Not Smacking
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”)
Hat Tip: SOMETHING SHOULD GO HERE, MAYBE LATER.
Related posts:
- Smacking Intimidation There seems to be an awful lot of strangeness going...
- Smacking Myths Deborah Coddington holds forth on the referendum in the HoS...
- Attention, Mr Key I sincerely hope that John Key has read this article...
- Key’s Achilles Heel? Reader’s of this blog will know that I consider John...
- Wow! *That* Worked! Today the police have blithely announced that 12 children were...
May 20 09 2:10 am
I think that parent over-reacted badly, I know it’s hard not to let it get to you when the lovely little toe rags don’t listen or do dumb things but I try and remember they don’t reason like an adult. The thing is he hit in the face and I’d say that’s one thing that should never be done, too much potential for causing real harm there. On the other hand no discipline at all is no good, children actually need it and to have boundaries set but it’s not always that easy to access information on particular problems and there are times time-out and whatever just don’t seem to be having an effect. That’s the time the occasional swift action may not go astray. I made sure I knew the wording, but the hard part is knowing when it applies and what you are really allowed to do legally. Obviously a lot more people are even more unclear about the effects of the law change. Mind you that was much the same as when ‘reasonable force’ was allowed, that wasn’t clear either exactly how much was too much either. If it was reinstated it would have to be made absolutely clear what was acceptable in terms of smacking and what is not.
Agreed. My favoured definition would be flat of hand only; not to head or genitalia. Simple and easily policeable.
May 20 09 8:42 am
Seems straightforward enough – the jury believed the witness’ testimony that he punched his kid in the head, rather than his own testimony that he didn’t. That would have got him a conviction under the old law just the same as under this one, so how it’s any kind of ‘test’ of Bradford’s messing around is beyond me.
Your point re smacking requiring a low skill set and its absence likely to be filled by no discipline at all is an excellent one.
Psycho Milt’s last blog post..Where is Poneke on the sexist bigotry of the left!!!
May 20 09 9:29 am
FUD is the term for it and it is used extensively. It can be a sneaking form of control and encourages scabs and others to show their true nature. Exactly what we are seeing now. Our gas station is getting more and more of the unruly of all ages, but particularly children.
What we also see is the number of parents who furtively look around to see who is watching.
Have a look at the Wikipedia entries for FUD and its history. The big boyz love it.
Yes, I know all about FUD. You really get to see how it works close up, when you get to experience it as a management technique.
May 20 09 10:58 am
I have a link to an Aussie Senate discussion about it on my site. Oil cos, state sectors and the left make for unusual bedfellows but all must have the same psychiatric issues.
Any idea what it is?
May 20 09 11:02 am
You are soo right Macdoctor.It is also my fear that undisciplined children will roam the streets,not giving a damn about anybody and anything.
On a personal note,the other day I went walking with my son and grandchildren.My grandaughter has a habit of suddenly taking off and running like the wind(she is 3).she did this again across a field and over a fence almost into the traffic which was quite busy.Well,the emotions when I finally caught up with her!!I was angry that she had not listened to my calling her to stop,and distraught that she had almost run into the traffic.Oh,and the adrenaline pumping through my system from the ditch the coffee and run like hell to catch her.
I yelled at her looking like a really irate grandmother.(and very aware of the people in the cars going past.) For the life of me,I can’t see how being nice and in control makes the child aware that she has done something really dangerous at the time.Sometimes discipline down the track does not work.
May 20 09 11:06 am
Where is the proof that Jimmy Mason punched his child in the face? The jury could have agreed that it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he punched his son in the face but nonetheless convicted as he admitted pulling his son’s ear and flicking his ear.
This case has been poorly reported. Was there any marks or bruising where the boy was punched? Did the witnesses take the stand and were they cross examined.
The witnesses, particularly the adult may have had good reason to lie.
If so, the witnesses motivations for lying are very obscure.
May 20 09 11:47 am
“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.”
oh – so parents are reticent to hit their children now? Oh no, what a horrible outcome! Look, scaring the hell out of a child with physical intimidation is never a good idea. The psychological scars are nearly identical to sexual abuse.
What the hell is wrong with a bit of time out?
May 20 09 11:59 am
i.e.:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/155/6/806
So it can be argued that physical abuse is in fact worse than sexual abuse, because it is more commonly associated with dissociation, which makes people more prone to mental illness.
May 20 09 12:10 pm
“If so, the witnesses motivations for lying are very obscure.”
That is because the media have done a very poor job of report the facts. It is speculation but I will suggest a couple of motives. There are people like Roger Nome who believe that even a light smack on the legs should be prosecuted. If that had of been the case and the woman spoke to Jimmy it likely Jimmy would have told her where to go in not very polite terms. After she got involved she would want a conviction and she would have a motive to embellish her story if not out and out lie.
If there was clear evidence that he punched his boy in the face I doubt if the jury would have taken nine hours to reach a verdict. If he had punched his boy with force there would have been bruising.
Let us home that John Boscawen’s bill gets drawn soon so that there is some clarification for the ideologically driven piece of legislation.
May 20 09 1:25 pm
Roger: What the hell is wrong with a bit of time out?
Nothing at all. It is a much better form of discipline. And if you think that the average parent has any idea how to use it properly, you are highly deluded. I suggest that, in future, you actually read my whole post instead of just reacting in typical liberal knee-jerk fashion.
Chuck: After she got involved she would want a conviction and she would have a motive to embellish her story if not out and out lie.
This is called perjury. I would tell her that she might go to hell for perjuring herself, but, apparently, we are already here.
May 20 09 3:34 pm
This is called perjury. I would tell her that she might go to hell for perjuring herself, but, apparently, we are already here.
If it was perjury it would be almost impossible to prove and it would only be perjury if she took the stand or supplied a sworn statement. I will be interested in seeing what Jimmy Mason has to say if his documentary is aired.
John Boscawen’s Private Member’s Bill can be found at
http://section59.blogspot.com/2009/05/john-boscawens-private-members-bill.html
The only people I can see who would object to it are ideologues
May 20 09 3:42 pm
Time out is a good tool, alongside other forms of discipline.
Personally, when I was young I did not respond well to time out. I’d just stew about whatever I had done and come out even angrier than I was at first. Even as a child I preferred a smack, as the discipline was over quickly and I could get on with my life. But every child is different. The anti-smacking brigade expect every child to fit their perfect model, which is a load of nonsense.
People often remark how well-behaved our son is, and how we are lucky to have such a good, happy boy. Lucky? Nonsense. It takes a lot of effort to ensure a child is happy and well behaved. But few people compliment us on doing a good job raising him, they all (especially the younger people) just think we must be lucky and the other parents with screaming toddlers must be unlucky.
What can you say…
Mr Dennis’s last blog post..Friday cartoon
May 20 09 3:50 pm
By the way, I disagree with Boscawen’s amendment Chuck as I don’t think the new law should specify what type of discipline is “reasonable”.
The biggest problem with the anti-smacking law was that it made the State define how parents should raise their children, and to define what discipline is ok in law is to accept that it is the State’s role to dictate how children are raised.
Defining methods of discipline also distracts from the purpose of the law (preventing child abuse) by turning it instead into a debate about how best to raise children – and we’ll just have another long, messy and pointless debate.
The law should simply state that no lasting damage (e.g. bruising) should be caused, and forget about how the discipline is administered. That way you keep the law simple and ensure no-one can abuse their children, without pandering to any ideological lobby group.
I explain myself better here:
http://sjdennis.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/smacking-with-a-wooden-spoon/
Mr Dennis’s last blog post..Friday cartoon
May 20 09 4:35 pm
Mr Dennis, I along with many others put in a lot effort into opposing Bradford, Clark and Key’s anti-parental discipline bill. The old law worked pretty well but was not perfect. No law is and that includes Boscawen’s proposal. However, the chance getting the law changed back to allow the use of implements or whatever is close to zero.
If Boscawen’s bill is drawn by ballot there a reasonable chance that it will be adopted. I think there is a chance that even Labour would support it. Bradford and Clark’s refusal to settle for a reasonable compromise helped to cost them the election.
It would be a shame if this ill conceived piece of legislation is not overturned because some of those who oppose it are not prepared to get behind John Boscawen and Bob McCroskie to get a must better albeit imperfect law.
May 20 09 4:41 pm
Chuck, just to clarify, Boscawen’s amendment is certainly an improvement on the current law, so I’d support it as the lesser of two evils. I just don’t believe it is ideal.
If clause 2b were removed it would be a fairly good law, defining what force was “reasonable” without pandering to any lobby group.
Mr Dennis’s last blog post..Friday cartoon
May 21 09 1:36 pm
On reading the Herald Blog I came across a another possibility. That is the witnesses could be mistaken. Pretend you are going to flick someone on the ear. First clench your fist. Then hold your first two fingers back with you thumb. Next move your hand forward as if you are going flick someone on the ear and release your fingers. Depending on the distance the angle the witness was from Jimmy it could look like a punch especially if Jimmy was yelling and the boy cried when his ear was flicked.
Does this seem feasible?
May 21 09 2:14 pm
That is certainly feasible. Shame you weren’t on the jury!
If he had actually punched the boy you’d expect there to be visible injuries, such as bruising, and if there were someone would probably have photographed it and it would be all over the media. With no injuries it seems unlikely that he actually punched him.
Mr Dennis’s last blog post..Concentrate washing powder
May 22 09 1:07 am
Let us be clear what’s going on here: this is a parent who has been found guilty in a criminal court for disciplining their own child
This is disguisting.
As to why the woman would lie: well – based on her behaviour – we know she is an interferring leftist busybody who interfered with a father dealing with his own kids in his own way. Clearly she has an agenda here or she would have kept herself to herself. The law should criminalise busybodies (whether elected, appointed, or self-appointed) sticking there noses in when they are not wanted — not the actions of parents or schools in disciplining the children under their care
Jun 2 09 2:58 pm
I am currently with a new partner who has a 17 month old daughter. I have 3 older children of my own and have experienced the process of applying discipline to children. In my new relationship I am revisiting and rethinking the methods parents use, and have been researching world/society views on appropriateness of various forms of discipline, and questioning my previous beliefs. I have concluded that smacking can be a very EFFECTIVE tool, if used very sparingly, but should be a very last resort and certainly not used on a regular basis. I have used smacking (open palm on bum) on 2 occasions spread over 3 children, and that the smack actually had the effect of making my child realise that, a)I was serious, b) I would, if necessary, ACTUALLY resort to a smack,(i.e. there are times when negotiation just doesn’t cut it) and c) They had plenty of warning signposts leading to the smack.
So what they actually learned from that was to READ THE WARNING SIGNS, judge my tone and demeanour, to gauge when I really meant something, and to back off that behaviour well before discipline was necessary. I have found it very effective at PREVENTION of antisocial/destructive/dangerous behaviour.
With 2 of my children I never got to the point of feeling it necessary to use a smack, but with my son he just had to be shown a boundary in a clear swift unambiguous way on 2 occasions. I felt awful afterwards but it really was effective in making him think about actions and consequences. What hurt him most was my clear disgust at his behaviour, and I truly believe that negotiating/explaining/timeout would NOT have had the same effect.
Jun 2 09 5:39 pm
Good on you Dave. The useful thing about a smack is that if you do smack, you virtually never have to. The children are just that much better behaved. They probably end up being punished less than other children in fact.
Mr Dennis’s last blog post..Maori seats against the Treaty of Waitangi
Jun 3 09 12:07 pm
Thankyou for your feedback. I am actually in the process of planning a Fatherhood programme in the Bay of Plenty, to assist and encourage men to connect with their children more effectively. I believe that men have a very important role to play in our childrens development, and that we as men need to learn better ways to help guide our children in their lives. This involves all aspects of responsible positive committed parenting. Essentially I believe that we all want our children to grow up with a sense of freedom to explore and to express themselves in their own unique way, and to have fun doing it….. within the bounds of not doing anything harmful or disrespectful to other people and/or property.
I would appreciate your feedback on an issue that my partner and I are currently debating. She has a 17 month old bright happy wee girl, who in toddler fashion is testing boundaries left right and centre (including biting her mother, hitting, and lunging for wine glasses/ornaments etc). It makes me very hesitant to take her out socially to friends homes etc. I am of the opinion that we need to discipline her behaviour so that she learns what she can touch and what she cant, rather than putting everything out of her reach. My partner believes she is too young to understand, and has raised her by herself from birth, with almost no discipline . I am quite certain that she fully understands most of what she does because when i spend time alone with her, she is a perfect little angel, still testing boundaries but watching me for a response and if i just give her a signal (e.g. a gentle head shake, a tone of voice etc) she will move back from the boundary every time. But when her mum is around, anything goes, and anything I try to do to reign her in has limited results, because she then plays off her mother who allows her far more freedom to behave as she wants to. I sit and watch quietly, quite sure that this darling 17 month old knows exactly how to manipulate her mother.
My belief is that discipline is all about creating communication signals between parents/adults and children, including tone of voice, facial expressions, hand signals etc.
The problem we have is that my partner believes her daughter is too young to understand anything, and believes that she does nothing DELIBERATELY, that it is all just a small innocent child being a small innocent child, exploring and having fun.
My take is that this young child is quite a bit smarter, that she has learned what she can get away with and how to manipulate her mum, she has developed a range of signals to get what she wants, when she wants it. There are NO consequences (apart from, “no you shouldn’t ….., ….. is bad”, in a level tone) if she knocks a glass of red wine or something breakable off a table, or bites her mother, or hits others.
Sorry to lay it out in so much detail, my question for you would be:
At what age do you think children are cogniscent and in need of disciplining? And I mean disciplining without smacking.
My experience from parenting 3 children of my own, is that their little radars are on from a very young age, they understand different voice tones and key words, even before age 1, and that the gentlest forms of discipline can begin very early in their lives.
Jun 3 09 6:16 pm
Dave, you have a difficult problem. I completely agree with your position on discipline. Like you I have had experience. I have adult children and grandchildren. Your big problem is that you and your partner disagree. There is no easy solution. Is the girl’s natural father on the scene? That makes a big difference. It is very hard to give you sensible feedback without more information. You do sound very reasonable. Good luck.
Jun 4 09 10:42 am
Based on my own son, I’d say they can understand discipline by 7 months, and quite possibly earlier. At 7-8 months, we were able to train our son not to roll when his nappy was being changed – when many women my wife knew were complaining they had to pin their children down, our son was (almost!) perfectly obedient.
Training our son to not roll while his nappy was changed took just two days of discipline at 7 months. Seriously. Babies are extremely bright.
At one he understands the word “no” very well, just call “no” to him from the other side of the room and he will (usually!) stop what he is doing and go do something else.
At 17 months I’d say she’s a lot brighter than your partner gives her credit for. So many parents underestimate their children these days, they are actually very smart. It’s quite sad to see.
Mr Dennis’s last blog post..Maori seats against the Treaty of Waitangi
Jun 4 09 2:13 pm
Thanks for your feedback guys, much appreciated.
I suppose the reason that i’m being very careful about how I approach this situation is because i’m not the wee girls biological father, and that is a difficult position to be in. It’s my first taste of what stepfathers go through, and I now see how difficult that situation is. I dont feel that I have much in the way of bargaining power, and I mean that in it’s most positive sense. For example I am VERRRRRY wary of any physical interaction, I dont feel 100% comfortable about seeing the wee girl running around naked after a bath etc, or touching her in any way. With my own biological children I never felt that way. And it is early days with my relationship, so I realise that I may not be a long term “father figure” in the wee girls life. The point being, with regard to discipline, her mum is the ultimate authority with regard to her daughter, and that diminishes my ability to be assertive regarding discipline at this stage.
I agree that children are very smart little cookies from a very early age, and that they are very very aware of signals and tones, and look for these signals to affirm behaviour. And they will test and retest their boundaries, and rightly so. They are, in their own way, seeking guidance, and positive parenting is providing that guidance.
In my Fatherhood programme, our aim will be to address parenting as the primary means of PREVENTING the unacceptable levels of abuse and violence in society. If all children are parented positively from the very start, we have our best chance at enabling our children to develop into balanced responsible considerate respectful teens and adults. Lining up ambulances at the bottom of cliffs when the children are in their teens is NOT the solution. The horse has bolted by then. PREVENTION is the way forward.
Hence positive discipline is a major component of the way we can mould our children. The Anti Smacking legislation has at least made us all think about and actively discuss the pros and cons of smacking, and the tools we use to discipline our children. I’m quite sure that a firm safe smack ON OCCASION is an effective tool, especially for boys, who tend to be more physical in the way they go about life. They seem to understand a physical response (on occasion) better than negotiation. Sometimes the short story is the most effective and appropriate response. Smacking is very useful in a situation where an immediate corrective response is required. However, I also believe that systematic and regular smacking is negative for the child, and its effectiveness as a disciplinary tool diminishes with repetition.
Im very interested in the different attitudes of mums versus dads re the childs discipline, and very mindful of the need for consistency in method and application of discipline.
So I value your feedback and discussion, it is very healthy for us as parents to question the way we parent, and to aspire to be better parents.
Jun 4 09 9:01 pm
“However, I also believe that systematic and regular smacking is negative for the child, and its effectiveness as a disciplinary tool diminishes with repetition.”
I’d agree that too much smacking could be unhealthy. This is where time-out type punishments are good. They allow you to remove a child from a situation and stop it escalating, before you start acting out of anger.
But time-out isn’t that great a punishment in itself for many children, I reacted poorly to it when young. I’d just stew and end up angrier than I was at first. Even as a child I preferred a smack – it was over quickly and I could get on with life.
Each tool (smacking, time out etc) has its use, and is inappropriate in other situations.
Mr Dennis’s last blog post..Maori seats against the Treaty of Waitangi
Jun 8 09 6:29 am
why should just young parents be taught parenting techniques? Being older does not make you a better parent. If parenting classes were given older parents would need them just as much as younger parents.
Good point, Kirstie. I guess we focus on young parents because, statistically, they are the most at risk. But I have seen plenty of families with multiple undisciplined children.