Wait ‘Till Dad Gets Home
John Roughan has a nice little diatribe on the smacking referendum today. He sees to think that the law as it currently stands is not confusing, but that a single referendum question is (or, at least, has “sinister undertones”). He then quote the first section of the new law:
““Every parent of a child, and every person in the place of a parent of a child, is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
“a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
“b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
“c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
“d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.”
“That just about covers the gamut of infant misbehaviour, doesn’t it? All the commonly cited scenarios are there.”
But this, of course, is just the old law restated without the use of the word correction or discipline, so that Sue Bradford and her team can now ban smacking for correction with the second part:
““Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.””
So part d) of subsection (1) apparently said you could use reasonable force in your role as a “good” parent, but section (2) explicitly states that this force cannot be used for “correction”. Most people would find this confusing (it is clear the police do) but not Mr. Roughan, because, like all good conspiracy theorists, he thinks there is something sinister going on.
Roughan’s theory is that what the law-makers really meant by “correction” is the thorough tonking you were given “when daddy comes home”, where children were beaten until they screamed. A so-called “good” hiding. He thinks that the referendum question is designed to legitimize this sort of behaviour, that is is a sort of stealth question that will allow hundreds of Christian fundamentalists the right to beat their children to a pulp.
There is really only one thing wrong with his viewpoint. It is utter nonsense.
There is no evidence that anyone, at any time, interpreted the word “correction” in the old law as meaning anything but normal parental discipline. Certainly, parents who tried to use section 59 as a defense against this type of beating rarely succeeded unless they could prove extreme provocation (as in the “horse-whipping” that precipitated the law change). To suggest that people are seeking a loophole to justify beating their children is ludicrous. To ascribe such motives without evidence is equivalent to absurd meme of the “Yes” vote people – that all smacking is just child abuse and that smacking is akin to the horrifying abuse of Nia Glassie.
There will be an overwhelming “no” vote in the referendum. This will be cheifly because the vast majority of people know the difference between smacking and child abuse. They don’t want “the right to smack their child”. What normal parent wants to smack their child? What they want is the option to use physical discipline when they see fit, without the worry that the police will arrest them or that CYFS will come and take their children.
But apparently that simple motivation is too transparent for John Roughan.
Additional:
Scrubone has a full Fisk of John Roughan’s article at Something Should Go Here Maybe Later.
Related posts:
- Smacking Myths Deborah Coddington holds forth on the referendum in the HoS...
- Home is Where the Health is Dr Simon Rowley, one of New Zealand’s top neonatal paediatricians,...
- Consequences In September 2008 I wrote this: Unfortunately, what this [the...
- The Herald Votes Yes I noticed that today the Herald weighed in on the...
- Missed Point Has anybody noticed that the review of changes to section...
8 Comments
Leave A ReplyOne Trackback/Ping
- They Did It! « Something should go here, maybe later. — [...] MacDoctor tells it plainly. Roughan’s theory is that what the law-makers really meant by “correction” is the thorough tonking ...
Aug 2 09 12:38 am
Roughan’s theory that the correction clause is meant to deter parents from thrashing their kids is wrong because the s2 definition of assault renders all actions of the parent to bend the will of the child to their own illegal. This includes asking them to do things (which ‘bends their will to your own’) or gesturing to them to do something. There is no tolerance level at all for any behaviour of this sort from the parent- it is all criminal assault. That is why legislators needed to give the police the discretion not to prosecute, so police could judge what level of illegal behaviour was worth prosecuting.
Trouble is the current police guidelines apparently preclude them from not investigating minor incidents like shouting at your kids, so the law has essentially been subverted to suit the agenda of Bradford & co.
And what is that agenda? That is simple- to specifically attack the authority of parents, to undermine the traditional family unit, and to give children some rights to self-determination. No-one is talking about this in the media.
The Care of Children Act makes biological parents into ‘guardians’ or day-to-day caregivers- just the same as non-biological parents (no discriminating!), which is a real blow to the parental authority of biological parents. The s59 amendment was implemented to bring the Crimes Act into line with the CCA. Parents have custody of their children because the government lets them, and children are essentially considered to be a special class of adult under the law, who can only be corrected by government bodies such as the police, CYFS, etc, and specifically not by their parents.
Just ask yourself whether you are the top dog with regard to your child’s welfare whenever CYFS shows up on the scene- its obvious that parent’s are now 2nd class citizens.
Aug 2 09 12:56 am
This post and ‘Johnnieboy’s comment says all that needs to be said on the subject–which is why we’ll be voting NO.
.-= kg´s last blog ..It happened a long time ago. =-.
Aug 2 09 8:51 am
Below is an email I sent on Saturday to John Roughan. I will let him know his that his dishonest rubbish is being discussed on this blog. He makes out that good parents are bullies. He is a bully and a coward like some talk show hosts. These is no way he will enter into a rational debate unless he is guaranteed an advantage.
Hi John
I was very disappointed to see you publish a totally dishonest article just when the ballot papers have been delivered. I have been involved with the NO lobby and I know for a fact that Bob is not lobbying for the right of parents to use an implement such as strap or belt let along a hosepipe or bat. To say so is defamatory.
I know that many in the NO lobby would like Section 59 reinstated as it was. That would have allowed the use of an implement within reason. This is not Bob’s position and he has stated this publicly in debates many times. The position of Family First which Bob has stated is to have Section 59 reinstated with an amendment along the lines that National’s Chester Borrows proposed prior to John Key’s flip flop.
ACT’s John Boscawen has a similar bill in the ballot.
http://section59.blogspot.com/2009/05/john-boscawens-private-members-bill.html
This bill clearly bans the use of implements as well as having other safeguards to make it clear that a smack is okay but a hiding is not. Bob is lobbying for this and not Section 59 unamended.
If you are prepared to try to influence voters with an opinion piece in the Herald you should have been aware of John Boscawen’s bill and Bob McCoskrie position.
If you were aware of these things and chose to publish you opinion piece I view it as nothing less than an attempt to mislead the voters and defame a
good person in the process.
I have not spoken to Bob yet but would you be prepared to enter into a fair debate with Bob or are you happy to abuse the power you have by publishing half truths as best?
Regards
Chuck Bird
Good for you, Chuck. Get any reply?
Aug 2 09 9:04 am
John Roughan (‘Sinister undertones to referendum instigators’ 1 Aug) needs a good dose of correction.
He cannot understand ‘good parental correction’ in the referendum question yet has no problem with ‘good care and parenting’ contained within the current anti-smacking law.
He refuses to acknowledge the mounting evidence of parents being reported and investigated for using a smack in the supermarket, or to correct swearing, insolence, or persistent disobedience. Some parents have even been prosecuted (13 at last count according to police reports) and children temporarily removed by CYF.
He continues the myth that parents who use a smack can only be angry and frustrated – a charge which he never applies to a parent who says ‘get to your room!’ or ‘you’re grounded!’ But then he thinks that correction, given after the event, and used to deter future wrong behaviour, is ineffective.
Roughan tries to link a cold-blooded assault with a smack – a link which parents simply don’t buy. He hysterically labels supporters of the referendum as wanting to flog children.
Grant Illingworth QC says the anti-smacking law is an extremely poor piece of legal drafting calculated to create confusion rather than clarity, and it criminalizes behaviour which should not be classified as a criminal offence.
I will take a QC’s interpretation way before the sinister undertones of Roughan.
Aug 3 09 1:14 am
FYI, here is the part of the Guardianship Act 1968 that deals with how parent/child relationships were defined, before the passing of the Care of Children Act 2004 under Labour to replace it entirely.
3. Definition of custody and guardianship—For the purposes of this Act—
“Custody” means the right to possession and care of a child:
“Guardianship” means the custody of a child (except in the case of a testamentary guardian and subject to any custody order made by the Court) and the right of control over the upbringing of a child, and includes all rights, powers, and duties in respect of the person and upbringing of a child that were at the commencement of this Act vested by any enactment or rule of law in the sole guardian of a child; and “guardian” has a corresponding meaning.
The link to the Act is at:
http://legislation.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/reprint/text/1968/an/063.html
We used to have possession of our children until 2004, (as if they were a form of asset), and control over their upbringing. The meaning of this is clear- parents own and control their children, the government does not. The difference between this and the new CCA is also clear. The government now owns kids, we do not (this occurs indirectly as children are given psuedo-adult status, & thus can’t be under the control of another adult).
Aug 3 09 1:22 am
My main point is that IMO of course s59 was going to be passed- the CCA already has legally made us passive observers of our children’s lives who are required to contribute to our children’s upbringing but no more. The s59 amendment clarifies that by saying that in making that contribution we are not allowed to interfere with our children’s rights by acting to modify their behaviour. An agenda entirely unrelated to the issue of child abuse.
Aug 3 09 2:56 pm
John Roughan is a great example of why newspaper editors should not engage in legal interpretation.
I too intend a full fisk on this one – I’ve just had a funeral and my car blowing up taking up my weekend and Uni lectures this morning… tonight’s mission!
.-= Madeleine´s last blog ..Tribute to Mark Richards: Poet, Writer, Teacher, Sailor, Musician and My Grandfather =-.
Aug 4 09 9:19 am
So what the result will be like of this referendum? Will the smacking be forbidden once and for all? Predictions are accepted here – http://www.votetheday.com/new-zealand/new-zealand-corporal-punishment-referendum-result-450/