Taking the following report purely at face value, can you imagine how aghast people would have been if they could have foreseen this sort of carry-on 40 or 50 years ago?
Father's child assault trial begins today
18/05/2009 6:32:05
The trial of a Christchurch father charged with assaulting his two sons starts today.
Jimmy Mason was charged in January last year after he allegedly assaulted his two sons, aged two and four, by flicking their ears. He argues he was disciplining his children for riding their bikes dangerously.
The trial in the Christchurch District Court is set down for two days.
Again, taking the report purely at face value my own fleeting thought is these boys are lucky to have a father that cares about them. 40 or 50 years ago, a father in the dock on charges relating to his children was likely being prosecuted for non-support - and quite possibly jailed as a consequence.
Today if the father fails to support his kids we just shrug and do it for him. But, woe betide any that take their role seriously albeit outside of post-modernist precepts. Or in non-academic terms - uses some old-fashioned discipline.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
He punched a child in the face. Enough said. This man is not the poster boy for "loving correction" he's an example of all that's wrong with this debate. He thinks he's done nothing wrong. A bit of a gentle correction. Well, he's been found guilty of PUNCHING A CHILD IN THE FACE! I don't know how you can equivocate on this. He PUNCHED a CHILD in the FACE. What a scumbag. I really do hope he continues to be held up as the exemplar of loving correction. May be people will start to see that this craziness about section 59 actually perpetuates violence against kids where it's OK to PUNCH a CHILD in the FACE. Spin it how you want. This guy deserves everything he gets. It would be a delicious irony if gets prison and gets a bit of "loving correction" from a fellow inmate.
Calm down.
First I was very specific about taking the report I responded to at face value.
Second, it is unclear which action he has been found guilty of. As the ear-flick and punch in the face were combined in one charge who knows which the jury believed he was guilty of. He admits the ear-flick but denies the punch.
"As the ear-flick and punch in the face were combined in one charge who knows which the jury believed he was guilty of. He admits the ear-flick but denies the punch."
Who knows what the jury believed he was guilty of? Maybe both? A punch in the face of a child is unexcusable. And the problem with the ear-flick is that it paves the way to the punch in the face. If a bit of physical abuse "helps" a bit with getting that unruly child under control, maybe a bit more physical abuse will "help" more? I think it's a good think an example is being made here. And really - your blog entry is downplaying the issue. Did you not report the punch in the face on purpose?
Luggate, I posted in response to the first report I read about the case (pre-trial) and emphasised that my response was based on the report AT FACE VALUE.
It is interesting that nobody has responded to the thrust of my comment which was that these kids have an 'in situ' father whereas as so many don't and society shrugs that off. Deserting your kids is no longer a crime but flicking their ear is.
Punching a child (or anyone in the absence of self defence) -in the face is and always was assault & unacceptable. No new law has changed that. Sending a father to prison has consequences for the family also.
Lindsay appears to be referring to the shift in values - where we might have previously had concerns for the absence of a father - that is less of a worry now. We do not celebrate the family unit - through its difficulties and challenges and successes, but are like canaries in coalmines when we respond to contemporary perceived injustices.
I am a dad, I often get it wrong, it is stressful and a distraction from my own self pursuits. But it is a responsibility I take seriously and one which I wouldn't change for the world. (Well maybe someone could take my 13 year old daughter for a few years till those brain pathways develop properly!)
Want to swap her for my 15 year-old son? Sheesh
"It is interesting that nobody has responded to the thrust of my comment which was that these kids have an 'in situ' father whereas as so many don't and society shrugs that off."
I do not think that having an 'in situ' father is necessarily a good thing. Having an 'in situ' father who treats you well is wonderful. Having an 'in situ' father who does not treat you well is, in my opinion, worse than having an absent father. I don't think society (or the state, for that matter) is shrugging the problem off - single moms get a lot of media coverage, attention and last but not least support from the state. I don't think that 'in situ' fathers are the answer to all problems. And yes, I do think that kids are better off without a father than with an abusive father. By no means do I want to say that parents are not allowed to make mistakes - everybody makes mistakes. But there are some mistakes you shouldn't make, such as physically or emotionally abuse your child.
Re Shane:
"Well maybe someone could take my 13 year old daughter for a few years till those brain pathways develop properly!"
Hey, why did you decide to have kids? Didn't you know that they remain stupid and useless until they well beyond puberty? Such comments make me sad. If you are not prepared to put yourself on the back burner and focus on a kids for a considerable length of time you should not have one.
Macdoctor deals to the evil,anti societial no smacking nonsense...
"In a judgement that is sure to be described as a “test case” for the anti-smacking legislation, Jimmy Mason was found guilty today of assaulting his son. It is not even remotely a test case for the new legislation. Mason apparently punched his four-year-old son in his face. You would be hard pressed to find twelve people in New Zealand who would consider that reasonable discipline, even if section 59 was still in full swing.
In terms of court appearances and defense arguments, the repeal of section 59 has made no apparent difference. In terms of parents using smacking as a form of discipline, it has made a huge and very dangerous difference - it has introduced fear, uncertainty and doubt. A recent survey has shown that two thirds of parents think that all smacking is illegal or do not know whether it is or not. Coupled with the occasional horror story of a parent suddenly finding themselves surrounded by police after giving their children a light tap, this means that most parents view smacking with some trepidation (exactly the effect that Bradford wanted). Unfortunately, other methods of discipline require considerably more patience and skill to administer. Most parents are likely to substitute smacking for no discipline at all. Frankly this is far worse for them than the inappropriate punch of Jimmy Mason.
Currently, National seem to be perfectly happy to let this matter trundle along unattended to, on the grounds that they are not seeing large numbers of convictions under the new law. This is a dangerous illusion. The damage is being done to thousands of toddlers as I type. Already I see in my consulting rooms a sudden explosion in the number of poorly disciplined toddlers accompanied by frazzled parents whose ineffective attempts at control are routinely ignored by their children. These parents are clearly clueless about discipline.
Smacking is not a good form of discipline. But it is easy to do and requires a limited skill-set. I would be most happy to see parenting skills being taught to young parents, enabling them to develop some real skill in non-physical alternative discipline. But, in the meantime, removing the only effective form of discipline in their repertoire is a recipe for disaster. Section 59 should be reinstated immediately (preferably with some definition of reasonable force to ensure that people like Jimmy Mason do not “get away with it”)
Well said....remove discipline and chaos will follow in short order.
Luggage to Shane; "Hey, why did you decide to have kids? Didn't you know that they remain stupid and useless until they well beyond puberty? Such comments make me sad."
Come on now. Shane also said;
"I am a dad, I often get it wrong, it is stressful and a distraction from my own self pursuits. But it is a responsibility I take seriously and one which I wouldn't change for the world."
Having kids requires having a sense of humour and always, optimism.
Post a Comment