I had the opportunity to talk to the PM this morning on NewstalkZB and put a two-part question to her; Why do you believe removal of section 59 will stop child abuse and why are you not allowing your party to exercise a conscience vote on this matter?
This is her verbatim answer;
Firstly, I have never said it would stop child abuse. Secondly, It isn't removal. It is an amendment to section 59. The plain fact is that smacking or hitting or assaulting a child now is a crime under the Crimes Act. Some people are prosecuted. They are the people who have been seen to have seriously beaten a child. Because the law says that there is a defence of reasonable force people who thrash and hit children are escaping conviction and that's not right. Now, we are right down the bottom of western countries with a terrible record of threats to child safety, child death and injury and we have to do something about that and sending a signal that really, there are other forms of discipline available is very important. I no more think that the parent who lightly smacks a child will be dragged into court than I would fly to the moon. I just don't believe that. But what I believe is that section 59, with that legal defence which can be mounted needs to go because it is enabling people who viciously assault children to get off.
She omitted to answer the second part. Perhaps because she gave me an answer in two parts she thought she had.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
But what I believe is that section 59, with that legal defence which can be mounted needs to go because it is enabling people who viciously assault children to get off.
I've been following this discussion and there seem to be one or two suspect decisions, which once challenged seem to be exagerated (Straw Men)???
I could be wrong but I don't think there have been more than a handful of cases and they were heard by a jury. Hopefully someone else can enlighten us.
Lindsay, you counter claim (I think) that illegitimacy factors in child abuse. Pro repeal S59 people are weak on data proving any link between light smacking and harm to children, or child abuse and an alleged "culture of violence" and child abuse (they seem to speak as though these are givens). Can you present a sound argument in support of your claim (ie is there data to back it up)?
Yes.
Some videos posted on Youtube.com
Keyword to bring up all videos: 'section59'
Criminalising Parents NZ Style - The Timaru Lady - 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU6azKjkziI
Criminalising Parents NZ Style - The Timaru Lady - 2 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9WDjYC6NWg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminalising Parents NZ Style - 1 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjklj6yZGPk
Criminalising Parents NZ Style - 2 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk45JHr7aBY&mode=related&search=
Criminalising Parents NZ Style - 3 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olo4uWHPMyE
Criminalising Parents NZ Style - 4 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSxV0farmys&mode=related&search=
Criminalising Parents NZ Style - 5 of 5
Contains graphic images - need to be over 18 to view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfmUhGwtE9w&mode=related&search=
Simon Maude, the Family Law Section Chair, said: "The Section believes that careful consideration needs to be given to the development of law that does not sanction the use of violence by parents in the correction of their children. It is the question of what constitutes violence that requires particular examination in the rewriting of this legislation. Given their inability to protect themselves, children are entitled to expect the law to protect them. The courts, parents and children need law that is clear and descriptive as to what is permissible and what is not, in order to provide that protection."
http://www.lawyers.org.nz/general/Press/anti-smacking-180405.htm
Given their inability to protect themselves, children are entitled to expect the law to protect them.
Bollocks. Children expect their parents to protect them.
Post a Comment