The Herald Votes Yes
I noticed that today the Herald weighed in on the “Yes” side of the referendum. They had a poll. They had graphs. They had a lone “No” opinion for “balance”. They had a touching testimony from a loving, well-adjusted family who had not used smacking in child-rearing for generations (Discipline without pain for 50 years – Nice, emotive title). They even had a Swedish “expert” who was shocked by our culture of violence. The clear implication being that smacking children is somehow a symptom of our sick, violent culture. The only thing missing was a nice editorial about the evilness of smacking and how we must all do something about child abuse. Apparently they are leaving this until later because this week they seem to be too busy licking Phil Goff’s wounds…
The MacDoctor reminds you of MacDoctor’s first rule for interpreting statistics. All statistics are misleading. And the apparent sudden drop off in the frequency of smacking as seen in the Herald’s poll is very misleading indeed.
First up in the complete lack of scientific rigor. By this, we mean the comparison with the statistics of Jane and James Ritchie is quite invalid. Both the Ritchies research and the Herald poll had 200 participants and there all resemblance ends. It is on par with saying elephants and mice are similar because they are both grey and have tails. The Ritchies were conducting a proper piece of scientific research using 200 standardised questions. There was no pressure on the parents to answer in any particular way. Smacking had yet to be denigrated as a barbaric form of discipline akin to child abuse. It had yet to be made illegal. Contrast the Herald poll of only eight questions, asking for immediate responses over the telephone. Smacking is both frowned upon by the intelligentsia and made illegal by a tyrannical government. Far fewer people will now admit to smacking their children.
I’m stunned. [/sarc]
This is not telling you that there are actually fewer people smacking their kids. It is not telling you that the law is “working” (if by working you mean stopping people using smacking, rather than reducing child abuse, which it clearly does not). All it is telling you is that fewer people will admit over the telephone that they smack their kids. It is telling you that they are afraid.
How can I tell this? Simple. Look how many people are going to vote “No” in the referendum. 85.4%. That is despite the fact that many of them think the question is misleading. Only 10% of the country believe that a smack is flat wrong. Yet 66% of New Zealanders claim they rarely, if ever, smack their children (up from 21% in 1997). My knowledge of human nature tells me that this is probably nonsense. I expect the law to have some dampening effect on smacking, but I think this level of effect is just wishful thinking. If 85% of New Zealanders want to make smacking, for the purposes of correction, legal again, then you can more or less guarantee that most of them still smack their kids. We humans will always vote in our own best interests.
So there you have it. The Herald is telling us that people are afraid of this law. The word for a law that everyone is afraid of and nobody wants is tyranny. Only, in a democratic (once every three years) society, we use the more polite word, arrogant. If John Key wishes to avoid this label, he will take the result of the referendum seriously. Otherwise he will be like those people who drink and drive – a bloody idiot.
Related posts:
- Key’s Achilles Heel? Reader’s of this blog will know that I consider John...
- Should We Beat Our Kids? In a brilliant example of why surveys are a complete...
- Defying Human Nature Helen Clark was right. When asked in 2005 if she wanted...
- Wait ‘Till Dad Gets Home John Roughan has a nice little diatribe on the smacking...
- Attention, Mr Key I sincerely hope that John Key has read this article...
Jul 26 09 12:52 pm
I’m a little confused. Some time ago you made what to me is the only plausible case I’ve heard against the law change, saying that you see evidence of many parents not smacking because they’re unsure of the legality. Now you say, “I expect the law to have some dampening effect on smacking, but I think this level of effect is just wishful thinking”.
Do you think the law change is preventing many parents smacking their children or not?
Jul 26 09 1:17 pm
Mark: Do you think the law change is preventing many parents smacking their children or not?
Nice to see you keep track of my arguments, Mark! In this post, I am merely commenting on the extent of the decreasing in smacking as depicted in this simple poll. I think it is likely to be less than this poll is suggesting. That does not mean that the repeal has not had a very substantial effect on the incidence of smacking (it’s just unlikely to be quite that large an effect)
So,yes, the repeal of s59 has had a very real effect on smacking behavior due to the uncertainty generated by the law. Unfortunately, the drop off in smacking, regardless of the size of the effect will almost certainly be in the area of legitimate discipline. Those who hit their children in anger and frustration will remain unaffected by the law, as their actions were almost certainly illegal prior to the law change.
If even 5% of parents stop or markedly reduce their smacking for legitimate correction and do not substitute some other form of discipline, we will be reaping a veritable plague of entitled, self-indulgent adults and all hope of reducing our prison population will end.
Jul 26 09 1:24 pm
The Sunday Star Times has essentially weighed in on the YES vote. Their inability to fake balance stems from the fact they don’t actually understand what the referendum is about.
Running an article on how successful some parents are not using physical discipline is besides the point. The law change made all forms of discipline (correction) technically illegal. It’s made it illegal on the basis that there is only one correct way to raise children, and disregard the possibility parents use a combination of techniques, some of which may legitimately include a smack.
I make that point here: Sue Bradford has an about face
ZenTiger´s last blog ..Sue Bradford Proposes Law Change
Jul 27 09 10:42 am
Good post. Business as usual at the Harold, trumpeting the state’s message.
The word for a law that everyone is afraid of and nobody wants is tyranny
True, and such a law is also terrorism. I believe that the anti-smacking law is designed to facilitate state terrorism directed at parents. The state has a desire to control the raising of every child in this country and is doing so by inspiring every parent with dread (which is the essence of terrorism) regarding what will happen if they parent in a manner that the state does not approve of. This is utterly evil.
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/the-anti-smacking-law-lets-citizens-be-agents-of-state-terrorism/
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/who-are-the-police-really-serving/ (Clue: it’s not you)
Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• Thinking about state schools