be a big step backwards.
If all concerned citizens wrote to their MPs asking for the law to be improved I think that would be more productive and far less expensive than a bogus referendum based on a shockingly slanted question.
Drew
I can’t agree more Drew. But I guess in any referrendum that is sponsored by a particular agenda it is going to be slanted. in 1999 an NZ citz ref stated “Should there be a reform of our Justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims” – 91.78 voted in favour. This is just as slanted as the smacking ref. These aren’t binding but they identify feelings towards that particular agenda. The only diff is that it asks voter “should there be reform” – maybe the smacking ref should have stated similar.
If Sue Bradford from her position had a ref questions it would probably have been just as slanted “Should violence against children, as protected under section 59, be outlawed in NZ”. OF COURSE it should be. I say outlaw it all together! at least then we’d know what it actually says and actually means.
Thanks Drew
I agree Drew.
Well said Drew.
Vote YES for a law that is working!
http://yesvote.org.nz/
“The right to hit your kids is not a great Christian principle that we should be fighting for.”
Oh you really swallowed that lie hook line and sinker.
The problem with Christianity in NZ is that there is just too much common ground shared with left wing ideologues.
Go to any contemporary church and all you find is a bunch of unquestioning blind little sheep towing the party line.
Shunda – Your comments suggest that you have scant knowledge of Christianity in this country.
Christianity in Aotearora/NZ covers the full political spectrum but undoubtedly leans more to the conservative right than the liberal left. It depends a lot on which denomination you’re talking about.
I’m afraid that Jesus – with his anti-wealth, pro poor stance and the early church – living in community and working with the needy would share a great deal in common with these dreaded left wing ideologues.
If you consider hitting kids is a great Christian principle – I wonder what other rights you’re prepared to fight for…the right to keep slaves perhaps, to own assault weapons or repress women.
Your last sentence is derogatory nonsense. Most churches are attended by intelligent individuals seeking to learn more and open to new ideas. The few churches where the members are expected to follow a party line unquestioningly are most certainly not left wing but ultra conservative which rather defeats whatever point you were trying to make.
Oh Drew, spare me the rhetoric, Hitting kids? smacking is nothing to do with “hitting”.
And I have a very good knowledge of Christianity in NZ, enough to know that the biggest problems we face are from those within the church.
Your liberal beliefs are also at odds with what Jesus taught.
Human compassion is not the same as Gods compassion my brother, it comes out of the “knowledge of good and evil” that humanity gained in the garden of Eden, against Gods will.
I have witnessed exactly the same methods and of control and manipulation in contemporary christianity, that the worst of the left wing ideologues use.
You could call it “passive legalism” if you like, tow the line or be subtly pushed aside.
Shunda, I am out of the country at the moment and haven’t been able to follow this properly and am only able to check in every now and then but I thought I would offer some quick thoughts.
Over my lifetime I have attended most denominations and would say that it is futile for both sides of such a discussion to try and label the church as being either too left or too right – I think it’s fairly well split.
I think if one were to examine the mainline churches one would find a strong left leaning, but on the other hand, in evangelical churches the leaning at this point in time would probably be more moderately to strongly right. The spectrum is well and truly represented. Even in my own microcosm of friendship, the spectrum is represented – from communist voters to libertarian voters – all Christian.
I find the distinction made between “smacking” and “hitting” to be an interesting one and predominantly a quibbling of semantics that makes one more acceptable as it sounds less forceful.
There are, of course, degrees of smacking – without entering the argument over whether it is right or wrong, I would be interested to know, for you, where it moves from being acceptable “smacking” into “hitting” or at least something that is violent and unacceptable? I ask because from what I can see in the many discussions I have had around this topic – that line is subjective and relative and it amazes me how many Christians bring their Bible to the table on what they deem to be acceptable.
I have spoken to people who think any form of force is wrong and I have covered the spectrum right down to a man who thought “smacking” his son forcefully and repeatedly on the bare bottom with a piece of alkathene pipe was acceptable and mandated in the Bible.
Interestingly he also made a distinction between smacking and hitting when I asked him the same question about what he thought was acceptable – he believed that if he closed his fist then it moved from a smack to a hit – in his mind, anything that could be defined as a smack rather than a hit, was acceptable.
I know you won’t be at that end of the spectrum, but hopefully you can understand why I would ask the question.
In your first comment, you disagreed with Drew when he stated that “the right to hit your children is not a great Christian principle” – you called that a lie. To try and turn this discussion into something fruitful rather than simply an argument back and forth I would like to hear your thoughts on why that is a lie. I am guessing it will come down to some biblical passages worth discussing.
Can you point out why you think, in the face of the assertion that Drew’s statement is a lie, that it is a Christian principle to “smack” our children?
Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts here.
“Can you point out why you think, in the face of the assertion that Drew’s statement is a lie, that it is a Christian principle to “smack” our children?”
That’s simple.
This issue has nothing to do with “Christian principles” it is to do with the loss of common sense.
The lie I was referring to was the “smacking is hitting” mantra well worn by the left and others willfully ignorant of the reality of parental authority.
This issue has nothing to do with Christianity despite the best efforts of the likes of Sue Bradford to make it so.
Most people that signed the petition were parents who could see this law for what it was, a blatant intrusion into the lives of parents to promote radical human rights ideology.
And Frank, your mentioning of the “alkathene pipe” and “closed fist” example is also very cliche of the dishonest approach of the left.
If you can’t use your God given discernment to differentiate between discipline and abuse, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
Hi Shunda,
Thanks for offering some more thoughts.
I agree with you, this isn’t a “Christian issue”… in the sense that term is often understood.
Because I agree with that, I struggle to understand why you would make it a matter that comes down to my “God given discernment” when it comes to defining the difference between discipline and abuse.
Surely we can both agree that since this is not a “Christian issue”, whatever I define as my God given discernment (a somewhat subjective determination from person to person) should be a minor part of the discussion – indeed, since the issue is a legal one, I am not allowed the luxury of exerting such discernment as a primary argument.
The law was and still is based around “reasonable force”, so the question I asked was premised on that. I used the example I did to highlight some of the extremes of defining the term “reasonable” and since I am a Christian, it specifically interests me how people use their belief system to back up their particular understanding.
I would like to hear where the line is for you – the differentiation between discipline and abuse – of course I can define these things for myself, but I am interested to hear how you define them – where does it cross from discipline to abuse and how do you think the law should differentiate.
Allow me to gladly put forward my belief that the current piece of legislation is downright confusing though.
Open up, share your understandings a little more without the well worn mantras against the left
Note: I personally think the old concepts of left and right politics do little to define the political spectrum of the modern world. Modern politics is a lot more nuanced that those terms allow for.
So what the result will be like of this referendum? Will the smacking be forbidden once and for all? Predictions are accepted here – http://www.votetheday.com/new-zealand/new-zealand-corporal-punishment-referendum-result-450/