The failure of the petition to force a referendum on the anti-smacking legislation to deliver the required number of signatures rekindled the debate on talkback this week. Some callers insisted that the issue is not dead and they are still very angry; others said that we need to give the legislation a chance, time to work.
Consider this;
Children at risk
For a number of years, attention has been drawn to conditions for children at risk. The work of the social services and other authorities in this area is undergoing continuous development. This group of children includes children who grow up in homes in which physical or psychological violence takes place, children who are neglected, children who have been subjected to sexual abuse, children of substance abusers, children of people with mental disorders and children who live in conditions of economic vulnerability.
Children who have experienced domestic violence have long been disregarded by society, but are being given increasing attention. According to the Committee on Child Abuse, around ten per cent of all children have at some time experienced this type of violence, and five per cent experience it often. Attention has been given to the need to develop support for children who have experienced violence and in other ways have been affected by violence by and towards family members.
No. This is not an excerpt from a New Zealand report although the statistics quoted mirror ours. Click on this link to see which country the report is referring to. Smacking was banned there in 1979.
It Ain’t Half Hot Mum – #32 – S05E03 – The Pay Off
27 minutes ago
3 comments:
This stupid law only nets the good parents who lightly chastise their children.
As you have pointed out their are many other problems that can be addresed to help children - which would make a difference. How hard would it be to institute routine drug/alcohol testing on beneficiaries, monitor families with members who have mental disorders, etc?
This typically paternalistic approach of our government punishes all for the few, rather than putting in some real thought and effort into what is fast becoming New Zealands shame.
Lindsay, you're being a bit too cute.
When that text says 'experienced family violence,' what does it mean? please be specific.
For example, does it actually mean the children have been beaten? Or does it mean they have seen or heard violence occurring in their family?
And how does the report define violence? For example, does violence include verbal and mental abuse? just of the children, or including all members of the child's family?
That there are more children subject to care and protection measures and in foster care per head of population than in NZ says a lot. It doesn't say they're being 'beaten' - just that they are not safe in the care of their natural parents.
Based on the Swedish experience I will be a very old lady and we will still be churning out strategies to protect children from child abuse - long after Bradford's bill became law.
Post a Comment