There is steady flow of incoming messages here at The Yes Vote headquarters. We are stoked by the support, mainly by people working at the coal face – Early Childhood Educators and people who work dealing with the consequences of family violence. We’re also bemused by messages from some members of the lobby of people wanting to regain their right to hit their kids in the guise of correcting their behaviour. We respect these people’s right to an alternative view, but reject the anger and misguided disregard for New Zealand’s awful record of child abuse and murder. Thankfully the love-to-hate ratio is very high, which reinforces our basic faith in humanity, and that the power of love and nurturing is much greater than the power of hate and violence.
Here is a sample of some of the messages:
I believe no person should be able to physically abuse a child, a smack of any type is not okay. Child abuse in NZ is appalling, our children have rights and should be treated with respect. Violence breeds violence.
I strongly support the no smacking legislation and as a third year early childhood teaching student I will strongly enforce the ideals in my teaching practice.
We value the rights of each child to live free from all forms of violence.
I have always supported the deletion of Section 59 from the Crimes Act so that it cannot be used as a defence of “reasonable force” after using violence against a child. Assaulting an adult is not allowed by law, so why should it be legal to assault a small defenceless child? There are better ways of bringing up a child to be a peaceful and responsible citizen than hitting it.
We fully support existing legislation and believe that the Police are using thier discretion regarding the law appropriately. We believe that the law is helping to change behaviour about hwat is acceptable child rearing pracitce in terms of the use of physical violence.
We support the new law, and totally support the principle that every child has the right to be safe from violence. To return to the pre-2007 law would be a step backwards for New Zealand.
Like all of us, kids naturally want to please those who love them. Managing behaviour of children becomes lots less of an issue when the general feel in the home is one of love and warmth.
Of course we don’t get it right all the time and sometimes it’s right to be negative, but sincere praise and encouragement far outweigh any negative remarks. Aim for a split of around 6-8 positives to offset a single negative.
Children who know they have their parents’ support and love are much more keen to please them with their behaviour – they want to get it right.
Dr Joan Durrant offers us this very watchable 10-minute digest of Positive Discipline, her 356 page manual covering establishing goals, providing warmth and structure, understanding how children think and feel, problem solving, and responding with positive discipline.
Watch in particular the first few minutes of the second video, which describe a positive parenting approach to dealing with traffic — exactly the situation which Jimmy Mason was faced with in the recent “face-punching” trial.
Two editorials appeared in South Island newspapers yesterday which indicate that the mainstream media understand the real issues behind the Jimmy Mason “face-punching” case, and its connection to the referendum.
Mason became the poster boy for opponents to the amendment of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which outlawed the use of “reasonable force” by parents, after he was charged with assault by police. His case was taken up by Family First, who believed it was a test case for police trying to deal with the impact of the so-called “anti-smacking” legislation. Mason was a victim of a silly law, according to the lobby group that believes it is okay to discipline children by hitting them…
The police did the right thing by bringing the case. Members of a civilised society do not teach their children road traffic rules by flicking their ears and punching them in the face. They teach them by leading by example, by patiently explaining to them, by warning them and by coaching them. When all else fails there is a range of remedies open to them. Beating them is not one of them.
The Christchurch musician was shaping up for a while there as a martyrish figure for the smackers’ rights brigade who had been warning so darkly that the change to Section 59 of the Crimes Act would lead to a parade of parents being criminalised for lightly smacking their children.
Have you noticed? That hasn’t happened. Police report that the impact of the law change, which has applied since June 2007, has been minimal…
The law change supported, after compromises, by both Labour and National did reduce so-called parental rights, but only to the extent an act of violence that would be flat-out illegal had Mason done it to your child or mine is no less illegal because it was inflicted on his own.
On most levels, the law change has not made much of a difference. We had been getting just a few cases where parents who beat their children with whips and pieces of wood were invoking parental discipline rights and getting acquitted. Now they won’t.
We look forward to these publications’ colleagues further north joining in their judgement that the current law is working well.
Most of the day-to-day work in running The Yes Vote Campaign is performed by independent volunteers, although some staff time is donated to the campaign by supportive NGOs. The NGO’s advocacy functions are funded from sources other than Government contracts. The campaign itself is funded by donations and private philanthropic funders that support the law. The Yes Vote Campaign will file a return of expenses with the Chief Electoral Office following the referendum.
Speaking for the volunteers, we’re just normal people, mostly parents, who are taking a huge chunk of time out of our lives to devote to this important campaign. Wanting the law to say that hitting a child is wrong is just a no-brainer for us.
You can dowload more posters on our free stuff page.
Please note: if you plan on distributing significant numbers of copies of any items from this site, please let us know so that we can include these items in our electoral return of expenses. See the notes under “Legislative requirements” in our Legal Disclaimer for more info.
Unfortunately, we don’t have the resources to post these items out to people, but you are free to download them, print them, and use them in whatever responsible way you see fit. Depending on stock levels, you may be able to get these items from your local Barnardos or Plunket office.
In his latest Hard News blog entry, Russell Brown provides excellent thought-provoking analysis on the Jimmy Mason “face-punching” child assault case. Brown is disturbed that the media are still referring to the case as the “ear flicking” case, rather than paying attention to the facts. But the media aren’t the only ones trivialising the details.
Brown points out that
Witnesses also said that Mason was repeatedly shouting “f**ing listen!” at his two children. He seems to have been so insensible to his own behaviour that he told the first police officer on the scene “I hit the big one in the face and that is what I do and that lady [the witness] can mind her own business.”
Bob McCoskrie says in the Herald, “… there was a concern that Mason may have been found guilty for only the ear-pull, as the actions of punching, and pulling the ear, were wrapped up in the same police charge. If that’s the case, then it’s a decision that does concerns us. We would like that clarified to understand how the law is being interpreted by the police and the courts.”
Brown responds:
That’s not the case and if McCoskrie had any honesty at all he would admit it. Jimmy Mason hit his four year-old son in the face with a closed fist. That’s what happened.
On 19 May 2009 a Christchurch father was found guilty of assaulting his son by flicking his ear and punching him in the face. While there has been a lot said about whether the father would have been prosecuted and found guilty under the old law, or should have been prosecuted at all, there has been no examination of case from a parenting perspective.
Dr Joan Durrant, in her book, Positive Discipline: What it is and how to do it, tells us that positive discipline is a way of thinking that focuses on identifying long term goals for children, providing warmth and structure, understanding how children think and feel and teaching problem solving. Key long term goals include encouraging the development of self-discipline and learning to take responsibility. A parent’s role includes guiding the child’s behaviour and modelling appropriate behaviour.
Were the Christchurch children shown by the father what he expected of them at the park and were safety issues explained and demonstrated to them? We don’t know. When the children behaved in a risky fashion and were “corrected” did they understand why their father was so angry? What did they learn from the experience? Perhaps just that when you are really angry its ok to hurt someone. Were they better informed about how to keep themselves safe in the future? Did they feel secure in their relationship with their father? These are relevant questions to ask ourselves when we think about how to respond to our children’s behaviour.
bFM Wednesday Wire’s Paul Deady talked to Deborah Morris-Travers yesterday, and the result was an unusually thorough discussion of the real issues behind the Christchurch “face punch” trial which has been trivialised by many in the mainstream media and in the odd lobby of people who think it’s OK to hit children.
Deborah also discusses the upcoming referendum, and why your YES Vote is so important.
Key points:
It’s significant that it was a jury ruling
The Police had discretion to prosecution, and police the six-monthly reports issued since the 2007 law change show that they are only prosecuting cases where parents have seriously injured their children
The court sentences being handed down in these cases are usually anger management and parenting education courses – which seems entirely appropriate, and provides additional support to the offenders to do their jobs properly as parents.
Parents are not being criminalised – The public is being seriously misled by groups like Family First and the Kiwi Party who are pro-violence against children. These groups have sought to minimise the significance of the issue by referring to this case as the “ear-flicking” case.
These groups collected enough signatures to force an unnecessary and expensive referendum on a stupidly worded question.
Smacking Children is not good parental correction, and there are 92 international studies that show that positive parenting is better, and that hitting children is harmful.
A YES VOTE promotes positive parenting and supports children.
Independent of the Referendum, the Child Discipline Law is scheduled to undergo a full review by the Ministry of Social Development later this year.
John Key has said repeatedly that the law is working well and National continues to support the law.
Public perception of the law is strong – a recent UMR Research poll showed that 43% of the public support the law, 28% are opposed, and the rest are undecided.
Children attain the best behaviour outcomes when they live in an environment that includes good structure, clear boundaries, warm communication, and love.
In homes where parents use violence against their children to correct their behaviour over four years or more, the violence tends to escalate. In many homes where children are abused, the parents say that it started out as punishment, but the punishment has gone badly wrong.
You can help prevent unacceptable behaviour by making sure you don’t put your child into situations which are likely to trigger it.
Children are naturally curious. If you put a small child into a room full of china ornaments, for example, they won’t be able to resist touching them.
Ways of preventing unacceptable or inappropriate behaviour include:
child-proofing play spaces and removing breakable things
providing several kinds of toys to avoid conflicts
varying the tempo of routines to suit each child’s temperament,
using calming rituals such as stories, songs or rocking,
re-focusing your child’s attention onto interesting , safe and acceptable activities
We need to guide our children’s behaviour so they learn what behaviour is appropriate in the different situations they find themselves in—and what behaviour is not appropriate.
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
