May 28, 2009
Maria Bjornfot, a Social Work student from Sweden, came to spend three weeks with the Barnardos office in Waitakere as part of her study. While she was there, Annie Gordon took the opportunity to ask her about her experiences growing up in Sweden, with particular reference to Sweden’s child discipline law.
Annie: Maybe you could start by telling us briefly why you have chosen to be here in Waitakere at Barnardos at this time?
Maria: I have a great interest in children and social work so I was very happy when you accepted me at your agency. When I had the opportunity in my social work studies to go where ever I wanted in the world it was an easy choice. I have always been interested in how it looks and feels to be on the other side of the world. And the Lord of the Ring movies with all the beautiful sceneries contributed to my great interest in New Zealand.
Your situation is very interesting to me in that you come from Sweden and were born in 1979, the year of the law change regarding physical punishment of children. Can you tell us something about the ways you were disciplined when you were growing up?
When I grew up in Sweden the child discipline law had already changed and what I can remember of my childhood was more threats of physical punishment rather than being hit. But sometimes I remember my father took me by my ear or grabbed my hair. That was in the early days when the law was still new. In my later years I can’t remember any physical punishment for me or my brother. Of course we argued but it was more reasoning by my parents and if we had tantrums they ignored us or left the room.
Was this a typical situation for children at that time?
I think so, for most people it was a gradual change.
How would you say your experience differs from how children are disciplined in Sweden today?
Today in Sweden we have developed different strategies in child discipline. There is very little physical punishment that you hear about. We still are talking a lot about parenting issues though. Parents in Sweden today are struggling between full time work, their own hobbies and giving their children attention. Parents try very hard but don’t find time enough for everything. This often leads to parents feeling very bad about themselves, and to compensate they let their children do anything they want and this can also be a problem and has become a big topic of conversation.
Is there much or any opposition to the child discipline law in Sweden anymore?
No, not at all, although we still sometimes have the older people talking about the early days [before the law change] that children had more respect back then. But I think older persons are like that all over the world, afraid of the new things that happen.
May 28, 2009
Participate with your child in those activities that bring them pleasure, even if it feels strange to you.
Joining your child in their world requires an essential parenting skill-imitate and follow. Don’t make demands, don’t ask them to perform (i.e., “What color is this?” or “What does a cow say?”), and don’t direct the play. While it may sound simple, it’s not! As parents we all want to feel proud of what our children know. We get great pleasure in asking them to show off, especially in front of other people so they can see what great parents we are. However, most children don’t like to be drilled (nor do adults, for that matter), and when too much of this occurs, the child may simply withdraw, or do the opposite, have a tantrum.
Truly joining in your child’s world gives them the feeling that you treasure what comes from inside, not only what you draw out of them. It says “I’m so delighted in you that I’m going to sit here with you and watch what you do, do it alongside you, and wonder with you why this is so fascinating.” Granted, as parents we will always be tickled by our child’s responses to our approaches or our questions, but expecting too much of this will backfire on you. Instead, join in, talk about what you and the child are doing (i.e., “Boy, these rays of sunlight on the floor are really interesting.” or “You really like the sound of that block banging on the table.”). Finally, don’t be afraid to add to the play with your own creations in the hope that your child will someday become interested in you, too.
If your child has limited awareness of others, you can gently create situations in the play to get your child to notice you. For example, if they are building with blocks, you might “accidentally” knock them over then help build them up again.
Today’s tip comes from Dr Sarita Freedman. This tip is extracted from her excellent article, “Top 10 Tips for Parenting an Autistic Child“.
Do you have a tip you’d like to share? Please let us know below.
[contact-form]
May 27, 2009
The Yes Vote Coalition launched a campaign for the August referendum with a media kit to provide background on the issues for journalists.
Having a law that makes hitting kids illegal makes sense in every way. That’s why people who support non-violent child-rearing should consider voting YES in the postal referendum on the issue in August.
The referendum question is misleading: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” This question links smacking with good parenting practice, which it is not.
“This unnecessary $10 million referendum is an attempt to overturn a recently enacted law that gives children the same legal protection from assault as adults,” said Deborah Morris-Travers, spokesperson for the Yes Vote Coalition.
“We are supporting a Yes Vote because that is the only option to send a clear signal to Parliament that smacking and hitting children is wrong.”
“Two years on, the new law is working well. Police reports show that parents are not being criminalised unnecessarily. Organisations belonging to the Yes Vote Coalition report a noticeable increase in interest from parents seeking alternatives to physical punishment, including smacking”.
“It is simply wrong to suggest, as some do, that ‘nothing has changed’ since the amendment to s59 of the Crimes Act in June 2007. This nationwide desire to learn more about parenting and non physical discipline is, like the law now in place, a fundamentally important step towards a less violent society”.
“We agree with those critics of the current Child Discipline Law who say the new law has not changed the ghastly pattern of child abuse and murders in the home in New Zealand. To think it could do that so quickly is naive. That does not make it wrong for society to draw a line in the sand that says ‘no violence against children’. After all, we have laws against speeding and murder, but people still do both. Shall we drop those laws too just because real life doesn’t always match the law?” added Ms Morris-Travers.
“The Child Discipline Law as it now stands represents a child-rearing standard that many New Zealanders actually already support. Over time, support for the law and reduced tolerance for any violence against children will increase and people will acknowledge that not hitting children makes sense”.
“In the meantime, the public will once again debate the rights and wrongs of hitting children. We urge people to look behind the misleading claims that are stirring up unfounded fear, to find out what the law actually says and how it is working by visiting YesVote.org.nz”
“A YES vote protects children and supports positive, non-violent parenting,” concluded Ms Morris-Travers.
May 27, 2009
When the going gets tough, stop the show.
If you find that your child is misbehaving badly or exhibiting tantrums, for example in a public place, then stop whatever programmes that you’ve planned for the day and go home. This can be tough, especially when you have already planned out your day. But if your child is misbehaving, they need to know that there won’t be any “exciting” activities for the rest of the day unless they stop their bad behavior.
Thanks to James Lehman for today’s tip!
Do you have a tip you’d like to share? Please let us know below.
[contact-form]
May 26, 2009
As the referendum campaign heats up, supporters will have seen a number of claims being made about the Child Discipline Law and the Yes Vote coalition. We decided to put the record straight.
May 26, 2009
When I was about three years of age, I was molested. As a result, when I was smacked by my parents, the pain stimulated me sexually. As time progressed, the continued childhood discipline smacking with the pain and humiliation associated with it caused me to become sexually attractive to the pain. I began to self-harm. The resulting intense shame, secrecy and anxiety surrounding this addictive behaviour became very long-term. Later in life it led to two suicide attempts.
I now put the shame where it appropriately belongs – at the feet of those who sexually molested and smacked me in my childhood and at the feet of individuals who still believe it is OK to smack children.
I am able to inflict high levels of pain on myself as ‘sexual stimulation’ resulting from childhood conditioning caused by being smacked. This conditioning is now managed by ongoing medical support to prevent actual self-harm.
I suffer from life-long debilitating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from the treatment I received as a child.
I disclose my real life story because smacking children as was legal under [the old] Section 59 is still considered ‘harmless’. This mindset has the real potential to put many children at risk – as it did to me. My life has been irreparably damaged by the smacking culture in my childhood.
I have witnessed many other sufferers deal with the psychological impact resulting from childhood smacking during many group psychotherapy sessions over the years.
Robert [not his real name]
May 25, 2009
Chair of Te Kahui Mana Ririki Dr Hone Kaa will tell East Coast Māori to vote YES in the upcoming referendum on smacking, during iwi workshops he is running in Gisborne and Hastings over the next two days.
“The referendum question is misleading: ‘Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?’ This question links smacking with good parental correction, which it is not.
“I encourage all Māori to vote ‘YES’ so that the current law, which protects our young ones from physical punishment, is maintained.
“Two years on from enactment, the law as it stands is working well. Police reports show that good parents are not being criminalised, while organisations belonging to the YesVote Coalition* report a huge upsurge in interest from good parents seeking alternatives to violence, including smacking.
“This issue is especially important for Māori because our child maltreatment rates are disproportionately high.”
Te Kahui Mana Ririki has been running workshops with iwi since last year – the workshops explore the alternatives to smacking.
“We have developed a six-step model for Māori whanau, which gives them techniques for parenting without hitting.
“The model which blends modern parenting practices with traditional Maori values has been very enthusiastically received.
“As a people we must transition to non-violent parenting so that our young ones can enjoy family life that is free from violence.”
May 25, 2009
Last week a court in Christchurch found James Louis Mason guilty of assaulting his 4-year-old son. CPS, New Zealands Child Protection specialists, are solid supporters of the current legislation that makes it unlawful to assault a child, but concerned that this case has actually created more confusion for the public.
Anthea Simcock, CEO of CPS says “It was unfortunate that this case was the one that tested the law. The public were already confused – the misleading and misinformed “anti smacking” label took hold before the majority of the public had a chance to understand what this law change was actually about. And rather than clarifying section 59, I think many are now more confused than ever, unsure if he was charged over the flick of an ear or a punch to the face.”
Whilst CPS have been unwavering supporters of the current legislation from the outset, they also recognise that many people simply do not understand what the law is about. Confusion and fear is standing in the way of this law being effective in achieving what is was designed to achieve – giving children the same rights that we as adults have and protecting them from being assaulted by adults.
Mrs Simcock likes to use an analogy around school attendance to help people understand and not fear the law.
“It is illegal in New Zealand to not send your child to school. I am sure every parent has, for some reason, kept their child away from school before. No one ever expects that all parents will be charged and made criminals because of those one or two days that most parents have kept their children away from school.
However, we DO expect that those parents who intentionally and repeatedly keep their children out of school, or allow their children to be repeatedly truant, should be dealt with according to the law. These parents are jeopardising the social, academic and pshycological future of their children.”
The same applies to this law, it is not designed to bring fear into parents and stop effective discipline of children. It is there to ensure that those who truly assault their children are brought to justice and the most vulnerable of our society are protected.”
Sadly, even as the New Zealand public continue to grapple with this confusing debate, they are being asked to vote in a referendum to clarify their position on this issue. A referendum which only serves to further confuse. The question posed in the referendum is “should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
“Sure this is a valid question in and of itself” says Mrs Simcock. “But this question does not clarify the issue over section 59 at all. To answer yes – and effectively support the current legislation – automatically implies that any smack should be a criminal offence, which is not at all the intent of the legislation. Many who support the legislation will still be misled into voting against it simply due to the wording of the question.
It is critical that the public understand this law for it to be effective. Its about changing the attitudes of people and making sure that they act in the best interests of the child, and not just think its OK to deal with issues by going into “angry parent mode”.
May 25, 2009
Tapu Misa wrote a great article in today’s Herald, in which she talks about the ramifications of the Jimmy Mason case. She claims that the law is working well as intended.
No, the law isn’t a cure-all for child abuse, it was never meant to be. It’s nonsense to claim, as some do, that the law is a failure because it hasn’t stopped violence against children overnight.
[Jill] Proudfoot [who’s part of a child crisis team at Preventing Violence in the Home that’s routinely called on by police to attend to families after a domestic violence incident] knows as well as anyone the role of poverty and stress, drug and alcohol dependence, and family breakdown and dysfunction. But as she argued in a submission on the proposed law, if the Government was serious about preventing domestic violence and changing attitudes and behaviour, it had to include a strong mandate to not be violent to children; and it couldn’t do that while Section 59 was still on the books.
“The sense of entitlement with which adults physically assault children is no different from the sense of entitlement men have when they batter women, but it is more overtly socially and culturally sanctioned.”
The law corrected the bizarre situation where animals used to have more protection than children:
Proudfoot cites a boy whose father was arrested for beating his mother. He’d been beaten too, “all the time”, but his father was never charged for that. Later, when the father was fined for cruelty to their pet dog (he jammed its tail in the door and refused to release it), the boy was incensed that his dad had been punished for beating the dog but not for beating him.
Misa concludes that one of the key questions for those who want to reject the Child Discipline Law is “how we can tolerate some forms of violence against children, and not others.”
And that’s not helpful for those who are trying to forge a better way – like the Rev Dr Hone Kaa, who’s part of a child advocacy group determined to address Maori child abuse and maltreatment.
“We are actually asking our people to … make a major mind shift about the beliefs of parenting …”
“We believe that smacking is simply another expression of violence against Maori children. If we can break the habit that our whanau have of hitting children, then more serious forms of abuse and maltreatment will also reduce.”
May 24, 2009
TVNZ’s Sunday portrayal of Jimmy Mason’s violent assault against his four-year-old son highlights the importance of the new law that shifts the norm so that force is no longer an acceptable or expected part of parenting, and gives children the same legal protection as other citizens. The child discipline law also ensures that parents are not able to claim a defence for assaulting a child.
The child discipline law is working if it means parents who punch, or otherwise seriously assault their child are found guilty. That is what happened in this case, according to the findings of the jury who heard all of the evidence in the Mason case.
Sunday chose to side with the Mason family. The jury chose to side with the evidence and the right of children not to be assaulted by a parent.
The purpose of the law is to allow children to live free from violence by abolishing the use of force for the purposes of correction. However, parents may use force such as restraint to prevent harm to a child. Preventing harm does not justify the use of violence. Even when parents are in “angry parent mode” there are always better ways than using violence and children will get the message better if they are communicated with in a clear, calm manner without being yelled and sworn at.
Children are let down by a society that doesn’t respond to concerns about their safety so the witnesses who saw Mason’s anger and violence did the right thing by reporting his behaviour and testifying about what they saw. It is essential that adults be prepared to speak out if they see a child being abused or have concerns about a child’s safety.
Violence teaches children that violence is okay, and it undermines a child’s physical and mental health. Jimmy Mason appears not to understand that his actions in anger put his child in danger physically and emotionally.
The child discipline law has not criminalised all parents. Police are closely monitoring the implementation of the law. Statistics show they are exercising discretion and only prosecuting serious assaults on children. Any suggestion that parents are being criminalised unnecessarily is nonsense.
If you saw the programme and were as disappointed as we were, please email them at Sunday@tvnz.co.nz
