Cindy Kiro published a column today, I’ve taken the liberty of fixing some of the mistakes she made.
(”Blue car” is a reference to The Simpsons, where Homer tells Mr Burns he’s not easily distracted, then immediately gets distracted by a blue car.)
Update: Added Kiro’s comments in italics, and tweaked my own - they’d moved around a bit more than I thought.
It’s not okay to hit our children, ever.
I have never met a person in prison or a youth justice residence for violent offences who received too much love and too little physical punishment. The opposite is true. Violence taught them to be violent.
I have never met a person in prison or a youth justice residence for violent offences who received too much love and too little abuse. The opposite is true – they have invariably been abused and neglected.
Because of what I see, and all the information showing bad behaviour by adults leading to bad behaviour by children, I supported the Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline, known as the Repeal of Section 59, or the anti-smacking law.
Because of research I’ve chosen to ignore, and all the testimony of lawyers that I’ve swept under the carpet, I’m going to emphasise the irrelevant point that bad behaviour by adults leading to bad behaviour by children, as I defend the Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline, known as the Repeal of Section 59, or the anti-smacking law.
My objective is to see the best for all children and young people in New Zealand, including ensuring their safety. They deserve the chance to grow up free from violence.
My objective is to see what I believe is the best for all children and young people in New Zealand, and to hell with the consequences for the rest of society. They deserve the chance to grow up free from violence – unfortunately Sue Bradford is undermining me on this by now stating that the bill had nothing to do with violence or safety. She’s clearly just annoyed it’s not working.
Much of what is reported about smacking cases where police talk to parents for disciplining their children is one- sided. Some of what is said is politically motivated with no consideration for children and young people. The child’s side of the story is seldom heard or listened to by this very vocal minority. Some of them don’t even believe children have rights.
Much of what is reported about smacking cases where police talk to parents for disciplining their children is one - sided. I mean, when a reporter finds 6 3 police at their door after their child screamed rather than go to bed, it’s my opinion that the public should be concerned about. Sure, what I say is politically motivated with no consideration for children and young people. But that doesn’t change the fact that this is a very vocal majority that is drowning out my minority. I don’t believe they as parents have any rights to speak in this way.
In reality, these cases often end up in court, this wasn’t the first time the parent disciplined their child with the use of violence and, in fact, they face charges of criminal assault. These are the same charges they would have faced before the law change.
In reality, when cases often end up in court, this wasn’t the first time the parent disciplined their child with the use of violence and, in fact, they face charges of criminal assault. These are the same charges they would have faced before the law change, and like before the law change no parent who truly abused their child will use the defence of reasonable force. Now that we have removed parent’s rights however, those who used reasonable force have no defence at all and can be railroaded.
One of the most important things that has happened since the law change is we have seen communities say no to violence against children. Far from dobbing in apparently good parents, they have decided to keep the children and young people in their community safe.
One of the most important things that has happened since the law changed is intimidation of parents. People have decided to dob-in their neighbours, with lasting damage for parents, and hence children and young people involved. In no way does this make a community safe, instead it breeds distrust and destroys it.
I continue to urge people to speak out where they see unacceptable behaviour; this is the last line of defence for some children. Babies and young children can’t and don’t fight back.
I continue to urge people to speak out where they see unacceptable behaviour, but when that behaviour is mine they should ignore it. Physical punishment was for many parents the last line of before “the law” got involved, and now it’s gone. Maybe babies and young children can’t and don’t fight back, but you know those teenagers on the side of the road will attack when you tell them to pick up that bag of rubbish they just scattered all over the road. That may be unacceptable behaviour, but don’t bother calling the police on that either.
WHEN I talk to children they tell me they think physical punishment is wrong and ineffective. They think it is about adult issues, and children are used to bearing the brunt of frustrations that may have nothing to do with them. They believe that adults hit children because they would be in trouble if they hit other adults; or they would be hit back.
WHEN I talk to children I tell them they think physical punishment is wrong and ineffective, and that the research that disproves this is wrong. The research also shows that older children understand why parents use physical punishment - I don’t talk to those children. (See previous paragraph) I tell them it is about adult issues, and children are used to bearing the brunt of frustrations that may have nothing to do with. They then believe that adults hit children because they would be in trouble if they hit other adults; or they would be hit back. Many of these children have come up in the courts, and have blamed the judge for loading his issues on them. Hey, I’m just the messenger here!
(Again, I’d like to emphasise that hitting is assault, not reasonable, and was already illegal under the old law. That’s why I supported the change.)
It is time for old dogs to learn new tricks. Adults have to take responsibility for their own problems and not take them out on children. Punching a child in the head is not discipline and it may well kill them.
It is time for old dogs to learn new tricks. I have to take responsibility for my own problems and not take them out on parents.
Punching a child in the head is not discipline and it may well kill them. That’s not reasonable either. Petition gatherers are ok to punch though – oops, did I just say that?
Wanting an excuse in law for assault against a child is a very tangible way in which New Zealand continues to say violence towards children is okay.
Pretending my opponents want an excuse in law for child abuse is a very tangible way in which I can claim that New Zealand continues to say violence towards children is okay. Pretending that my opponents are like this is not okay, but I do it anyway.
Physical punishment is a breach of children’s rights as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC).
Physical punishment is a breach of children’s rights as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC)*. I can’t find the section that says this – oh look over there, a blue car!
New Zealand has signed this international human rights treaty that brings together a universal set of standards for children. UNCROC recognises children as active participants in their own lives and places obligations on adults to respect and provide for the best interests and welfare of children in their care.
New Zealand has signed this international human rights treaty that brings together a universal set of standards for children. UNCROC recognises children as active participants in their own lives and lots of other bull that everyone agrees with but can be spun any which way by people like myself. What it does make clear is that children musts be cared for in a reasonable way - that does not include living in constant fear of having their parents removed by the state however.
One of the most significant achievements of UNCROC is that it challenges adult perceptions of children as the property of their parents. This is a point that some parents and proponents of religious or political ideology cannot accept.
One of the most significant achievements of UNCROC/ISCROC is that it challenges adult perceptions of children as the property of their parents. (As you can tell by the start of this article, I hate people using possessive terms when referring to our children.) This is a point that “some” parents and proponents of religious or political ideology cannot accept, and I’m working on a law change to fix that too. (Note to self: get update on construction of camps)
New Zealand has a poor track record when it comes to protecting our children from violence with a reported child maltreatment mortality rate higher than most countries within the developed world.
New Zealand has a poor track record when it comes to protecting our children from violence with a reported child maltreatment mortality rate higher than most countries within the developed world, but not as high as some countries that have already banned physical punishment. My job was implemented many years ago to improve this – wow, another blue car.
The motives for physical punishment may be reasonable to the person administering it as they believe they are teaching the child a lesson.
The motives for physical punishment may be reasonable to the person administering it as they believe they are teaching the child a lesson.
However, physical punishment is a poor teaching method. At best it may result in immediate compliance. In the longer term, the evidence shows that the use of physical punishment increases the likelihood of disruptive and aggressive behaviour in children.
Abuse is a poor teaching method. At best it may result in immediate compliance. In the longer term, the evidence shows that the use of reasonable physical punishment gives better results. But, if someone like myself comes along and tells your children that you are a violent abuser for using physical punishment, that increases the likelihood of disruptive and aggressive behaviour in children.
It teaches children that the use of violence is an acceptable way to solve problems or to resolve personal differences of opinion. And so the cycle continues.
I teach children that the use of violence is not an acceptable way to solve problems or to resolve personal differences of opinion. You know, differences like whether or not Jonny deserved to have his lollies stolen, or whether Jane needed to be shoved out of the tree house. Children are quite capable of resolving these disputes without parental authority, and any parent who disagrees with this can explain why to a high court judge.
If anyone requires information, guidance and advice on why it is not okay to hit our children I urge them to read the literature my office has available or to talk to us.
If anyone questions my guidance and advice on why it is not okay to “hit” our/my children I urge them not to read the law my office works under, or make OIA requests for the basis of my statements here – the last guy who tried that got zilch, and I spent weeks badmouthing him in the public arena before I repeated his own advice back to him.
*Also known as International Standard Convention on the Rights of the Child (ISCROC)
