Family First ran full page ads in the Sunday papers which made some claims about Sue Bradford's removal of section 59 bill. Beth Wood, of EPOCH (End Physical Punishment of Children) has issued a release rebutting these claims. I am not impressed. Here is just one;
Claim: Kiwis know the difference between smacking and child abuse.
Comment:
There is no evidence to support this claim.
That sums up the high regard in which busybody, nanny-statist, do-gooders hold you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Perhaps Beth is speaking for herself.
Reminds me of the book on Australians by Nino Culotta
`They are a weird mob'.
In my experience a `well timed' smack has never done any kid any harm. My now 36 year old daughter now thanks me for the whack I gave her on the backside in front of two of her friends when she was 17 for calling her mother a bitch.
Her whole attitude changed overnight.
& in my experience of courts, the 'correction' defence for child abuse is something conjured by lawyers, not the perpetrators of the abuse ... which of course is the only available defence for a not obviously mad or 'P' crazed person. The alternative approach is guilty with mitigating factors - which is a bit difficult if there is real damage.
So because of the limited defences available, and lawyers' predilection with getting their clients off, & their characteristic of embellishing or understating to emphasise, we end up with restrictive practice being imposed on all.
The naivity of it is incredible, & raises the question of why it is being so relentlessly pursued.
Perhaps 'tis an artefact of our parliament being filled with 'statistical abnormals,' & everyone knows, everyone wants to be Joe/Joess average (especially when young).It would be interesting to know what personal abuses they have endured that have resulted in their 'statistically abnormal' view on this matter - & it is abnormal, the majority of the population does not agree with the imposition of such restrictive practice.
My concern is not the Police arresting parents for smacking children, which I accept is not that likely, but CYFS ability and I believe willingness to take children from their parents when they are believed by CYFS to be in danger. All it would take would be for a child to tell the social worker at school that he has been smacked for CYFS to conclude the child is in danger.
Post a Comment