Wow! *That* Worked!
Today the police have blithely announced that 12 children were killed through abuse (9 murders 3 manslaughters) over the past two years (June 2007 – June 2009). This is unchanged from previous years with an average of five children a year dying from abuse and 45 seriously injured.
My immediate reaction to this was: The repeal of Section 59 – Well that worked didn’t it?
Now, I know Sue Bradford at one point denied that the repeal of Section 59 was to prevent child abuse, but the reality is that most of the debate around the repeal has been about child abuse and not about child discipline. It therefore comes as no surprise to me that the review of the new law [PDF] entirely misses the point and focusses almost completely on police prosecutions rather than on people’s perceptions. Although I have read through this report from beginning to end, I could have saved myself a tedious half an hour by paying attention to this statement about the scope of the report:
Translation: Finding out how this law is effecting parents is too much like hard work. Instead we will focus of whether CYFS and the police are having to work harder.
After two years of repeal and a referendum vote of 87.6%, there should have been some sort of urgent research into the actual effect of this bill on ordinary parents. Instead, the best we have is an ad-hoc survey by the Herald and a report consisting solely of police data that I could have put together in 11 minutes and 47 seconds.
Once more I reiterate my contention that this law is frightening parents into not disciplining their children. There is a significant portion of parents who do not have the skill set to discipline children without physical force, but sincerely believe that they will be arrested for even a light tap. Bland reassurances from the prime minister and someone called Nigel Latta are not going to change this (note: I know who Nigel Latta is, but the people I am talking about almost certainly do not). The confusion and fear evidenced by this article is very likely to be the tip of the iceberg. Real research is urgently needed to determine the size of this group of people.
If it is as large as I think it is, New Zealand will be reaping the unpleasant consequences of this law for decades to come.
Additional: I have had people point out to me that Sweden has banned smacking for a decade or more but has had no emerging underclass of undisciplined children. I suspect this is because Sweden first moved to a point where almost all parents were able to use non-physical means to discipline their children before moving to ban smacking. In addition, I think it fair to say that Sweden has a very non-violent culture anyway – something that cannot really be said of New Zealand.
Related posts:
- Missed Point Has anybody noticed that the review of changes to section...
- Out of the Mouths of Babes… Readers of this blog will appreciate that I am fascinated by...
- Still Not Working Apparently the case of the mother who beat her children...
- Spare Me The Rod Some silly woman is in court today for allegedly repeatedly...
- Missed The Point The Herald reports today that 39 “minor acts of physical...
Dec 9 09 10:30 pm
As I said on stuff, I reckon Dr Latta has sold NZ dads down the river after reading his review.
On the day his report came out Family First related the words of a judge who had just chucked out a police prosecution for a step-father chucking a pillow at his step-kid.
The police brought the prosecution because they had no discretion to do otherwise under police guidelines, or they have completely lost touch with reality, and no longer deserve the right to exercise that discretion. Take your pick.
The judge essentially said that the police had brought a frivolous prosecution…
Looking forward to the first conviction for pillow fighting…
Dec 10 09 1:14 am
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/the-yes-vote-missed-one/
scrubone´s last blog ..Always seek the rational explanation first
Dec 10 09 3:31 pm
Just as the ETS has little to do with science the anti-parental authority legislation has little to do with the welfare of child to John Key. It is about dominating the political centre. Has anyone noticed on the poll on Kiwiblog he has been voted top contender as 2009 Labour MP of the year?
Key is happy for ACT to stay where they are so he can play ACT off against the Maori Party. Although 87% of the voters oppose this legislation, most will not change their vote over this issue. Key has worked out that if he does not change the legislation most people who will change their vote will go to ACT which is not a worry to him. What could be a worry is that is NZF start polling higher some of the vote could go to them. If theta happened the votes would be unlikely to count as the changed of them reaching 5% would be very low. If Key changed the legislation though National could lose votes to Labour or the Greens.
Most people do not vote on one issue but if they were a little unhappy over some issue National changing the law on S59 could make them change their vote to the left.
The only way the law will change is for ACT to have enough MPs and National to lose a few so they cannot play ACT and the Maori Party off against each other.
Dec 11 09 9:57 am
“in addition, I think it fair to say that Sweden has a very non-violent culture anyway – something that cannot really be said of New Zealand.”
Surely just that fact alone is enough reason to bring the practice of smacking children under scrutiny; to set a standard that sets ‘light smacking’ apart from assault on children?
I don’t think ignoring nz’s violent society and allowing angry parents and religious zealots to define this difference for themselves, is a safe option.
The pro smacking lobby could have no speed regulation on our roads, let them as ‘sensible’ motorists decide what is a safe speed for themselves. Now that would be silly too, don’t you think?
Dec 11 09 10:45 am
Roger, the law didn’t just make smacking illegal. It made giving children any corrective measures at all of any type you can possibly think of (such as telling your kid to do something that they don’t want to do, or even a gesture, and including smacking) a criminal act.
That is why the case I mentioned above went to court in the first place- because throwing a pillow at your child is a criminal act under the law- especially if it is for correction. The only question is whether the police had any discretion not to prosecute- this case proves that they have none.
Are you happy with this situation Roger? Does it give you certainty as a parent that the government supports you in raising your kid? Can you think of any other normal day-to-day activities you undertake with your child that are now considered acts of criminal assault?
One thing is for sure- John Key’s statements that the police won’t prosecute parents for minor acts is a bare-faced lie.
Another thing is that by passing the anti-smacking law, the government has ignored the fact that NZ is a violent society by undermining parent’s ability to turn kids from a pathway leading from crime and violence and on to a good pathway.