Physical violence as a form of discipline is standard for most cultures around the world. Many Muslim parents are in the habit of using physical punishment, sometimes of a severe nature. This is despite there being no verse in the Qur’an requiring or even condoning the physical discipline of children. Neither is there any instance of Muhammad ever striking a child. He never used violence as a form of discipline on his own children or grandchildren.
There are some instances where physical punishment is allowed, for example to ensure that a child completes the daily prayers. In this example, physical discipline can only be used as a last resort for children of 10 years or older.
Even the most conservative scholars agree that a child should not be struck in anger. There is a strong requirement in Islam to show love and mercy towards children, and to preserve their dignity – this is just as much a right of the child as the right to be fed, clothed, and educated. One of my favourite stories is this one:
Abu Hurairah reported: The Prophet (Muhammad) kissed his grandson Al-Hasan bin `Ali in the presence of Al-Aqra` bin Habis. Thereupon he (Al-Aqra` bin Habis) remarked: “I have ten children and I have never kissed any one of them.” The Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) looked at him and said, “He who does not show mercy to others will not be shown mercy”.
From my own experience, I have never seen a child hit or smacked in an absence of anger. I’ve never seen or experienced a parent who has sat down with the child, explained what was done wrong in a loving manner, and then smacked the child with love. I’m not saying it never happens, but that I haven’t seen it. Smacking has either been a response of the moment as a result of anger or a calculated attempt to instill fear.
Fear as a method of raising children is effective in that it limits behaviour and enforces compliance. The consequence is that this fear damages the relationship between child and parent. Children are unlikely to confide their troubles to parents who they fear. A parent should not be resorting to fear, but to respect and love. The best form of discipline is, of course, being an example yourself of the kind of conduct you wish to inspire in your children.
Given this background, I had no problem with the 2007 changes to Section 59. I don’t believe it criminalised parents who smack their children, but rather it removed a defense for those who abuse them. There was a lot of benefit to the debate as well, in that many parents started thinking more deeply about how they disciplined their children. Many sought more information on better disciplinary techniques which would improve their parenting skills.
The proposed referendum is mischievous in its intent. The wording does not mention Section 59, it does not provide any solutions to dealing with the “reasonable force” defense which resulted in juries discharging parents who had used severe forms of physical violence. The referendum question shows little interest in the welfare or the rights of children, and that is its biggest failing. Children are not able to speak or advocate for themselves, nor do they have any ability to participate in the law-making process. It is up to us, as adults, to protect those rights and ensure that the vulnerable are kept safe.
—
Anjum Rahman is a founding member of Shama (Hamilton Ethnic Women’s Centre) and the Islamic Women’s Council, as well as being involved with the Hamilton Peace Movement and various interfaith activities. She was a Labour list candidate at the last election, and blogs at The Hand Mirror.
Thought should be given to challenging, by way of judicial review, the wording of the question to be put to New Zealanders in a referendum later this year, according to Wellington consultant and child rights expert Robert Ludbrook.
The referendum question is: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
“It will be immediately obvious that the question is questionable,” Robert Ludbrook says.
“The words ‘a smack as part of good parental correction’ are objectionable for several reasons. These are:
The word ‘good’ before ‘parental correction’ makes a value judgment which predetermines the answer. People answering the question will be drawn to answer ‘no’ on the basis that what is ‘good’ cannot be ‘bad’ (that is, criminal). It would be absurd to answer ‘yes’ because it would saying that an action which is good should be a criminal offence.
The question as framed is tautologous (OED: a statement that is true of necessity or by its logical form).
The word ‘good’ in terms of physical punishment is often used to mean ‘severe’: for example, ‘a good hiding’ or ‘six of the best’.
The term ‘parental correction’ is confusing in the context of the question. Because ‘force by way of correction’ was used in the old s59, it is often used as meaning ‘correction by the use of force’ or physical punishment. To speak of a ‘smack as part of parental correction’ is repetitious and circular.
“How is it that an estimated $10 million of government funds will be spent on a one-off referendum asking a question that is badly drafted and heavily weighted towards a particular answer?
“The answer lies in the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993. Under the act, the wording for the question is determined by the Clerk of the House before signatures are collected for the petition. Section 10(1) sets the criteria for the question posed in the referendum. These criteria require that:
(1) The wording of the precise question to be put to the voters, as determined under s11 of this act by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, (a) Shall be such as to convey clearly the purpose and effect of the indicative referendum; and (b) Shall be such as to ensure that only one of two answers may be given to the question.
“It will be noted that there is no obligation placed on the Clerk of the House to ensure that the question put is balanced or framed in a neutral way.
“It is arguable that the question to be put fails to convey clearly the purpose and effect of the indicative referendum and thought perhaps should be given to challenging the wording by means of judicial review,” Robert Ludbrook says.
“Groups promoting the referendum want politicians to revisit the law and reintroduce a statutory defence.
“The new s59 already provides for a review by Parliament after the amendment has been in force for two years. After 2 July 2009, the chief executive of Child, Youth and Family must provide a report on the effects of the amendment to the Minister of Social Development and this report must be presented to Parliament as soon as practicable [see s59(7)]. As the law change is to be reviewed anyway later this year the referendum seems pointless.
“While citizen’s initiated referenda may be promoted as giving ordinary people a say on important public issues, two points need to be made.
“The first is that although the referendum is about children and their right to be protected from physical assaults, children do not get to vote on the question.
“The second is that it is impossible to condense a complex issue such the acceptability of smacking and hitting children into a question containing 17 words. The question should more correctly have been posed differently.”
Two possible examples of wordings, both having the advantage of clarity and neutrality, would be:
Should children be entitled to the same protection from physical assaults as everyone else enjoys?
Should the law allow parents and carers to hit or smack children when they misbehave?
“The law is an important symbol and the new s59 sends a clear message that assaulting children is unlawful.
“The referendum is an opportunity for those who believe that children deserve special protection from parental assaults to express their views by answering ‘yes’ to the question.
“A ‘yes’ vote is a vote for the current law,” Robert Ludbrook says.
There’s the thing I find difficult to understand – that any civilised person should be so upset by the idea of it being against the law to hit children that they would go to the trouble of organising a petition to parliament seeking a referendum on the issue, with the express aim of having that law overturned.
Some explanation of the mindset of the more high-profile apologists for a change in the current law is to be found in their connection with, and in some cases membership of the ACT party, the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Family First, the Destiny Church and other conservative political and religious groups. These are people who cannot see beyond punishment as a response to unacceptable behaviour whether in the family or society at large. Their field of vision ranges from hitting naughty children to locking up violent offenders and throwing away the key. Neither response has ever been effective in improving children’s behaviour or in deterring violent crime. Quite the reverse.
Equally concerning is the willingness of these groups to dishonestly manipulate public opinion. The 1999 Law and Order Referendum, initiated by the Sensible Sentencing Trust, provided a striking example of the ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ style of survey and was deliberately designed to offer respondents Hobson’s choice. It read:
Should there be a reform of the justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?
Three questions but only one available answer – either Yes or No. So if you were in favour of ‘greater emphasis on the needs of victims’ and ‘providing restitution and compensation for them’ – as I am – you also had to be in favour of ‘minimum sentences’ and the brutal Victorian concept of ‘hard labour’ for all serious violent offences’. Which, needless to say, I am not in favour of.
Ninety-two percent of respondents apparently were. But most thinking people would have realised that the referendum presented impossibly conflicting options within the one question and would not have responded at all.
In an interview I did with the Sensible Sentencing founder on Radio Live a couple of years ago, Garth McVicar agreed that the Law and Order Referendum question was so flawed as to be meaningless. One might have thought the advocates of smacking – essentially the same people – would have taken care to ensure that the same mistake would not be repeated.
But the ‘Anti-Smacking Referendum’ has again been deliberately phrased to bamboozle respondents. It reads:
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
This is the equivalent of asking: ‘Should doctors recommend an exclusive diet of McDonalds and KFC as part of a healthy weight loss programme?’ McDonalds and KFC cannot be part of a healthy weight loss programme. And it is open to serious doubt whether smacking can be part of ‘good parental correction’.
If they are to have any validity at all, the language of referenda questions must be neutral. To make the ‘Anti-Smacking Referendum’ neutral, the word ‘good’ has to be deleted from the question. Even its title is misleading since there is no reference at all to ’smacking’ in the Act. The word simply does not appear.
Bradford’s bill was designed to prevent abusive parents using Section 59 of the Crimes Act to escape penalty. Its purpose was clear:
To abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as justification for disciplining children.
The wording of the current Act reflects this:
Nothing in the Act or in any rule of common law justifies the use of forcefor the purpose of correction.
And it includes the following clarification:
To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child, or person in the place of a parent of a child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
That is precisely what the police have done.
Well, in the end it comes down to whether or not you think it should be legal to hit children. ‘Smack’ is such an innocuous word. But you cannot ’smack’ a child without ‘hitting’ or ’striking’ the child. And the word includes a range of possibilities – from the ‘tap on the bum’ which the proponents of the referendum would have us believe a smack means, to the volley of frenzied thumps which most of us have observed from frazzled parents on the street, in supermarkets and on buses. Indeed, one of the best arguments against smacking is watching a parent smack a child. Generally the child is squirming or struggling to get free. The parent restrains the child by holding onto its arm with one hand, while using the other hand to paddle its bottom. Usually the child is crying or screaming. It is not an edifying sight.
But it is instructive. Smacking invariably means that the parent has lost control. Reasoning and constructive communication have been abandoned in favour of physical force.
I suspect most parents feel bad after they have hit their child. And, as a parent of five children and grandfather of ten, I understand very well the stresses that can impel the most loving father or mother to strike out. We should be careful, as the Act allows, not to prosecute the parent who on a rare occasion lightly smacks a misbehaving child.
But that is very different from the state legitimising or sanctioning the smacking, hitting, striking, corporal punishment – whatever synonym you prefer – of children by their parents. That is a very slippery slope. Proponents of a change to the law want a ‘light slap’ to be legal, but the term defies definition and the police and the courts will be faced with the same impossible task they faced in defining ‘reasonable force’.
At present children are protected in law from all corporal punishment in 24 countries. They include Spain, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Hungary, Austria, Germany, Denmark, Israel, Norway, Finland, Sweden – and New Zealand.
We should be proud to be on that list.
—
The original article can be found on Brian Edwards’ blog, where you can join the discussion.
Over the weekend we saw the issue of child discipline in the media again, this time with headlines suggesting that Labour had done a u-turn on the “anti-smacking” bill. But it turns out that this was not the case. Mr Goff caused some confusion yesterday when he said that a smack shouldn’t be a criminal offence. But he amended this by saying that parents should not be followed up and prosecuted for a smack. He later told NZPA that neither his position nor Labour’s policy had changed. He said “I don’t think the law needs to be changed”. Mr Goff said the bill was working.
Finding a way to give children equal protection in law from assault as adults, setting a standard in law that does not endorse any form of violence to children and at the same time avoiding prosecution of parents for minor assaults has been one of the challenges law drafters and supporters of change have faced. Prosecutions for minor assaults are obviously not in the child or the parents’ interests because of the stress and disruption prosecution would cause. The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 contained a provision reminding Police that they have discretion not to prosecute when it would not be in the public interest to do so. Regular reports on Police activity since law change indicate that parents are not being prosecuted for a simple smack. This provision and guidelines for the Police about its application are sensible solutions to the challenge.
However, the “risk of criminalisation” cry has sometimes been a mask to disguise the more vexing issue, the fact that some adults think they have a right to smack and hit children, perhaps because they believe it’s a good thing to do, but often because they regard them as “theirs”, human beings that they own.
Mr Cullen summed up the fallacy of this argument succinctly when he told media recently that the law change did not impact on personal freedom. He said “Freedom is the right to be who you are, providing it doesn’t impinge upon the right of people to be who they are. That’s not the right to beat up kids.”
Children are people too with human rights. In the case of child discipline this means the right to live in a country where politicians and other leaders do not endorse outmoded laws and practices. I find it reassuring that when I talk to people about the law change and the upcoming referendum they often say “Come on New Zealand, get over it, and move on”.
Wellington, April 12 NZPA – Labour leader Phil Goff says the anti-smacking law does not need to be amended or revoked.
Mr Goff caused confusion this morning when he was asked on TV One’s Q and A programme whether he thought a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction.
“Well my answer to that is no it shouldn’t be a criminal offence or we should not have people following up and prosecuting parents for a smack in that context, but remember 110 out of 122 MPs voted for that legislation including every member of the National Party.”
That response sparked Family First who oppose the law to put out a statement welcoming the apparent U-turn.
ACT MP John Boscawen has drafted a member’s bill to allow parents to use a light smack to correct their children and Family First director Bob McCoskrie said Labour should now back the ACT MP’s bill.
But Mr Goff told NZPA this evening neither his position nor Labour’s policy had changed.
Labour supported Green MP Sue Bradford’s bill to remove from the Crimes Act the statutory defence of “reasonable force” to correct a child, meaning there would be no justification for the use of force for that purpose.
The “reasonable force” defence had been used by parents who had beaten their children with whips and pieces of wood but opponents said the change would make criminals out of parents who lightly smacked their children and removed their right to discipline them.
The bill was hugely controversial and even though it passed in May 2007 by 113 votes to eight, Labour took the flak for it. National backed the bill after a last-minute compromise to add a proviso stating police had discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent if they considered the offence to be inconsequential.
Mr Goff this evening said the law was working.
“We voted in favour of the legislation but there was an understanding all the way through that good parents would not be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child… and there has been no prosecutions of parents in those circumstances.”
Mr Goff said Labour had never supported parents being prosecuted for a light smack.
“That’s not a U-turn, that’s the policy we talked about at the time.”
Mr Goff did not accept his comment was confusing and said he was happy with what he said.
“Technically it is a criminal offence… the point we are making is there should be no criminal prosecutions of parents in those circumstances.
“I don’t think the law needs to be changed.”
He rejected backing Mr Boscawen’s bill.
“There’s not a question of backing John Boscawen’s bill if good parents are not being prosecuted for lightly smacking their children then the law is working as intended.”
Former Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen also commented on the issue today in the Sunday Star Times. He said Labour had had to support the bill as it fitted with the party’s own policy.
Opposing the bill would have made Labour look unprincipled.
“That was the kind of issue where you’re hung for a sheep or a lamb whatever way you go,” Dr Cullen said.
He told the newspaper the law change did not impact on personal freedom.
“Freedom is the right to be who you are, providing it doesn’t impinge upon the right of people to be who they are. That’s not the right to beat up kids.”
The Wellingtonian interviewed retiring Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro this week, who commented on the child discipline debate…
Wellingtonian: How important was Sue Bradford’s so-called anti-smacking bill?
Kiro: The debate was important. And it has proved to be an effective law. In the three six-month periods since it became law, the police have said they are not prosecuting more people, so, contrary to some fears, people are not being criminalised. But the law has had an effect. I don’t see people screaming and yelling and hitting their kids at places like supermarkets. I do see people talking to their kids and using other strategies for discipline.
Speech: Symposium on Violence Prevention – Tariana Turia
When I read the panui for this one day symposium, there was one little word which stood out. A little word called hope.
The advertising for this event suggested that the promotion of early intervention, positive engagement and therapeutic responses would give hope to victims, perpetrators, families and communities.
As they say, what oxygen is to the lungs; such is hope to the meaning of life.
Hope is vital in keeping us well, in keeping us focused, for feeding our spirit, to having an aspiration to live up to.
So what is the nature of this hope that we cling to in the field of violence prevention?
I believe it is about reframing the discourse from violence prevention; or anti-violence strategies; to instead articulating that which we seek – that is a positive future for all families of Aotearoa; a future which they determine; and which enables all of their strengths to be self-evident.
It is time to move from what we don’t believe in; that which we oppose – to instead target all of our energy on a constructive approach to whanau ora.
Today’s symposium is an opportunity to celebrate all of our energy and interventions that are working to make our communities and our homes safer.
It is about recognizing success and embracing the strategies that foster pride in our families, and encourage us all to find our own solutions to violence.
One of the features that has really drawn me to this symposium is the efforts being made to focus on the whole family rather than to pull out the perpetrators; isolate the victims; or separate the children from the only home they know.
This symposium addresses the concept of family violence, by placing the emphasis on the ‘family’ rather than the ‘violence’.
I recall meeting with Women’s Refuge earlier this year and they were extremely enthusiastic about their commitment to emphasise whanau, and to support effective family relationships. As one of their spokespersons told me, if you go looking for violence, that’s all you see.
This symposium then, asks us to open our eyes to new possibilities – to provide opportunities where every one can take responsibility; where the home is restored as a sanctuary of safety and love.
Of course it is one thing to have a vision, and quite another to get there. We all know just how difficult it is achieve the transformation we desire; to move from talk to action; to build on small successes to create sustainable change.
But as Dr Martin Luther King said, “we must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope”.
We must accept that the pathway forwards to mauri ora takes more than a media release; or one treatment programme or any other individual factor. Laying all our hope on one strategy will more than likely achieve little other than a prevailing air of disappointment.
But why should we think anything else?
The very nature of violence is hideously complex. It is inter-generational; it operates on many levels – physical, emotional, psychological, cultural, virtual, institutional, economic; it occurs in all socio-economic groups; it is frequently hidden and predicated on secrecy; and it is learned behaviour, practiced in the privacy of the family home.
One of the most chilling facts is that 81% of men who abuse their spouses were abused as a child. They have been socialized into a pattern of abuse which has been learnt over the course of their life without ever having reason to change.
But today’s symposium is the hope we need, to know that change can occur – and that the family home – the site of what we might know now as endemic violence – is also the site which offers the greatest potential for change.
There are other signs of hope. The statistics released this week suggest there was a 12.4% increase in recorded family violence offences in 2008. This increase is a direct result of a greater emphasis given to reporting, to recording, to training, to a focus by the Police on addressing family violence. It follows the roll-out of mandatory family violence training and the introduction of the campaign, ‘it’s not ok’.
But hold on a minute. While we can all acknowledge that we – society – is getting better at saying enough is enough; pick up the phone; let’s tell someone – the cold, harsh truth is, that no-one can feel any great sense of joy that the Police are receiving about one call every seven and a half minutes.
Every year the Police deal with more than seventy thousand calls about family violence – and in my eyes, that’s seventy thousand too many.
So what is our moemoea – our dream – to make the difference?
What are the values that will shape our solutions? How do we promote connectedness, collective responsibility; the right for every child to be loved, to be safe and to grow their potential?
What support do we offer to every parent who takes on the awesome challenge of raising a child? How do we value our elders, our aunts and our uncles, in their responsibilities to nurture the young within their family?
How do we offer protection to those who are most vulnerable; how do we turn the story around?
The answer is already with us – in our families; in our whanau.
I have struggled with the emphasis some want to place on the huge range of outside agencies that have grown out of the misery developed in the family home.
This symposium has featured presentations from various parts of the sector – the family court, the healthcare system, prisons, police stations.
We know too we must confront a climate of violence in our schools; we must transform the culture of disrespect that fuel violence.
But we must always stay focused on the greater goal of helping family to live violence-free, to live together peacefully and with support.
The system likes to separate out the parts into perpetrators, victims, children, women, men, couples. Often the family as a whole has been missing in action. And yet I say again, the family is our greatest strength; our greatest opportunity for transformation.
That is why I have always been so impressed with Project Mauriora, which empowers and enskills families to recognise violence; to find solutions within their own tribal traditions and experience, and to work collectively, on transforming their whanau. At its core it is about reframing attitudes and behaviours to focus on whanau ora.
And so this is where I think hope lies. Hope lies in the healing and educating of families. It comes from a policy approach which values the family; and supports violence free homes. It is nurtured in the kaupapa of whanaungatanga – the enormous potential that the extended family provides to support one another.
Hope lies in each of us knowing each other’s business. I make it my business to watch out for my mokopuna, to be there to support their parents, to offer time out, to challenge and to guide, to make sure my support comes not in the form of a lecture, but in showing the difference I want to see.
And we mustn’t wait till too late to make the difference. Our whanau need support from birth.
It’s been good to see Hector Matthews with the Canterbury DHB and John Tamihere of Waipareira Trust, both coming out this week, saying we need to be starting either at the maternity ward – or earlier; watching out and offering support to whanau.
For too long, communities have been frightened out of that collective capacity to care; leaving things alone, rather than picking up the phone or taking the time to be there. We must return to our roots – to know that everybody needs to take responsibility and to act now.
We can overturn the crisis, we no longer need to feel overwhelmed and powerless.
Let us all get involved with our own families, with each other. Let us experience the sense of hope and accomplishment that comes when we work together – helping agencies; professionals; community and iwi leaders; families – working to make things better.
We can do it. We will do it. For the strength and safety and wellbeing of all of our families, we will do it.
Meremere Tu Ahiaha – Kingi Taurua discusses with the Reverend Doctor Hone Kaa, proposed referendum to change the anti smacking provisions that were brought about by the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961. Broadcast on 1 April 2009 – Waatea 603AM.
If you are going to use or distribute material from our campaign in any way, eg remixed or mashed up, please ensure that your actions are compliant with the relevant legislation, as the Yes Vote Coalition cannot take responsibility for actions beyond our control or knowledge.
The bottom line is that we want to play by the rules. We appreciate your support, but please act ethically, thoughtfully, and within the law.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
