[robberger]

We left the UK just as this debate was going on...not sure where it wound up and really were happy to be leaving before the ban. I'm sure every Western country will be adopting a ban sooner or later...but it looks like New Zealand is leading the pack?

I'm not ashamed to say we spank our kids so either we'll be getting kicked out of NZ, fined, or imprisoned...maybe all of the above. Here's the thing...in the name of preventing child abuse they are making it illegal to train a child in a calm and self-controlled manner. The end fruit of that will be exasperated parents of children with no self-control and when those children have their own children...do you really think abuse will lessen or increase? Come on!

Starting to think we might be forced to leave NZ sooner rather than later for a third world country where the politicians are busy trying to stay alive and the police are still have their hands full with real crimes! Guess we'll see...but this is really dissappointing news to us.

[nippa&pippa]

I am not sure if you see this ongoing debate on smacking....

http://www.emigratenz.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10539

[robberger]

Any way to move this thread over there? I didn't see it until after I posted!

[granger]

Rob, I don't know whether smacking will be outlawed or not if the law is passed.

Ms Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill will repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, which gives parents a legal defence of "reasonable force" when physically punishing their children.

Under changes, suggested by the Law Commission and inserted by Parliament's social services committee, parents will still be able to use force to protect a child from harm, to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour and to prevent harm to others.

Ms Bradford said the bill would stop parents getting away with beating children with riding crops, blocks of wood and other implements under the guise of reasonable force.

But opponents say it will criminalise thousands of good parents who lightly smack their children for the purpose of correction.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10428802

[westies]

I think that so long as you are a good caring parent, looking out for the overall well being of your children you will be fine, I can see why the debate is needed or something needed, as child abuse in NZ is unfortunately huge, the figures have certainly startled me since working in ED here, I've certainly seen more here than in the UK! We need to focus on protecting the kids that need protecting from the evils out there!!

[willsken]

parents will still be able to use force to protect a child from harm, to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour and to prevent harm to others.



I rarely smack but have been known to if the reason is good enough. I agree that passing a law to protect children from being beaten is wonderful and if the above statement holds true then I would not be classed as a criminal for the occasional punishment my boys receive. People have very strong views for and against smacking and it's a choice we have to make as parents. No different than the choice we make to limit TV and buying expensive designer goods etc. Rightly or wrongly we try to be the best parents we can and make these choices in line with our own beliefs.

[Super_BQ]

robberger,

Where's the evidence or statistics that prove smacking is bad for children? My father was smacked and i'm sure my grandparents were too. Different cultures and races have different ways of disciplining their children. I'm sure the Maoris have their own way and what the gov't is trying to do is set a hand's off approach that you can discipline children without consequences.

Put it this way, the children will learn that their parents can't touch them - this gives them almost a free ticket to go wild. Let's compare from a child's point of view. If you were a child, would you be more scared of a bruise on your leg or arm by smacking with a stick vs. being grounded in your bedroom for a few days?

If you ask me, i think when you add the stick or slap on the hand with a belt, that is by FAR more of a deterrent than being grounded in a bedroom where you can play Xbox/Playstation.

I want to see more proof of children in NZ that grow up being dysfunctional because of smacking. While kids are out on the streets grafitting, smashing windows in cars parked on the streets, and vandalising public property, putting in a smacking law just adds more weight on the police dept. legs.

BQ

[Moorf]

Hmmmm, now, my views on smacking are that I believe it's okay when done responsibly as I said in the other thread, but when you bring a belt or stick or whatever other item in to it then I find it more uncomfortable... I dunno, then it seems more menacing and wrong... anyone else think that?

[Moorf]

robberger,

Where's the evidence or statistics that prove smacking is bad for children?

I think robberger was actually agreeing with smacking.... :confused:

[NooDleS]

Smacking and beating are completely different kettles of fish! The fact a debate needs to exist anywhere in the world is rather sad. I've had a few smacks on the bottom as a child but I always done something to deserve it. I learned from my mistakes pretty quickly.

How many of you had a few smacks in your childhood? Did you deserve it? In 13 years of childhood, I can commit 4 smacked bottoms to memory. I'm not smashing windows, smoking dope, tearing down the local high street in a supped up nova. I know of plenty of others who've grown up with shockingly lax parenting...I distance myself from them. Whereas the family bonds between those who got punished as a child seems to be incredibly stronger than those without.

It was always my wish to bring back the cane in school. Knowing me I probably would have had a few sore hands throughout my school years but then so would everyone else who misbehaved.

[Paul]

robberger,

Where's the evidence or statistics that prove smacking is bad for children? My father was smacked and i'm sure my grandparents were too. Different cultures and races have different ways of disciplining their children. I'm sure the Maoris have their own way and what the gov't is trying to do is set a hand's off approach that you can discipline children without consequences.

Put it this way, the children will learn that their parents can't touch them - this gives them almost a free ticket to go wild. Let's compare from a child's point of view. If you were a child, would you be more scared of a bruise on your leg or arm by smacking with a stick vs. being grounded in your bedroom for a few days?

If you ask me, i think when you add the stick or slap on the hand with a belt, that is by FAR more of a deterrent than being grounded in a bedroom where you can play Xbox/Playstation.

I want to see more proof of children in NZ that grow up being dysfunctional because of smacking. While kids are out on the streets grafitting, smashing windows in cars parked on the streets, and vandalising public property, putting in a smacking law just adds more weight on the police dept. legs.

BQ

Can't see in the modern world where there is EVER a reason for beating kids with any implement. We are all presumably talking about a smacked bottom or hand here not a lashing or whipping for goodness sake

I am for a smack as part of a wider discipline regime and as a last resort (and to thereafter use as a threat of a smack which is usually enough)

Maybe the law is needed then if people think its OK to use sticks and belts on kids.....? :no

[robberger]

Hi all: there is another thread in The Lounge to which Nippa & Pippa (did I get that right?) have posted a link in this thread. I'd suggest following that one instead of this?

On using an 'implement' or the hand: I've tried both. I find for very young children a very light 'smack' on a thickly diapered bum (and I do mean LIGHT) is sufficient for the baby to notice. Stress on LIGHT. Even a newspaper folded up: makes a lot of noise but has almost no force.

The hand is composed of bones (hard) and flesh (soft). Personally I do not like hands because 1) they have the potential for doing great harm, being rigid internally, and 2) because I want my hands to be objects of comfort and healing, not pain.

After trying all kinds of soft, flexible things which when properly used leave no marks--we do NOT use anything hard and stiff--we have settled on wide leather belts. They sting the skin and hurt, but don't do lasting damage. Being flexible, they don't hurt bone or bruise. Being wide, they don't cut or 'lash'.

Get rid of all the images in your head: red faced parent taking a cat-of-nine tails to their children. See a calm parent calling the child over, BRIEFLY explaining the infraction (children cannot and should not have to handle excessive guilt) and smacking the child's bum one to three times, then holding and comforting the child and sending him or her on her merry way. That's if disciplining. For training, a light whack on the hand when touching something undesireable and then a smile and distraction with something desireable.

Where is the reality in this world? I suspect due to lack of training most parents fall into the red-faced exasperated group who eventually after multiple, multiple warnings, lash out. But not all of us, and not for always.

[Paul]

We'll agree to disagree on this - I would never smack my children with anything other than a flat open palm and only then as a last resort. Belts are for holding your trousers up..................

[Ana&Steve]

I was both smacked (we call it spanking in the States) and beaten as a child. I could tell the difference, and I had the fear of Mom in me. As an adult, I can see back to my childhood and say that I deserved my corrective spankings, (mostly from my Dad or Grandma) but in no way deserved the thrashings from my Mom. I love her dearly, and can't blame her too much, as she grew up in VERY bad conditions and ended up with 2 kids before she was an adult. She was never taught the proper way to be a role model, and was a single parent for 10 years. She wasn't right for hitting, and education in child rearing would have gone a long way to heal her wounds as well as ours.
Having said that, I believe that spanking shouldn't be removed from a parents options. I don't think any loving parent WANTS to spank their child, they would much rather the child always did what they were told;) IMO, spanking can be an effective tool that only needs to be an ultimate consequence.
I don't agree that a spanking law will stop child abuse, as that is a mental problem with the parent that needs professional help. I want to think that the majority of child abusers are redeemable, that they can become worthy parents with guidance. (They should be accepting of punishment for their crime, as well)
I am also against the government stepping in to the personal affairs of the citizens to this degree. Where will it end? Yes, suspected abuse should be reported, but every family has a right to privacy.
IMO, "smacking" should never be delivered with anything but an open hand to the rear, and should never be delivered in anger, or leave bruises or cuts.
I applaud parents who don't spank who have well behaved, polite children. I think parents who don't spank who have those obnoxious kids in the store that rant and scream and abuse their parents need to have their head checked.
Well, those are my thoughts, am now ducking for cover and looking for my flak jacket!
Ana

[Carol]

I think I need to stop reading this thread - as some of the comments are actually making me feel physically sick.

:roll

I have three well behaved polite kids who can all hold an excellent level of conversation with adults.
They know their boudaries. I have never ever had to resort to physically hurting them other than a light smack on their bottom.
And then rarely.

I reckon I have done a good job.....
ANd on that note I shall leave you all to discuss this further - for the reason above.

[robberger]

We have friends who have four children. They smack their children, but never with their hands. Since they are in the middle of adopting from China, a social worker has been out to interview them and their children on many occasions; and her concern was not that they smacked their children but making sure they had NOT used their open palm hands! Go figure...

[spudulike]

I think I need to stop reading this thread - as some of the comments are actually making me feel physically sick.



I agree. I can't believe what I'm reading. - it is sickening and appalling. Anybody who beats a child with 'weapons' or leaves bruises as a deterrent to bad behaviour should be locked up.

I don't agree with smacking but know of many good people (and good parents) that do smack. I do think though that some of the comments made in this thread are precisely the reason the anti smacking legislation is needed.

L

[Moorf]

I agree, this makes uncomfortable reading, although perhaps a needed analogy for us lot that think most people are relating smacking to an open flat hand... anything else to me just isn't a smack :no - eye opening indeed.

[robberger]

Care to name names, anyone? I'm guessing I'd be one of the ones you'd like locked up! Eye opening indeed.

[Moorf]

Not at all robberger, was indeed referring to your well considered use of implements which is alien to me when I think about "smacking".

I certainly don't see you as a criminal - I'd rather refer to you as brave to have said what you have - many won't even admit to a smack. What I do think is awful is that you would be seen as a criminal in NZ...

I just don't happen to agree with it - that's doesn't make it wrong or you a bad person - not at all. You have put a lot of thought and personal idealogy in to your actions, they just don't sit well with some.

Interesting about the Chinese not liking the flat of an open palm ... is there a specific reason for that? Goes to show that what is seen as acceptable in one country is a no-no in another.... and perhaps that's where NZ will have probs, so many cultures here with so many ideas of what is good and bad for a child..... when you get down to individual families and the nature of their kids then you're even more muddy water... do you think?

[zardell]

Where is the reality in this world? .



I don't know where your reality is, but it certainly isn't in my world.


I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Robberger.


Julie

xx

[Carol]

After trying all kinds of soft, flexible things which when properly used leave no marks--we do NOT use anything hard and stiff--we have settled on wide leather belts. They sting the skin and hurt, but don't do lasting damage. Being flexible, they don't hurt bone or bruise. Being wide, they don't cut or 'lash'.


Where is the reality in this world? I suspect due to lack of training most parents fall into the red-faced exasperated group who eventually after multiple, multiple warnings, lash out. But not all of us, and not for always.


The reality is - from a teacher's point of view- if I saw marks on a child left by a belt - I would be informing my principal as soon as possible - and then Child Youth and family.
The school policy makes it quite clear that I am required to do that.

I think you will find that MOST parents do not fal into the category as you describe. Only some.

[robberger]

It actually is not the Chinese who don't like the open palm smacking, but the U.S. adoption caseworker assigned in Houston, TX.

Just FYI, my wife prefers an open palm almost exclusively; she doesn't like 'implements'. I use open palm as a last resort if I don't have a very specific 'implement' handy.

I grew up in a household where my dad's hand was to be avoided at all costs...it was not unusual for us to duck when he went to scratch his ear or nose. I never want to see my child duck from my hand. But when it came time for a 'spanking' we all preferred my dad to my mom--he had good aim and hit with a consistent force whereas my mom was literally all over the place.

Personally I'm beginning to wonder if I've said too much. The problem is that everyone has their own picture in their heads, usually a bad one of themselves when they do (finally) smack. And they can't imagine having an 'implement' because they see it as a weapon they themselves would be wielding in anger. I don't know how to break that stereotype. Just like I could never get the English to understand the Americans' attachment to their firearms...it is just a totally foreign concept.

Anyway, before I get blacklisted I suppose its time to shut up.

[robberger]

The reality is - from a teacher's point of view- if I saw marks on a child left by a belt - I would be informing my principal as soon as possible - and then Child Youth and family.
The school policy makes it quite clear that I am required to do that.

I think you will find that MOST parents do not fal into the category as you describe. Only some.

And I would support you fully in doing so. Had someone done so with us children there is a lot better chance my dad's problems would have been addressed much earlier...making it all the less likely that the habit would be passed on.

[robberger]

The reality is - I think you will find that MOST parents do not fal into the category as you describe. Only some.

If that is indeed the case...why then such a broad law?

I thought abuse was a huge problem in NZ necessitating drastic action, particularly among certain ethnic groups? Seems multiple people on these threads have said so anyway.

[Carol]

And I would support you fully in doing so. Had someone done so with us children there is a lot better chance my dad's problems would have been addressed much earlier...making it all the less likely that the habit would be passed on.

Yes! you are right.

While I can see many problems with this bill being passed in NZ - that at least is one thing that I hope it WILL achieve. That it gives a very clear message to parents to question - and possibly look at other methods - in the way they bring up their children.

[suebeenz]

If they deserve it, i don't hesitate to give em a smacking.

That is, my lips, when I see a donut.

I guess it's one of those cultural moments, but I found it to be a pretty hilarious title in the newspapers.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/smack+lips


On the note of funny NZ headlines, there was also that time i looked in the local paper and the title said something like, "Pair accused of murder", and there was a picture of two kittens. (but really the picture was for the story above) :clap

Ok, really way overdue for breakfast.

[Sam B]

Firstly - I have occasionally (lightly) smacked my children, but I always feel awful afterwards, and I don't think there has been any gain from my actions. I wish I hadn't, I don't believe it is helpful. Other methods of discipline that I more generally use are: loads of positive reinforcement of good behaviour, lots of attention when children are behaving well, ignoring bad behaviour, particularly sibling rivalry, time out, warning and counting to 3 before time out, and a firm, authoritarian voice when needed. These methods are successful. I am very consistent about sticking to what I say will happen and to "no" if I've said "no". I try not to pick fights over small misdeeds or little annoyances. I use reward charts to eradicate particularly irritating behaviours (e.g.losing things, chewing hair). My children are generally well-behaved and also happy knowing where they stand and where the boundaries are. Still, I'm not perfect, and I have lost my rag occasionally. This law would work for me, because it would stop me from smacking my children altogether - so it's good I think.

Programmes that have proliferated in the UK at the moment on how to improve parenting and children's behaviour never endorse any kind of physical punishment, and the children always improve beyond measure. Smacking achieves nothing really.

[stu70]

Smacking is really an admission of failure for parents. It is an acknowledgement that as a parent we have not been successful at getting our kids to behave in a way that we feel appropriate. Hitting for the sake of hitting is pathetic. On the other hand a light smack once in a blue moon should not be equated with child abuse. Life is not a computer program with well written specs (sometimes I don't even get that in a program but that's for another thread) so common sense must prevail at all times. Rules and laws can not be a quick fix or replacement for parents' sound judgement as to what is in the best interest of the child

[Super_BQ]

I agree a lot of smacking / spanking is due to failure of the parents not teaching proper behaviour for their children.

However, kids live in a dynamic world. Once they step out of your house and mix with good and bad kids at schools and on the streets, you'll find they'll learn all the undersireable (cheeky?) methods.

Children learn quickly. Not saying all children will act the same but i'm sure most will find that there are differences in being punished. Don't be surprised when they learn that being grounded or lectured only serves as a light punishment. When you bring the physical with the stick and belt, kids will quickly realise you're on a complete different level of discipline.

My uncle told me that when they stepped out of line, grandpa would ask them to choose which stick he would use to smack him. As a child, uncle knew that they always chose the stick that was the skiniest as it was the most likely to break after a smack. In a way, I thought that must be a good enough deterrent because we're not just talking about the stick here, instead we're talking about the 'whole process' - that you had to choose the stick to be smacked with. An idea my grandpa brought with him to NZ from China and likewise with my father when I stepped out of line.

Look at generations. 50 years ago what did the kids do then in terms of tardiness? Nowadays, we see kids being wild on the streets, vandalising, committing bigger crimes (stealing cars and bombing them), bullying, etc.

Perhaps ask the school teachers. My close friend's mother taught primary/elementary school for over 30 years. I remember she told me that in her experience, she found visable minorities (asians, east indians, etc.) were less likely to be stepped out of line and associated with baddies on the streets.

But we're in NZ. In some asian countries, a simple drug trafficing could mean the death sentence by hanging.

BQ

[willowshouse]

I must be missing your point BQ - would you mind making it again?

Is it that communities that punish their children using violence end up with better behaved kids? .. Don't suppose what it could mean is that those kids learn that violence is the key to everything in life.... and so the circle continues

It is not good enough to look at our history of violence and say - never did me any harm! There are lots of things we have done in this world historically that we wouldn't dream of doing today and hitting children to discipline them is just another one we need to add to the list.

I am no saint .. might even come third in a worst mother competition but I can't agree that you have to use violence with your children to keep them in line. I think sometimes the worst offenders (children) are on the ones with the parents who DO hit them .. the same parents who go and fight their kid's teachers when they try to discipline them!!! There is no easy answer to improving our society's behaviour but it is very easy to blame all our problems on a decline in corporal punishment.

And on that note ..:exit

I can't read it anymore .. in fact I'm off to see if I can somehow delete this thread from my view

[spudulike]

I must be missing your point BQ - would you mind making it again?

Is it that communities that punish their children using violence end up with better behaved kids? .. Don't suppose what it could mean is that those kids learn that violence is the key to everything in life.... and so the circle continues

It is not good enough to look at our history of violence and say - never did me any harm! There are lots of things we have done in this world historically that we wouldn't dream of doing today and hitting children to discipline them is just another one we need to add to the list.

I am no saint .. might even come third in a worst mother competition but I can't agree that you have to use violence with your children to keep them in line. I think sometimes the worst offenders (children) are on the ones with the parents who DO hit them .. the same parents who go and fight their kid's teachers when they try to discipline them!!! There is no easy answer to improving our society's behaviour but it is very easy to blame all our problems on a decline in corporal punishment.

And on that note ..:exit

I can't read it anymore .. in fact I'm off to see if I can somehow delete this thread from my view

Excellent post and very well said. I can't understand how people believe that the badly behaved/violent kids/tearaways are the ones that are from homes that are non violent but still have clear boundaries. I'm baffled???

I also can't keep coming back and reading this thread - it's making me feel so sad to see that supposedly educated people believe this behaviour is acceptable.
:confused:

[Tia Maria]

I actually wrote this response yesterday morning, but took too long and was logged out, when I logged back in it was gone!:D Obviously the thread has moved on since then but for what its worth this was my original post:

This will always be a difficult topic to discuss as people rarely 'sit on the fence', you don't often meet people who say "I smack my kids but deep down think I shouldn't", or "I don't smack my kids but fully understand why someone does". As a result when disagreeing with someone you are normally criticizing their upbringing and parenting techniques.

Also everyone has the ultimate trump card of "There is no way you could have brought up my daughter without smacking her, she would have been deliquent by now", or "My son was an absolute nightmare but with a lot of effort and without smacking he is now an angel". Without the ability to turn back time and parent the other person's child you can't prove the other person wrong. And in both cases a child that grows up violent could be considered a product of smacking or not enough smacking, depending on which side of the fence you sit.

Even so its worth considering the many issues that go along with this topic (For this I'm assuming that smacking must hurt):

1) Is it OK to smack if it leaves a mark?

2) Is it OK to use a belt?

3) What is the difference between smacking and hitting?

4) If you smack a child while under stress or when they didn't deserve it, did you the hit them?

5) My 3 year old has recently decided to 'parent' his 6 month old baby brother and keeps putting him in the naughty corner, even though he's been told that's for an adult to decide. As a result he has ended up in the naughty corner. If he had 'parented' his baby brother by smacking him, am I responsible for the injury to his baby brother because he copied me? Do I smack him, for smacking his baby brother?

6) If an adult has learning difficulties and has the mental age of a 5 year old is it OK to smack them? If an elderly person has diminishing mental capabilities, is it OK to smack them to teach them when they are in danger?

7) If its in your culture/upbringing to smack is it automatically OK? If its in someone elses culture to beat a child as discipline is that OK? Is there a reason your culture is more valid than someone else's?

8) If you need to smack your child to discipline them, is it OK for your child's pre-school teacher to discipline them in this way? If not, how do you expect them to be able to effectively discipline your child as you think they need smacking?

9) What age is too young and what age is too old to smack a child? Why?

10) If its only an adult's place to smack a child, at what point is someone an adult? Can your 16 year old daughter smack her 5 year old sister? Can your 16 year old daughter smack her 10 month old baby?

11) Is it more acceptable for an older middle class mother to smack her child, than an 17 year old father who has been arrested several times for car theft?

That's probably more than enough for now!

But the last thing to consider if you are pro-smacking is:

If in one of the scenarios you considered smacking unacceptable, is the parent sitting next to you who considers it is acceptable now guilty of abuse?Cheers

Tia

PS Must try to type faster next time, as a lot of this has already been discussed!

[Moorf]

it's making me feel so sad to see that supposedly educated people believe this behaviour is acceptable.

I can't help but feel that this sort of comment, and more which I am sure will come after the law is passed, will be the cause of much stress and anxiety to many parents who may feel, or even become, social pariahs because now everyone can stick their nose in and tell them how they should run their families and quote the backing of the law to justify this.

I think we've proved on both threads that there is a general view that there ARE people on here who smack their kids - some won't do so anymore (they say), some will continue to and some never did. Imagine a society like that with the "never dids" and "don't any more's" wagging their fingers at the ones who decide they're bringing up their kids in the best way for them - and who is to say they aren't?

One big mess coming up I think.... waiting for the first case of parents having their child removed because someone else saw / heard something they didn't quite like.... who has to witness this, or are we going to rely on marks being spotted?

I'd certainly report it if I saw a child being what I thought to be abused/mistreated/beaten etc , but I'm not sure I'd be rushing to ring the cops if I saw someone take their kid aside and smack their bottom - but some just might and I then assume it has to be followed up and your name will be forever logged as having been complained about. Where's the line? I'm rambling..

[nippa&pippa]

Tia, that is really good post, that will put people to think twice...
One things you miss out...that i had lots of problem with....

grandparents :yes

do they have right to smack grandchildren while they in their care....

This one I had lots of sensitive issues on this as my sister allowed them to while i won't let let them to.....got to the point that one day my sister and i fell out on this (all sort now)

[nippa&pippa]

I'd certainly report it if I saw a child being what I thought to be abused/mistreated/beaten etc , but I'm not sure I'd be rushing to ring the cops if I saw someone take their kid aside and smack their bottom - but some just might and I then assume it has to be followed up and your name will be forever logged as having been complained about. Where's the line? I'm rambling..

Agree! I have witnessed lots of parents smack children, i just leave it alone...:exit

[Moorf]

grandparents :yes

Surely grandparents should respect the wishes of their kids on how they want their child treated and not enforce their own.

[spudulike]

I can't help but feel that this sort of comment, and more which I am sure will come after the law is passed, will be the cause of much stress and anxiety to many parents who may feel, or even become, social pariahs because now everyone can stick their nose in and tell them how they should run their families and quote the backing of the law to justify this.

I think we've proved on both threads that there is a general view that there ARE people on here who smack their kids - some won't do so anymore (they say), some will continue to and some never did. Imagine a society like that with the "never dids" and "don't any more's" wagging their fingers at the ones who decide they're bringing up their kids in the best way for them - and who is to say they aren't?

One big mess coming up I think.... waiting for the first case of parents having their child removed because someone else saw / heard something they didn't quite like.... who has to witness this, or are we going to rely on marks being spotted?

I'd certainly report it if I saw a child being what I thought to be abused/mistreated/beaten etc , but I'm not sure I'd be rushing to ring the cops if I saw someone take their kid aside and smack their bottom - but some just might and I then assume it has to be followed up and your name will be forever logged as having been complained about. Where's the line? I'm rambling..

I was referring to the people who are using sticks, belts etc not the smacking in itself (although my view on this still stands). I'm sorry you feel that this is sticking my nose in other people's business but I don't and never will agree it is ok to use a weapon to hit your child with - although it is referred to as an 'implement' in this thread.

Still, it would appear you disagree? And I really do feel I should stop reading this now!

[Moorf]

Whether or not I disagree or not is irrelevant - I'm discussing what I think, that's all - and it wouldn't be a debate if we all agreed.

My point was that I think it's dodgy ground to start referring to peoples intelligence compared to how they smack, or what they do it with.

You'll note from my other posts that I personally feel implements (or, I'm afraid I'd probably refer to them as weapons) being used is awful, and probably adds psychological damage in to the mix, but I wouldn't start taking aim at some and saying they were any less intelligent (or able, caring, loving) - I think that's just wrong. That's all.

[willsken]

I can't understand how people believe that the badly behaved/violent kids/tearaways are the ones that are from homes that are non violent but still have clear boundaries. I'm baffled???

:confused:

This is in no way a reflection on my view of smacking one way or another. I have to point out however that the kids you are referring to are not normally smacked in a way that could possibly be considered a constructive form of discipline. They normally just experience people "lashing out" at them.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but lumping all parents who smack in any way at all together is wrong in IMHO.

[Jo Jo]

I think we've proved on both threads that there is a general view that there ARE people on here who smack their kids - some won't do so anymore (they say), some will continue to and some never did. Imagine a society like that with the "never dids" and "don't any more's" wagging their fingers at the ones who decide they're bringing up their kids in the best way for them - and who is to say they aren't?

Who's to say they aren't? How about...

the European Commissioner for Human Rights
the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in the UK, plus numerous other children's charities
the United Nations
the governments of Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Norway, Romania, Sweden and Ukraine (and those are just the European countries that have banned all corporal punishment of children)
childcare experts
educational psychologists...


I could go on, but this isn't really a thread I want to get involved in. However, here are some references people who advocate smacking may find it useful to read.

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1008209

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/helpandadvice/parentsandcarers/betterbehaviour/betterbehaviour_wda35993.html

http://www.childrenareunbeatable.org.uk/pdfs/unreportoctober06.pdf

[Moorf]

Exactly, the people telling parents how to best care and deal with their child are agents for the state, the state, governments, experts and self-help guru's who know nothing your personal family situation, your child, your circumstances, your life... just a far off dept somewhere giving out advice, which another far off department somewhere will challenge with data to the contrary. The trouble is, there are just as many experts, gurus and agents who can, and will, argue the opposite! There's an advocate somewhere for either side of the arguement!

I've already been sent a document from another forum member in which they highlighted a section which reflected THEIR thoughts... I am sure we could all find something to back us up online somewhere ;)

A systematic literature review of the effects of parental
physical correction concluded that smacking had
consistently beneficial outcomes when it was nonabusive
and used primarily to back up milder disciplinary
tactics with 2-6 year-olds by loving parents.17
Studies which purport to demonstrate negative
consequences for all parental smacking invariably fail to
differentiate between harsh and abusive treatment on the
one hand and mild physical correction, accompanied by
reason in the context of a warm and supportive parentchild
relationship on the other.18
In view of the sparse and inconsistent empirical
evidence for negative side effects of non-abusive physical
punishment,19 a blanket injunction against disciplinaryThe doc is on a family concern site: http://www.famyouth.org.uk/pdfs/reasonableapproachcolour.pdf

You can see why Parliament is having a problem sorting this!

And it does look like the bill wasn't meant to totally ban a smack... the news last night had the P.M. denying the law was to outlaw smacking in its entirety.

Some are even looking to Sweden's 25 yr smacking ban which, in some expert's eyes, has done nothing at all to benefit society, children or their parents. The summary reads:

Those in favour of a ban on smacking often quote Sweden as a role
model. Sweden banned smacking in 1979. A primary aim of the
ban was to decrease rates of child abuse and to promote supportive
approaches for parents rather than coercive state intervention.
Evidence suggests the ban has totally failed to achieve these aims.
Far from any decrease in violence there has been a sharp increase
in child abuse and child-on-child violence. In addition, “supportive
approaches for parents” has, in reality, meant the removal of children
from the home in 46% of new cases receiving “support and care
measures”.
Despite this evidence, children’s charity Save the Children has
published a report – A Generation Without Smacking by Joan Durrant.
The report claims the Swedish experiment has been a success. Save
the Children has been lobbying hard for a ban on smacking for the
UK.
Prof. Robert E Larzelere of the University of Nebraska Medical
Center has questioned the report’s findings. In this booklet, Prof.
Larzelere presents a devastating critique of Durrant’s research. He
concludes that perhaps countries with a historically low level of
violence – like Sweden – may be able to cope with a six-fold increase
in child-on-child assault. Other countries – like the UK – cannot.So, you see, there are lots of different thoughts on smacking out there, and people on both sides have ammo to support their ideas. It seems that many are looking to Governments for advice and for leadership ... EEEK!

[Moorf]

Sorry, I didn't post Christian.org.uk source for report on Sweden, here it is:

http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/sweden_smacking.pdf

[SarahEDH]

I agree with Tia Maria's post and with Carol's.

And I agree with Khalil Gibran:

"Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They came through you but not from you and though they are with you yet they belong not to you."

Especially that last part -- "they belong not to you". They belong to themselves and to the society they will have to live amongst someday.

I don't believe anyone has a right to strike another human being, young or old, child or not, regardless of intent. Find another way.

[veronica]

If my kids don't belong to me how come I have had to pay out so much on them over the years. Somebody better explain that to my two at 31 and 28 as I have a feeling that they still like to belong to our family.

I know a better idea than that. The debt that you owe to your parents is paid back to your children.

[Jo Jo]

I don't believe anyone has a right to strike another human being, young or old, child or not, regardless of intent. Find another way.

I agree.

I think in 50 years' time people will look back and won't believe it was once legal for parents to smack their children, in much the same way that we today can't believe it was once legal for husbands to smack their wives (against their will, I hasten to add - I'm sure it is still legal to smack your wife if that's what you're both into!)

[Super_BQ]

In 50 years time you won't believe how many kids are on the street vandalising and causing all sorts of petty crime. Believe it or not, teen crime rates have been increasing over the past decade. Some of the issues are addressed here:

http://library.christchurch.org.nz/Pulse/yourrights/crimebusting/

In 50 years time, it's perfectly acceptable to be married & divorced more than 5 times in your life. Children won't know who their real parents are as every parent is so busy trying to pay off their 50 year house mortgage.

50 years ago single source income was plenty enough to provide for the whole family. Brand new car and house. Job security. Lower education requirements. The list goes on...

And would you know 50 year ago smacking was perfectly fine as a deterrent. Less we say we're not talking about duking it out on your children or beating their brains out until the whole neighborhood can hear them.... have we defined what "smacking" is?

This reminds me, when was this smacking law "ever put to the people" like laws do in the US? The Parliamentary system doesn't allow for people to vote on specific issues; instead you vote on a proxy. You appoint a representative that assumes he/she knows what law is good for the country.

BQ

[Oregonkiwi]

This reminds me, when was this smacking law "ever put to the people" like laws do in the US? The Parliamentary system doesn't allow for people to vote on specific issues; instead you vote on a proxy. You appoint a representative that assumes he/she knows what law is good for the country.

:confused: How is that different from the US, where members of the House and Senate vote on laws as our representatives? SOME laws in the US are voted on by the people through referenda, but most aren't; and NZ has referenda too.

[robberger]

"Your children are not your children."

This is the actually the core philosophy behind one side of this debate, taken to its extreme.

To this, I can only fall back on wisdom that is thousands of years old...

[SarahEDH]

It helps to be familiar with Khalil Gibran's writings in order to perceive the context. His message is that children are not their parents' property, to be done with as parents see fit according to the parents' unfettered discretion. Children are beings separate from their parents, with rights, one of which is not to be subjected to violence (physical or emotional) in the name of teaching.

Parents can do better for their children than that. If they will.

[veronica]

Sarah excuse me asking but how many children have you brought up on this philosophy. Were they very bidable children with no mind of their own and happy to do as they were told. Because I had two strong minded young ladies who were very separate beings to me and their dad and as children and teenages they didn't always do as they were expected to do, as small children they had reasons, then warnings and if that failed and their 3 chances were up they sometimes got a smack, as teenages it was again reasons warnings and then the dreaded G (grounded) word and we then had to suffer all the tantrums and teenage angst that that provoked. Kids aren't little programmable robots,they are free thinking willful small people who if left to their own devices can cause untold harm to themselves and others. They need and in fact appreciate knowing where the boundaries are. how each parent and each child is disciplined should be left up to common sense and the individuals in the family.

No one here is talking beating a child, we are all talking about a short sharp reminder delivered once with the hand.

Unfortunately there are always going to be parents that carry that smack to abuse, and while a lot of it is in the lower socio economic groups its not all there, somes in the other stratas of society, as is sexual abuse and mental cruelty. Laws being passed are not going to stop this, a lot of abuse is done under the influence of alcohol so taking it to extremes it would maybe make more sense to ban alcohol to stop child abuse than to ban a smack. But can you imagine the out cry that would provoke.

[Tia Maria]

Veronica wrote:

it would maybe make more sense to ban alcohol to stop child abuse than to ban a smack. But can you imagine the out cry that would provoke.

I think Prohibition pretty much proved that banning alcohol isn't a workable idea. There were more speakeasies in Prohobition time than there were bars when alcohol was legal. Not to metion the extra 'area of business' it gave criminal gangs.

I'm not religious, but I still work on the basic principle of treating people how I would like to be treated. I know I wouldn't like someone to hit me, so I don't hit someone else.

Out of interest do they have any laws on animal welfare in this country?

Cheers

Tia

[Super_BQ]

well spoken veronica,

No one here is talking beating a child, we are all talking about a short sharp reminder delivered once with the hand.

I can just imagine how much hassles the police and court system will get when a child will say to their parents "You hit me!" from a simple strike by the hand.

NZ has been known to change a lot of laws in a way to prove that the country doesn't have to follow what other nations have done.

Perhaps the biggest mistake was removing the apprentice programs for trademen by the Labour gov't in the early 80s. People saw overnight electricians and plumbers that claim to do as professional jobs as the old trademens that were trained in the old apprentice system.

The result today? Billions worth of housing in NZ that leak based on the use of plaster over polystyrene construction. The construction was relatively new to NZ and the builders were not familiar with it ; how could they since the country didn't have a comprehensive apprentice system which allowed builders to go back to update or re-train their skills. Then the Greenies were successful in banning the use of treated timber in houses which made these leaky houses rot faster. Then shortly, use of treated timber was brought back.

Now, the Labour Gov't brought back the work apprentice scheme much like the apprentice system overseas. Those currently in the buidling industry must go through courses and be licensed in the same way a bar tender at a nightclub has to be licensed to serve drinks. One good result of the leaky house fiasco is that today, you can bet that most of these leaky home builders have gone bankrupt and run away leaving only good qualified tradesmen in the industry. But at the cost of the home buyer as now, they can charge what they like ; citing that the cost for safety courses, re-certification, etc. will get passed on to the customer.

I just wonder if the anti-smacking law will follow a similar path in the future?

BQ

PS: those living in Christchurch can witness all the grafitti works done yesterday morning around Pioneer Aqua Centre as you travel down Lyttleton street as it intersects with Rose Street. The kids were managed to tag a lot of things such as bus stop sign and booths, power boxes, fences, and even speed signs.

[Cindy]

Hmmm, I remember being a deliquent and without my parent's threats like "I gave you life and can take it back!" and a few good wacks on the hand with a ruler, followed by a 3 hour long lecture while sitting on my legs, I don't think I would have turned out to survive past my late teens/early twenties.

I was a free spirit and without their paranoia and suffocation, I think I would have gone on a joyride with a few friends whom later on were on the following morning news. One person died and another lost her sight from a car crash. I almost snuck out to a party once but decided against it because if caught, I didn't want the usual hand smacking from a ruler and that turned out to be the best thing ever. It was a drinking party and someone actually died from alcohol poisoning. I'm glad I wasn't there because everyone was gathered for a questioning and parents were notified to pick up their child at the police temporary holding facility.

I'm not saying smacking is good or bad but I have to thank my parents for having a tighter rein on me. Because of the punishments I received as the oldest one of three, my siblings new the consequences and were never given anything worse than a warning. Still, even to this day, as we have kids of our own, she thanks me for pushing the boundaries as often enough to have learned from my mistakes. It was the consequences, yes, "smacking" that made me refrain from disobeying, not the harsh warning and grounding.

I can only speak from my experience as I remember being the kind of teen that would only learn from making wrong choices and not by listening to those that wanted to protect me.

[robberger]

It helps to be familiar with Khalil Gibran's writings in order to perceive the context. His message is that children are not their parents' property, to be done with as parents see fit according to the parents' unfettered discretion. Children are beings separate from their parents, with rights, one of which is not to be subjected to violence (physical or emotional) in the name of teaching.

This is just a straw man. I and others are certainly not arguing that children are "property". Nor that parents should be free to do as "they see fit", nor that parent's discretion should be "unfettered." But I appreciate you posting it, because it is the foundation on which your argument is built.

My children are not stranger's property, to be done with as strangers see fit according to the stranger's unfettered discretion. My children are not society's property, to be done with as society sees fit according to the society's unfettered discretion. And my children are not government's property, to be done with as governments see fit according to the government's unfettered discretion.

Your logic is against Nature and against Nature's God. Children are conceived and born to parents, not to societies, governments, or strangers. It is self-evident that parents alone have the responsibility to raise their children. Strangers, society, and government do not love my children: I do. It is the height of hypocrisy to suggest that any of those have a more vested interest in my children than do I.

The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the innocent from the guilty; and guilt is strongest when interfering with someone else's responsibility. If you want to deface your car--go for it. If you deface mine, you are guilty. If you want to take your money and spend it--go for it. If you want to take mine, you are guilty. If you want to take your wife/husband/child home--go for it. If you want to take mine--you are guilty.

If government/society/you want to take my children--all are guilty. If it comes down to it: I have a MUCH greater claim and stake to them than you.

And I want to point something out: ANY item we possess is only 'lent' to us--we come into the world without it, and we leave the world without it. It isn't ours.

That doesn't mean we aren't responsible for it while it is in our possession.

Likewise our children...they are not our property but we most certainly are responsible for them. If it comes down to a dispute about who is more responsible for my children--you or me or society or government--logic and honesty says it is me. If my child misbehaves, no one blames 'society'...they blame me. If my child commits a crime, no one blames 'society'...they blame me. If my child breaks something, they don't collect from 'society'...they collect from me.

If you want to bear your children and then give away that responsibility to others, you are free to do so but you will be held accountable I assure you. The problems you see today are the result of your philosophy already, because many parents have indeed accepted your logic and now depend on strangers, society and government to raise their children. What a wonderful result they have had! But I would put my children up against any child 'raised' by 'society' or the government.

"The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing."

Khalil Gibran and Hitler have NOTHING on Solomon:

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."

"The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame."

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

Now as an intelligent, rational human being it is my responsibility to take those words of wisdom and apply them with good judgment in the spirit in which they are given: not as you suggest must be the case, in selfish violence, nor even literally, with a stick--but to understand the principle which is being put forward.

[robberger]

I'm not religious, but I still work on the basic principle of treating people how I would like to be treated. I know I wouldn't like someone to hit me, so I don't hit someone else.

I am a Christian and consider all the Book necessary for balance. And I want and expect to be trained and disciplined because I know it makes me a better person.

When I was in eighth grade, I did a lot of reading in class. Loved Tolkien especially, and read a lot in Algebra class. I was a year ahead in math, but my grades showed I wasn't doing the work. My dad found out and gave my butt a whooping with his belt. It was enough to focus me at that point in my life, and gave me incentive to do right during a time when I otherwise would not have.

Three years later I graduated 11th in a class of 235, got a full ride scholarship to a private university ($80,000 USD value by the end of it in 1995) through the National Merit Scholarship program, putting me in the top 1/2 of 1% in the U.S. I'm not boasting, I'm giving credit where it is due: I credit that ONE spanking with ensuring that I had a good future. Soon enough I realized the importance of study and dilligence myself--but my dad came through for me when I needed it before I could see it myself.

Could he have found another way? I've no idea...like Aslan says 'you NEVER get to know what WOULD have been...but you can find out what WILL be'. But I'm totally certain if he hadn't cared enough to do that, I wouldn't be where I am today. I honour and respect and love my dad for that...in spite of all his faults and his outright abuse. For all his faults, he loved me then and I am in his debt.

[Cindy]

If my child misbehaves, no one blames 'society'...they blame me. If my child commits a crime, no one blames 'society'...they blame me. If my child breaks something, they don't collect from 'society'...they collect from me.

Robberger,

Not in those exact words but every wack on the hand came with the above. Every child is different. I was one that needed more than just good stern talking and grounding. All my parents had to do was look at my sister with an expression of huge disappoinment and she would feel gutted. She wanted to please them and I on the otherhand could have cared less. No one can speak of what's better or worse for someone else's child. What may work for them may not work for others.

As immigrants from Asia, my parents both worked. They couldn't be there for me as much and there wasn't a consistency when it came to discipline. I had the freedom to do as I please from the hours of 3:00pm to 6:30pm. I wasn't enrolled in any afterschool activities because I had to look after my siblings. I'm sure for those families with one parent around at all times or a single parents working a couple jobs, child rearing would be different. I was easily influenced by my peers and for some odd reason, my sister accepted her individuality and never waivered. Different situation coupled with each child being different, who's to say one method of discipline is better or worse?

Again, I'm not saying smacking is good or bad, just putting in my two cents.

[robberger]

Hi Cindy: I don't think I understood your first sentence. If it is important, can you clarify it please?

I don't disagree with what you said, if I'm understanding you correctly. Not all children are foolish...not all children are disobedient...not all children require whacking...and not all children respond to smacking.

What works with one child may not work with another, and I'm saying only an involved parent has the intimacy required to make that judgment--not the government, not society, and not some stranger who wants to ban smacking outright or looks down their noses at those who do.

As time goes on, my wife and I look increasingly for other ways to train and discipline, ways other than smacking. But I believe the reality is that at one point or another, chances are really good a child will need a smack of one sort or another. Maybe only once in their life...but the time will come.

I'm not on a campaign to make laws that all parents must smack all their children.

I'm simply resisting the campaign to outlaw smacking across the board, as if parents aren't intelligent or responsible enough to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their children.

It is NOT the government's business (or some meddling individual's) to make that determination, but the parents'...one way or the other.

As for both parents working...that is a whole other topic. I can tell you that my wife and I decided she would stop working when we had children, whatever the cost. She has a four year degree (BS in Mass Media Communication) with extant student loans which we are still paying off--without her income to help. The consequent lower standard of living is a price we decided to pay. That is a sacrifice we have been able to with to date--it may not always be so. We'll see. But we would rather live in a cardboard box in a 'third world' country scraping out an existence with the freedom to raise our children as we see fit, than be surrounded by all the comforts of the modern world and lose our children. Hopefully we will never have to decide between the two.

[Cindy]

oops, my first sentence does seem vague. I meant that your quote "If my child misbehaves, no one blames 'society'...they blame me. If my child commits a crime, no one blames 'society'...they blame me. If my child breaks something, they don't collect from 'society'...they collect from me." sounded much like what came out of my parents mouth whenever I was "wacked or smacked".

They didn't speak the English language when immigrated legally to the states from Asia and sacrificed a comforable existance for a better opportunity for us. Education was THE most important reason for the move and so they searched for the better public school in Los Angeles and had no luck. They settled for moving to Orange County which is 60 miles away from my dad's work (at the time, to a predominantly white neighborhood-cookie cutter style homes) in a better school district and with that came higher cost in commute and rent so the additional income came from my mom. The sacrifice wasn't just for us, my dad was the only son and had the burden of caring for both my grandmothers. Both my parents worked in labor intensive jobs paying minimum wage.

My post is just pointing out that everyone is from different background and different culture and what might have worked for others may not work for some. When it comes down to discipline, some children require more than others and so I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with smacking, just sharing that I was one of those difficult ones that obviously would have taken the wrong path had I not received the smacking.

[robberger]

Incidentally...something we've found that works really well for certain situations such as temper tantrums...is our digital camera! It works with all our kids...they don't want their embarrassing behaviour recorded...either in still or video with sound. And honestly--in many situations it is more effective than smacking.

Sometimes they keep throwing a fit, and we catch it all on video. Later on after they've calmed down a bit we review it together and talk about it. Inevitably they are quite ashamed--and we then delete the pics/movies.

Even works with the eighteen month old.

[Carol]

Incidentally...something we've found that works really well for certain situations such as temper tantrums...is our digital camera! It works with all our kids...they don't want their embarrassing behaviour recorded...either in still or video with sound. And honestly--in many situations it is more effective than smacking.

Sometimes they keep throwing a fit, and we catch it all on video. Later on after they've calmed down a bit we review it together and talk about it. Inevitably they are quite ashamed--and we then delete the pics/movies.

Even works with the eighteen month old.


Now THIS - I agree with you!

:clap

[Cindy]

Robberger,
the video camera idea sounds great. I'll try that one out but it will be pretty tricky. My two year old only acts out in public places knowing that she can get away with it.

[Cindy]

like the saying goes "The apple does not fall far from the tree." Like mother like daughter and it's a good thing I know all her tricks. I just know that if she thinks I'm too strict, then I know I'm doing my job.

[veronica]

the only down side I can see with the video camera idea is there are some kids who just want to be the centre of attention and would play up just to get the camera trained on them.

The most important point is that all kids are different and respond to different things. as said above one responds to a wallop and another to guilt feelings being induced. We only had two of our own but they were both different. our foster daughter is different again and her son now 14 is different to all the girls. I'm blooming sure one method wouldn't have worked for all of them so its important to leave other options such as smacking there.

[Tia Maria]

I think this is a very difficult topic to discuss fully online as I previously said:

As a result when disagreeing with someone you are normally criticizing their upbringing and parenting techniques.

Hence the smackers feel the need to staunchly defend themselves and their parents. And by disagreeing the anti-smackers are 'criminalising' them.

And:

Also everyone has the ultimate trump card of "There is no way you could have brought up my daughter without smacking her, she would have been deliquent by now", or "My son was an absolute nightmare but with a lot of effort and without smacking he is now an angel". Without the ability to turn back time and parent the other person's child you can't prove the other person wrong.

It is interesting reading your personal experiences which you feel justifies hitting somone younger and weaker than you, but for every one someone can quote a different personal experience which supports anti-smacking.

There is also an element of chicken and egg here. Are the school behavioural units full of children who are smacked becuase these are the kind of children who wouldn't respond to any other kind of discipline, or because parents who find it difficult to discipline children effectively, end up smacking?

I would have thought the majority of us will probably do what are parents did. It would be interesting to hear about those who did differently from their parents. I saw a report on television about a Pacific Island couple who chose not to smack their children and found themselves ostracized to a certain degree by their friends and family.

The reason I asked if anyone knew about animal rights in New Zealand is I wondered if animals were given less, more or the same rights as children. For instance is it OK to kick a dog if he jumps up on the sofa? I don't have any pets apart from goldfish, so I have no idea bout this! :D

Cheers

Tia

[granger]

Are the school behavioural units full of children who are smacked becuase these are the kind of children who wouldn't respond to any other kind of discipline, or because parents who find it difficult to discipline children effectively, end up smacking?


Looking at it another way, there were fewer behavioural problems in schools before corporal punishment was outlawed. The disruptive behaviour that teachers in many UK schools have to put up with these days is awful.

[robberger]

Regarding animal's 'rights' then...whether animals have more 'rights' than children and all...and since you are so concerned about 'violence' against children...

What do you think of aborting--killing--murdering--unborn children?

Or is that just a woman's 'right' to choose? 'Right' to 'privacy' and all that...dung?

If you want to find a cause to champion, to protect the truly and totally innocent against the self-centered and pleasure seeking grossest violence of the guilty, then maybe I'll believe you are actually interested in reducing violence against innocents.

Until then, I have no reason to believe this hypocritical nonsense is in the child's best interest at all.

[Tia Maria]

Granger wrote:

Looking at it another way, there were fewer behavioural problems in schools before corporal punishment was outlawed. The disruptive behaviour that teachers in many UK schools have to put up with these days is awful.

Interesting point, so do you think the majority of smackers are in favour of the return of corporal punishment?

Cheers

Tia

[Trigirl]

what a shame - up until that post i was really enjoying how such a difficult topic was being discussed with disagreements but no real abuse/ranting etc

robberger you just went seriously down in my estimation. not for your views but for your inability to discuss them in a civil manner.

edited to add: clearly i meant robberger's post - not tia maria's!

[robberger]

I consider it a valid point...as should anyone who claims to care about right and wrong.

Why is the ultimate violene against the unborn child given a pass if the initiator of the anti-smacking bill was going to pull the bill should an amendment allowing 'light' smacking be passed?

Slightly reddened skin versus death, and people are hollering about the red skin! This is incredible to me.

I believe it is a question which demands an answer, because it goes straight to the credibility of most who claim smacking is harmful. Do we need a poll to resolve this? I bet 80% of those against smacking are for a woman's right to kill her unborn child, and I bet 80% of those against a ban on smacking are against killing unborn children.

I could be wrong. But it is a valid point and it does not ultimately matter if I lose standing in this forum. The truth will out eventually with or without me.

[constablechuck]

I don't have any children so I have never needed to discipline a child, when I was a kid my father had a paddle that was prominently displayed in the kitchen, on the paddle was a scripture and instructions that said to read the scripture and count to ten before using the paddle, we moved from that house when I was five and I never saw the paddle again after that, but I do still remember it very well and it was a deterrent, I was never abused or beaten but I did get paddled on the behind a few times and in hindsight I think it was necessary form of discipline.

I believe the government has a duty to enforce the law and ensure that people, especially children are protected from abuse, there are some parents out there that react out of anger or just take out their frustrations on their children in the form of physical and / or verbal abuse, that being said, most parents are competent to decide how to discipline their children and should not suffer a loss of discretion because of what others have done, I think rather than outlawing physical discipline the government should simply regulate and specify what form of physical discipline is acceptable and what is not ie: paddling a childs bottom would be acceptable, however paddling it so hard that the skin is broken is not acceptable, this would be simply a matter of common sense to most parents but it would put potentially abusive parents on notice that they can be prosecuted if they go to far with physical discipline.

[veronica]

its not about gaining or losing standing. I would be the first to say that each woman (hopefully with the mans backing) has the right to choose whether to carry or abort a child. The same goes for smacking or not. Its important that we have the right to choose and that the choice not be taken away.

Whether we end up having to make these decisions is a moot point and I strongly reckon the old adage of 'walk a mile in my shoes' comes into it.

Freedom of choice is very important and being able to make a deliberate and informed choice in either of these situations should be our right.

[robberger]

This is not a freedom of choice issue, but rather a referendum on the proper role of government in society. As far as I'm concerned, government's only real purpose is to protect the weak from the strong, the innocent from the guilty, and to enact justice when individuals contravene that purpose.

It is hypocritical for government to pass a law preventing smacking while at the same time legalizing infanticide. I understand people find this language offensive and difficult but it is the truth.

If a mother does not have the right to abuse her child (and she doesn't), she certainly does not have the right to kill her child either (and she doesn't).

When society calls wrong right, and right wrong, it will fall. A house divided against itself can not stand. Watch.

[constablechuck]

This isn't really a debate on abortion, however I don't think abortion is right, especially for the child, that being said my opinion may be a bit biased since my mother had health problems and she told me that planned parenthood really pressured her to abort me, I kind of feel like they tried to snuff me out, but I do understand that a woman has a legal "right" to an abortion because she's carrying the child, it takes two people to make a decision to conceive a child, however after that, things seem to be a bit unfair, the man has no right to choose whether or not he wants to support a child for the next 18 years, but a woman can choose to abort for any reason she chooses, whether it's because she doesn't want to carry the child or she just doesn't want to support it for 18 years it's her choice alone, it seems a bit one sided.

I know this a potentially troublesome subject, I'm just expressing my opinion and I don't want to stir the pot.

[Trigirl]

I understand people find this language offensive and difficult but it is the truth.
no its merely your opinion. i understand that people like to state their dearly held opinions as fact but that doesn't actually make them facts.