August 19, 2009
Hana (age 9) comments on why it’s wrong to hit children. Following this, Hana gives a short speech in Maori on the same theme.
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/fl8FRWTkq-o" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
Tags: Children's views, childrens perspectives, hana, maori, unicef
August 17, 2009
Dear NZ: Save The Children Sweden has launched a new website, www.dearnz.com to tell New Zealand what the rest of the world thinks about our referendum.
They’ve also set up a Twitter account, @nzabuse, to show real time comments.
It just goes to show that what’s happening here in Aotearoa is of international importance.
We are not alone, and the whole world is watching.
Tags: dear nz, nzabuse, save the children, sweden, www.dearnz.com
August 17, 2009
Supporters of the child discipline law as it now stands are urged to complete their referendum postal ballots and mail them before Thursday of this week, August 20, in time to be counted when voting closes on Friday evening.
“Voting Yes remains the positive option for this referendum,” says Deborah Morris-Travers of the Yes Vote coalition.
“A Yes vote supports children, good parents and the evidence published during the referendum lead-up that shows New Zealand parents are rejecting physical punishment as a ‘good parenting’ option.
“No one should be surprised that the No vote campaign is preparing a swanky hotel celebration to celebrate a hollow victory on the slanted and confusing question put to New Zealanders in this referendum,” says Ms Morris-Travers.
“The question was worded to engineer that outcome.
“What they didn’t expect was to be given a run for their money by the Yes vote campaign, which has found support throughout the community, especially among the hundreds of frontline voluntary and non-government agencies that work with real parents and real children every day of the week.”
Ms Morris-Travers appealed to supporters of the law who are abstaining from voting to think again.
“We all agree that this referendum is a waste of money on a bent question, but it is the democratic process in action. Only by voting can you truly participate and make a positive contribution for New Zealand’s children.”
August 17, 2009
Former probation officer Christopher Horan writes in today’s Otago Daily Times that people are sick of the debate and it’s time to move on, comparing the present situation to the debate around corporal punishment in schools. We moved on, and few regret the move to more effective ways of disciplining children in schools.
I’m confident that most parents who oppose Sue Bradford’s child-discipline Act are caring and responsible parents. That’s why I’m also sure they will be uneasy in the knowledge that their view is shared by most wife beaters, sex offenders, child abusers and child killers.
These are the people who cling to a distorted sense of entitlement to control the lives of others.
Moving on would leave them behind.
Read the full article at the ODT.
August 17, 2009
Better late than never. The Dominion Post’s editorial this morning backs the current Child Discipline Law, and Sue Bradford’s initiative.
… The law change has affected the child-rearing practices of many other other mums and dads. They have diligently tried to learn new ways to discipline wayward youngsters, even when their patience has been stretched almost to its limit. And police report that, despite the fears of Mr McCoskrie and Mr Baldock, they were called to only a few more “child assault events” in the six months to April 4 279 compared with 258 in the previous period. Of the 279 cases, none involved a “smacking” prosecution.
As long as police keep exercising common sense and parents strive to act with restraint, the Bradford initiative has been no bad thing.
Tags: Dominion Post, sue bradford
August 13, 2009
How does our referendum on smacking look to the world? Not good. Journalist Lotta Hördin wrote this editorial for independent newspaper Helsingborgs Dagblad the fifth largest morning paper in Sweden on New Zealand’s “tragic referendum”.
It’s never right to hit children (8th August, 2009 – Helsingborgs Dagblad)
Tragic referendum in New Zealand
Raising children using violence should definitely be a thing of the past. Unfortunately this is not the case. This is illustrated by the current referendum in New Zealand. Sweden was the first in the world to illegalize hitting children in 1979. Here (in Sweden) how could anyone think about changing this law? But in New Zealand, who introduced the law in 2007, an organization called Family First gathered enough signatures to force the politicians to carry out a referendum. The referendum is now underway.
The current opinion polls show that the majority of New Zealanders think a little “smacking” should be allowed. Indicating they want to remove the current law.
It was not easy when the law was introduced here (in Sweden). In the 1920’s a law called “Husaga” allowed the master of the house to hit his wife, children and servants. Up until 1958 teachers were allowed to hit students. But in the 1960’s public opinion turned and laid the foundations for the current law.
Since then 23 countries have created a similar law including our Nordic neighbors, and many other European countries. However, in the UK you are still allowed to smack your child and even in USA it is allowed in the home. In some states it is also allowed in the schools.
A law against smacking children doesn’t mean that all the violence stops. That’s illustrated in the statistics. Children get smacked and abused even in Sweden. You need more than a law to change bad behaviour, but from society’s side prohibition is an important signal. It also provides an opportunity to hold the offender accountable to the law. The increase in the reports of child abuse we have seen (in Sweden) can relate to fact that the tolerance levels have been lowered and in some way this is thanks to the law.
Children are vulnerable and defenseless to adults, therefore it is important that there are laws to protect them when people in their close environment fail. In New Zealand the opposition to the law argues that parents that give their children a smack on the bum are criminals. But where do you draw the line?
Well of course you draw the line that all violence is illegal otherwise you’re skating on thin ice. Raising children should, above all, be built on good communication and mutual respect. That is not to say that the adult surrenders and lets the child take over and decide everything. But violence large or small should be forbidden. The referendum in New Zealand is to illustrate public opinion on the issue. Leading politicians are planning not to vote and a NO to the law will be a hot potato to handle, but it shouldn’t be. The only right thing, of course, is that New Zealand in the future has a law against smacking children.
Tags: helsingborg, helsingborgs dagblad, husaga, sweden
August 13, 2009
The Local, an English language publication in Sweden reports that Liberal Party MP Helena Bargholtz is dismayed to learn that New Zealand is holding a referendum to reintroduce smacking. She says,
I am so disappointed learning from the Swedish media about the referendum in New Zealand as to whether corporal punishment should be reintroduced.
Hitting people is wrong – and children are people too. Corporal punishment of children breaches their fundamental rights to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity.
Its legality breaches their right to equal protection under the law. The rights of all children – the smallest and most fragile of people – must be fully respected.
Read the entire article at The Local.
August 12, 2009
As I am sure everyone is excruciatingly well aware, we are right now in the middle of the postal referendum on the physical discipline of children.
Voting started on 31 July and finishes on 21 August.
At a cost of $9 million to the taxpayer, the referendum asks:
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
I reckon this question is both misleading and ambiguous.
A lot of people tell me they have no intention of voting, or are going to spoil their ballot paper, because they are angry about money being wasted on such a confused proposition.
Other people are keen to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ because they have strong views on the issue and want to vote regardless.
This includes me of course. I will be voting ‘Yes’ and encouraging others to do the same, as I see that voting ‘Yes’ is a vote for keeping the law as it is.
Parents are not being prosecuted in their droves for giving their children a ‘smack’.
There is actually no offence called ‘smacking’ in New Zealand law.
There is, however, an offence of ‘assault’ which has always been there.
What the law change in 2007 achieved was simply the removal of the defence of ‘reasonable force for the purpose of correction’ which in the past allowed some parents to get away with quite badly beating their children.
The ‘reasonable force’ defence also meant parents felt they had a state-sanctioned right to use physical force as a way of disciplining their children.
New Zealand made a huge step forward two years ago when Parliament voted by a huge majority to take away this defence and give our children the same legal protection from violence as we adults enjoy.
I hope that despite the anger people justifiably feel at the way in which money is being wasted on this confused referendum question, some of you at least will consider voting ‘yes’ as an expression of support for the law change.
People often ask me, ‘If you think this question is so ambiguous, what should the question have been?”
Of course it could have been any number of things, but I believe a much fairer question would have been something like ‘Should the defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction be available to New Zealand parents?’
At least people would then have been a lot clearer on what they were voting for or against.
I have put a member’s bill forward seeking to ensure that in future when someone comes up with a proposal for a citizens’ initiated referendum, the Clerk of the House – who approves these questions – has more legal guidance on what should go forward.
I am suggesting that questions that are ambiguous complex, leading or misleading should not be accepted, and that the proposer keeps working on the question with the Clerk until it is clear and simple.
I am in discussions with the Minister of Justice about this at the moment, and hope the Government may change the law in this area as a result.
Meanwhile, the debate on whether our kids deserve a childhood free from violence continues, and will for a while yet, whatever the result on 21 August.
Tags: assault, reasonable force, smacking, sue bradford
August 12, 2009
Some months ago Sunday reporter Simon Mercep interviewed Jimmy Mason, the Christchurch father convicted for punching his son in the face. Following the show Sunday received a lot of correspondence and decided to interview more people about their experiences of physical punishment.
The Sunday programme for 9 August carried interviews with my family, and also with Simon Barnett.
In the telling of my story, as a child growing up in the 1970s, I related the strict and, at times, harsh physical punishment we received as a child. My parents talked about an era in which there was little information or support available for parents and they did what they thought was right at the time.
In my interview with Sunday, I noted that my older sister, in particular, had experienced a lot of physical punishment and that this had undermined her self-esteem, her confidence and sense of place in the family.
On one particular occasion I rang 111 and spoke to the operator about needing the Police to help my sister. The beating that was taking place ended so I told the operator I no longer needed help. I tried hanging up but discovered the operator was still there asking if everything was okay!
As a 9 year old this wasn’t something I could tell my parents about. It wasn’t until recently that we discussed it. My mother remembers the incident of physical punishment that prompted my call to the Police even though she hadn’t know that I had taken that action.
It is my belief that the anger my sister experienced contributed to her alienation from the family in her early teens, leading her to put herself in risky situations and then leave home at age 15. She later became a parent at 17 and had another child at 20. She went on to use physical punishment with her children.
Throughout her life it was clear that she carried with her anxiety and depression. Central to the story my family sought to tell was the important message that while the circumstances leading to her death were complex, being hit did not help build the resilience, confidence or resourcefulness she would need in adulthood. It undermined her sense of well-being.
As I have reflected on her childhood and teen years I have been struck by the similarity of her experience with the international evidence about the harms of physical punishment, including the potential for:
When I have spoken with my parents about all of this they have been clear that as time went on they did start learning new ways to discipline us. This is why, as the middle child, I received less physical punishment than my sister – who was 5 years older than me.
For me, physical punishment put a great deal of pressure on my relationship with my parents. It made me angry and resentful. I didn’t trust them or respect them. Nevertheless, I was lucky to be a lot more resilient than my sister.
In recent years, partly due to the work I’m doing, we’ve had the opportunity to talk these things through as a family. My parents have related the role of the evangelical Church in promoting the physical punishment of children, they have apologised and we’ve moved on.
My parents have spoken with me about having learned that they could actually reason with us as children. The great thing is that now, as Grandparents, they understand the power of positive parenting and the numerous, non-violent, strategies they can use with children in their care.
And, as a parent now myself I am adamant that hitting children is unnecessary and unacceptable. I am convinced that families can change and we can break the cycle!
On this, it was interesting watching the show on Sunday night, hearing Simon Barnett’s assertion that he didn’t smack in anger, but one of his daughters saying her Dad was angry. It is common for parents to downplay their level of anger when they resort to physical punishment.
It was also worth noting that Simon admitted that hitting his youngest daughter didn’t work. This is what many New Zealand parents are discovering and it is hopefully what Simon’s older daughters will realise when they become parents themselves.
Of course, during the course of filming the Sunday show we had lengthy interviews with Simon Mercep about all of the issues involved, about the positive parenting strategies we employ with my 4 year old daughter, about the law and children’s right to have the same legal protection as all other citizens, and about the need for a YES vote in the referendum. I was disappointed that there wasn’t more discussion on the show about the techniques we use instead of hitting.
The nature of TV shows such as this is that time constraints mean the editing is heavy and viewers get just a snippet of information – and of course it’s the most sensational bits!
We have received dozens of supportive emails in recent days, many of which have referred to the lasting anxiety and depression caused by childhood punishment experiences.
Thanks to everyone for their support. Reflecting on what was supposedly an ‘average 1970s childhood’ wasn’t all that easy. I’m pleased to be parenting in a new era of awareness about how to do things differently!
August 12, 2009
The NZ Herald reports today that most mainstream churches back a YES vote.
Some quotes:
“The law isn’t perfect, but [the Catholic Church is] reasonably satisfied with the compromise.”
The heads of the Anglican and Methodist churches say the current law, which bans the use of force against children for “correction”, is working well and should not be changed.
Baptist national leader Rodney Macann said the referendum was an opportunity for churches to declare their belief in “zero tolerance for violence”.
