The following is from today's DomPost. (I wonder if there is anybody within the Barnardos organisation who is getting a little concerned about the negative effect Murray Edridge might have on their fundraising capacity);
Is it reasonable to smack a three-week old baby?
Can it ever be reasonable to hit a child in the head, the genitalia or any other sensitive part of the body?
According to the PM et al it is already a crime to smack. A report of any of the above actions should be investigated. It isn't reasonable to smack a three-week old baby. It is unhinged. It isn't reasonable to hit a child in the genitalia. It is sick. Mr Edridge is banking on us agreeing with that. I believe most would which is why we have a jury system and the legal mechanism to deal with this already.
Update; From the NZ Herald; The Government is relying on child welfare groups such as Plunket and Barnardos to convince the public of the merits of Green MP Sue Bradford's so-called "anti smacking" bill.
Yet another mistake.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Have you seen Sue B's (Partial) faq?
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other10707.html
This viewpoint is a tad emotive & somewhat inaccurate. Parenting programmes are not effective with the worst behaved kids ... in fact thosecharacteristics that define those most likely to abuse kids
similarly define those refractory to such interventions e.g. Triple P, Oregon and Webster/Stratton.
One would have to say that this chappy's reading of the research is somewhat suspect as is his practical experience.Also how reflective his views are of those working with families in his organisation must be questionable.
Similarly I know of no professional organistion that has solicited the views of their members prior to presenting a submission in favour of the repeal.
Post a Comment