February 23, 2008...6:45 am
Updates: Saturday February 23
Child abuse back on election agenda
Well, the Children Last lobby has succeeded in gathering enough signatures on its petition to force a citizens initiated referendum on overturning Sue Bradford’s law against smacking children. The referendum will almost certainly be held with the general election this year. That is democracy in action and so be it. I believe, nay, I hope fervently, that a solid majority of New Zealanders will reject this nasty-minded referendum.
Despite my strong views on this issue, I think Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro’s radio comments this morning that a referendum is a “major distraction, misleading and unnecessary” are disappointing. Democracy is never distracting or unnecessary, even if much of what happens around it is misleading.
As argued in my January 6 article on this issue, the campaign last year against the repeal of the former Section 59 defence allowing parents to hit their children was the most extreme since the campaign against Fran Wilde’s Homosexual Law Reform Act of 1986. The vehemence with which some people demanded their continued right to hit children was often sickenly violent in language and attitude. Some of them seem to take great delight each time a child is seriously injured or murdered, saying somehow it is the new law’s fault.
That came through in yesterday’s gloating announcement that the petition organisers have 322,252 signatures, substantially more than the 285,000 (10 per cent of registered voters) they need to force a referendum. Former WINZ chief executive and now celebthority Christine Rankin, described as a co-organiser of the petition, is quoted as saying the Bradford Amendment “would do nothing to stop child abuse.”
Weasel in Karori Wildlife Sanctuary
Karori Wildlife Sanctuary has a predator-proof fence, but somehow a male weasel got in this week. While at the sanctuary in January, I watched as staff tried to chase away an agile burmese cat that was waiting to dart through the second of the two gates that visitors must pass through to gain entry. The staff said they had to do that regularly, but so far, so good, no cat had got inside. Fortunately, the weasel that was spotted inside this week was found, trapped and killed yesterday. As with the female one found inside the fence in 2004, how it got in is a mystery. Inspections have found the fence is intact. Maybe a predatory bird picked it up in the adjacent scrublands and accidentally dropped it while flying over the sanctuary.
New Wellington trolley buses
Two of the new three-axle trolley buses are in regular service, 331 (the Flying Paua Shell) and 332 (the Flying Fern Frond). A third, 333, which is in the standard Go Wellington yellow livery, is being tested.
Last night I test-rode 332 to Kingston and back. The Kingston 7 is the hilliest, most twisting trolley route of all, winding along narrow streets in Brooklyn. Despite the size of these new trolleys, which are much bigger than the old Volvos, it was able to get around the sharpest bends in Washington Ave with little trouble, though the driver was taking it carefully. We left the city with a full standing load, so the straps for passengers to hang from, not seen on Wellington buses for years, were a welcome feature. As with my earlier test ride of 331 though, I found that 332 does not seem to go as fast uphill as the Volvos. Its ascent of the Brooklyn Hill was elegant and steady rather than fast and sprightly.
Fifty-six more of these big new trolleys are on order, due to arrive at three a month from now on. Counting the three smaller prototypes already in service, there will be 62 new trolleys, and not before time. The oldest Volvos are 27 years old this year.
32 Comments
February 23, 2008 at 10:53 am
The “Sue Bradford wannabes” in this debate did not want the law changed to protect children. That was purely the emotive smokescreen language.
A law change was completely unnecessary, as there were already perfectly competent laws to deal with child abuse.
Their objective, instead, was solely to advance the boundaries of State control. And the voters said loudly and clearly, “No”. But we were let down by Helen Clark, but more so by John Key with his completely unmandated compromise.
This is not about pro-smacking or anti-smacking. This is about STATE CONTROL.
February 23, 2008 at 11:24 am
The now likely anti-smacking repeal petition is not about smacking children. That’s simply just a metaphor for the real referendum question, which if worded literary would be something like ” do you want the government to control your lives and tell you what to do.”
February 23, 2008 at 11:52 am
Oh, nonsense. Were that the case, that would have been the question in the petition and referendum.
Anyone who wants a referendum with that question is free to start a petition.
This petition/referendum is unashamedly about the “right” to beat children.
February 23, 2008 at 5:55 pm
You still don’t get it. You are using the same emotive language as the rest of the the minority who want to tell us what we can and cannot do.
I do not want to “beat” my children. Far from it. Angry, drunk or stoned people do that. We don’t need more laws to handle that.
But I do want the freedom to deal with my children without fear of busybody Greens phoning the police, just because of how I choose to correct my children. I don’t want to be at the mercy of “Police discretion”.
These same people who want to take away my prerogative of choosing how to correct my children, are the very same people who insist it is my right (or rather, my wife’s right) to choose to kill those children before they are born!
Why is it that 80% of NZers can see through this Green/Labour smokescreen, but you and most of the politicians cannot?
February 23, 2008 at 6:41 pm
David,
I guess if you feel it’s ok to “correct your children” by hitting them, then why is it not ok to correct your wife by hitting her?
Oh…. because they are smaller than you?
February 23, 2008 at 6:55 pm
One could never smack a child, even lightly, and yet still abuse them through neglect or emotional abuse.
Common sense tells us the line between physical correction and abuse; lasting bruising, broken skin are things that are abusive. But not giving your child reasonable boundaries is a form of neglect and abuse too. Some parents create boundaries without recourse to mild physical correction, others use it.
The point is that the parent is the final arbiter on what is best for their child - that’s the baseline philosophy. Some parents are abusive and do not do their best for their child, in such cases the State can step in to protect a child in danger.
However the State can’t tell parents how to do their job. The State is not a parent, it is not the loving father and mother of children. The State shouldn’t be entering into the relationship between loving and reasonable parents and their children.
If I walk up to another adult and smack them on the bottom I have committed assault according to the law. Children have a right to be parented. Adults don’t. No adult necessitates a smack on the bottom by their bad or dangerous behavior because adults create their own boundaries and are responsible for them in ways that children are not.
There is no way that a smack on the bottom of a naughty child necessitates police intervention. There is no way, within reasonable limits, that the State should intervene in the relationship of parent and child.
February 23, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Plenty of parents have raise children without having to resort to the use of violence. My parents did it. Pretty much all of Europe does not allow parents to physically discpline children. It is possible and we as a community should be encouraging more parents to raise children without having to resort to the use of force and one we are doing so is removing the legal defence of reasonable force from the statue books.
And no I don’t think parents are always the final arbiter on what is best for ‘their’ child. Sometimes they get it wrong. We need to get away from this attitude that children are somehow possessions of their parents because it stops people from stepping in when parents overstep the boundaries.
February 23, 2008 at 9:52 pm
My children have never been hit by either of their parents, and most of the many parents I know have never hit their children.
There is no reason, and no excuse, ever to hit a child, just as there is no reason, nor any excuse, ever to hit an adult, barring the rare exception of self-defence if another adult commits an unprovoked assault on you.
Assault is assault is assault, whether on a child or an adult.
End of story.
February 23, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Stef, the UK has not followed Sweden down the “State control” route regarding parenting.
But the fundamental problem in all this, is your last paragraph. You think that the State knows better than parents what is best for their children.
If that were true, then orphanages (or foster parents or CYFS institutions) would be better at raising children than families. Plainly, they are not.
This government is just using a few outlying statistics (such as child abuse deaths) to add laws to all the already law-abiding parents. (Just like they did for micro-chipping dogs.) Totally unnecessary, and it has no effect on the outlying statistics anyway.
February 23, 2008 at 10:26 pm
This government is just using a few outlying statistics (such as child abuse deaths) to add laws to all the already law-abiding parents.
What do you mean, this government? It was an overwhelming majority of this Parliament, 113 votes to 8.
And charming to see you dismiss murdered children as “a few outlying statistics.”
February 23, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I hope we can all agree that children need boundaries and that parents need to be able to set those boundaries and have the ability to enforce those boundaries by one means or another, and that sometimes this will mean the use of some form of punishment.
Why, in an objective sense, is a smack on the bum deemed to be cruel to a child whilst confinement, loss of priviledges, shouting at the child are deemed not to be cruel?
If a child is given the option of a smack, or detention, or loss of privileges and choses a smack because that is the punishment that he prefers, doesn’t that make that form of punishment the least cruel in the childs eyes?
Do the proponents of the Bradford bill think they are in a better position than either the child or his parents as to say what is the better solution?
Or perhaps we can’t agree that parents need to be able to set boundarys.
February 23, 2008 at 11:20 pm
“The point is that the parent is the final arbiter on what is best for their child - that’s the baseline philosophy. Some parents are abusive and do not do their best for their child, in such cases the State can step in to protect a child in danger.”
mmm … spot the contradiction.
On one hand you place the parent as the “final arbiter” and at the same time you place the responsibility onto the State to pick up the pieces when the parents fail. You really cannot have it both ways.
“However the State can’t tell parents how to do their job.”
Well in fact it does all the time. As a society we demand a whole range of “minimum care” standards from parents, from adequate clothing, feeding, housing, education and medical care. Fall short and we expect the State to intervene. CYPS may not be the most popular of public agencies, but the alternative of not having such as service is a lot less palatable.
Generations ago it was considered perfectly acceptable to send children into coal mines. Attitudes changed, although there was much resistance at the time. Consider then how our great grandchildren may look back on this debate and marvel at our barbarity.
February 23, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Yes, it was an overwhelming majority of Parliament. But it was AGAINST the wishes of an overwhelming majority of Parents (about 500,000 to 100,000).
Out of 600,000 parents living with children in NZ, how many killed their kids last year? Less than 10? Statistically, those are “outliers”. Not the sort of basis for making laws.
(Compare that with 17,000 killed by abortion — now there’s a problem that is being ignored.)
February 24, 2008 at 12:33 am
Yes but Switzerland, Spain, Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Spain, Latvia, Estonia, Greece all did.
Actually what I was saying wasn’t that the state should take over. More that children do not exist in a vacuum of their family from birth to eighteen years. They interact with others in the community and the community interact with them.
There’s been a few instances in my life where I have stepped in where I thought parents were being out of line. Once I merely told the parent to stop slapping their young child across the face and the other time I called the police because I was concerned that a father was unconcerned to see his 12 year old son rolling around on the streets of Ponsonby shirtless and drunk in the middle of the night.
However this culture of ‘its MY child’ did make me think twice about whether I should step in. But in the end upholding these parents ‘ rights’ took second place to the welfare of the child. However as long as we frame this debate about ‘parents rights’ others from the community may feel that they shouldn’t get involved in such situtations further contributing to those outlying statistics you mention.
February 24, 2008 at 8:09 am
Stef wrote: “Pretty much all of Europe does not allow parents to physically discpline children.”
I’ll take your word for it. But check out the following table.
Deaths from maltreatment, per 100,000 children aged under 15:
1. Portugal 3.7
2. Mexico 3.0
3. USA 2.4
4. France 1.4
5. Hungary 1.3
6. NEW ZEALAND 1.3
7. Czech Republic 1.2
8. Belgium 1.1
9. Slovakia 1.0
10. Japan 1.0
11. Austria* 1.0
12. Canada 1.0
13. Switzerland 0.9
14. Britain 0.9
15. Poland 0.9
16. Finland* 0.8
17. Denmark* 0.8
18. Germany* 0.8
19. Australia 0.8
20. South Korea 0.8
21. Sweden* 0.6
22. Netherlands 0.6
23. Norway* 0.3
24. Ireland 0.3
25. Italy 0.2
26. Greece 0.2
27. Spain 0.1
*Countries which ban smacking
(Source: Unicef, 2003. Includes deaths “of undetermined intent”)
Note, that many of the countries with the lowest rates of child death are where smacking is legal. Spain, Italy, Greece and Ireland – where smacking is or was legal at that time – have the lowest rates of child deaths. This would indicate that there is absolutely no correlation between smacking and child abuse deaths. So why is this debate side-tracked by those who are unable to see the difference between the two?
“Some of them seem to take great delight each time a child is seriously injured or murdered, saying somehow it is the new law’s fault.”
Hmmmm, what a strange comment. I have not heard anybody say such a thing. What I have heard some people say is that the new law has failed to stop child abuse. But that was always going to be the case. Even Sue Bradford has recently admitted that the new law will have no effect on abuse, though why she referred to child abuse throughout the period of the debate is a little confusing, not to mention dishonest. It begs the question: why introduce a bill that potentially criminalises parents who smack their kids? And given that most smacking probably takes place in private, how can the State expect to prevent smacking from occurring?
you wrote “allowing parents to hit their children”.
No, the law didn’t allow parents to hit their children but it did allow them to use reasonable force, as parents are still entitled to do (but just not for corrective purposes). The anti-smacking bill was not about child abuse. Do you know the difference between smacking and child abuse? You don’t seem to.
February 24, 2008 at 8:48 am
many of the countries with the lowest rates of child death are where smacking is legal
In fact, even by your own figures, many of the countries with the lowest rates of child death are where smacking is banned.
Not that I am saying there is a causal relationship between smacking and child deaths through maltreatment. But the material you posted there is fascinating.
February 24, 2008 at 9:23 am
I don’t know what the fuss is all about. John Key stated quite clearly at the time the bill was in it’s final stages that if it turned out that good parents were being harassed then national would repeal the Act.
February 24, 2008 at 9:39 am
Actually in Spain, Italy, Greece , the Netherlands and Switerzland smacking is now illegal. And it will be interesting to see what happens to those figures in the coming decades.
I am anti-smacking because I think it is form of child abuse. Not on par with some of the more high-profile cases but the commonailty is that an adult is using physical force against a child. I don’t think anybody should have a ‘right’ to inflict physical punishment on anybody else, particularly a child. There are other ways to raise children without resorting to using physical force and I think our society will be the better for it.
What I hoped might come out of this debate is that parents might question whether the ‘right’ is a behaviour that they should be engaging in at all.
February 24, 2008 at 10:02 am
James,
Even according to your own figures no country which has outlawed violence against kids has a high rate of child maltreatment. Surely, if your numbers are suggestive of anything*, it is that outlawing violence against kids is one way of reducing such violence.
Alongside the moral arguments, which Poneke has already eloquently stated, I think one of the best reasons for repealing section 59 was that it sent a loud message to New Zealanders that violence against kids is not ok. Hopefully, over time, this message will translate into less child abuse.
Oh, and to all those people above who said that the state has no right to intervene in the parenting of children: nonsense. The state does so already, in hundreds of ways - from preventing maltreatment to forcing us to fence pools. It does so for one simple reason: to protect children. I struggle to see what’s wrong with this.
________________________
* And to be fair here the numbers you detail tell us relatively little full stop, what we would need is to run multi-variate regressions on a whole heap of factors and also control for endogeneity(sp?) before we could make the sort of definitive claims that you are angling for.
February 24, 2008 at 10:36 am
I actually think that children “own” parents. I think children have a right to be looked after, loved, accepted and educated. Parents have a duty to their children, and children’s needs must be foremost for parents.
I just do not see a smack on the bottom that leaves no lasting mark as warranting State intervention.
We don’t intervene in a woman’s choice of abortion, even thought that terminates a fetus, why is a light smack so much worse?
On reflection I think this is an argument more about the purpose and role of the State rather than the abuse or rights of children.
We all agree that in the case of danger to the child, State intervention between parent and child is warranted. However a light smack places the child in no actual danger or creates physical harm.
February 24, 2008 at 11:14 am
The list James has posted has little value as there are to many other factors in comparisons between countries that have an influence.
My understanding is that the key to good parenting is setting clear boundaries (those deemed desirable to the wider community) talking to children and explaining them, and enforcing those boundaries with consistency, both with rewards and punishment, an Otago uni study showed that smacking was not destructive to a childs welfare, but that a lack of parenting and inconsistent parenting were.
Government intervention in this area will no doubt lead to yet a greater increase in the number of kids out of control as parents are further intimidated by the state into not exercising parental responsibility.
February 24, 2008 at 11:47 am
“My understanding is that the key to good parenting is setting clear boundaries (those deemed desirable to the wider community) talking to children and explaining them, and enforcing those boundaries with consistency, both with rewards and punishment,”
Exactly.
There are in fact two kinds of failure around this. One is not setting boundaries and doing nothing about it, and the other is not communicating boundaries and then capriciously enforcing punishments when the children infringe on them.
In the first case, the failure to set boundaries can be a moral one, a simple failure to care, an unawareness. The latter case the parent’s concern is of a rather self-centered kind, of not doing anything until the child is annoying enough to the adult…. and then over-reacting with anger.
In either case resorting to smacking represents a failure at the bottom of the cliff. There are so many alternatives that work better before that point is reached.
February 24, 2008 at 11:54 am
“In either case resorting to smacking represents a failure at the bottom of the cliff.”
No, The smack is to deter the child defying his parents by climbing over the railing, the bottom of the cliff is where they scrape him up when he wasn’t stopped.
February 24, 2008 at 3:41 pm
‘No, The smack is to deter the child defying his parents by climbing over the railing, the bottom of the cliff is where they scrape him up when he wasn’t stopped.’
This isn’t a lesson learnt. This is fear of the outcome…which will be an attack on the person.
I have an intellectually handicapped child. How much loving hitting do people think I must use so that the message will get through?
Or must I use alternative methods and be thought of as some sort of green lefty? That is some kind of abuse in itself.
February 24, 2008 at 7:00 pm
“I have an intellectually handicapped child. ”
Well so do I. She’s an adult now, but once, just once many years ago I smacked her. Never, never…. NEVER again. Nuff said.
My loving best wishes goes to you and all your family.
February 25, 2008 at 9:06 am
Terence wrote: “Even according to your own figures no country which has outlawed violence against kids has a high rate of child maltreatment.”
Well, they’re not my figures - they come from the UN. Second, I have no idea how you’ve reached your bizarre conclusion. Compare the figures for Austria - which has banned smacking - with the figures for Spain, which had not banned smacking. Austria’s rate of child deaths from maltreatment is 10 times higher than that of Spain’s.
The fact remains that the countries with the lowest rates of child deaths from maltreatment (Spain, Italy and Greece) had not or have not banned smacking.
Stef wrote: “I am anti-smacking because I think it is form of child abuse.”
Well, that is our opinion, and it is one that the vast majority of NZers probably disagree with. I would note that it is not illegal for young children to be circumcised. Is that not a form of child abuse, infinitely more painful and abusive than a mere smack on the hand?
February 25, 2008 at 9:16 am
Stef wrote: “I am anti-smacking because I think it is form of child abuse.”
Well, that is our opinion, and it is one that the vast majority of NZers probably disagree with.
Sometimes, the view of the majority is the baying of the mob, and leadership is needed, not pandering to whoever makes the most noise. Like Stef, I believe that “smacking” is a form of child abuse. As has happened with slavery, racism, religious bigotry and misogyny, I believe the majority will eventually come to accept this.
I would note that it is not illegal for young children to be circumcised. Is that not a form of child abuse, infinitely more painful and abusive than a mere smack on the hand?
Well, it is still legal for males to be circumcised, not females, but very few doctors will perform this totally unnecessary procedure. And yes I agree very strongly that it is child abuse. Thank you for alerting me of the need to launch a campaign against it.
February 25, 2008 at 10:08 am
“Sometimes, the view of the majority is the baying of the mob, and leadership is needed, not pandering to whoever makes the most noise.”
It is the majority (or significant minority) that elects our MPs every three years.
February 25, 2008 at 10:14 am
It is the majority (or significant minority) that elects our MPs every three years.
Yes indeed, about 80 per cent of registered voters do vote. It is a pity it is not much higher.
I believe MPs are elected to act in the best interests of all people in New Zealand, not just the majority. Especially not just the baying mob.
And generally, most MPs do act in the best interests of all, even of unpopular minorities, most of the time. It is called democracy, which is much more than the demands of the loudest.
February 25, 2008 at 11:04 am
On circumcision, why would that be considered child abuse any more than piercing ears or removing tonsils?
There apparantly is some evidence of medical benefit in terms of reduced chances of infection. We treat water to reduce similar such risks to our teeth.
February 25, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Insider,
Well, that really sums up this debate (that is, the smacking debate). If you listened to the anti-smackers, the issue is black and white. But they are focusing on the cons and ignoring the pros.
A Massey University Professor, Sitaleki Finau, last year reported that male circumcision “helps prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including Aids, and there is a proven link between circumcised men and a decrease in cervical cancer caused by the human pampilloma virus.” (quoted from Scoop)
“He says New Zealand health authorities should take note of World Health Organisation backing for United States trials in Uganda, Kenya and South Africa confirming male circumcision can cut heterosexual HIV transmission by up to 60 per cent.”
So, there appear to be benefits. About 10% of males are circumcised each year in NZ, which seems to contradict Poneke’s assertion that few doctors are prepared to perform this operation.
February 25, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Poneke:
When I gave birth to my four boys, two at National Women’s in Auckland and two at Christchurch Women’s, circumcision was available for religious reasons. Apparently most Polynesian baby boys are circumcised, but I’m sorry I can’t remember where I read that.
Leave a Reply