Posts Tagged anti-smacking referendum
June 26, 2009
By Deborah Coddington
Why am I supporting the Yes Vote Team? For a number of reasons.
First, there’s the pragmatic reason.
Ten years ago I didn’t think much about Section 59 of the Crimes Act, but then I was assigned to write a feature for North & South magazine on the short life and cruel death of James Whakaruru. I interviewed the families of James and his killer and I realised, to my horror, that it wasn’t just a “light smack” used as everyday discipline, but jug cords, vacuum cleaner pipes, belts, closed fists, pieces of wood – anything close at hand when tempers were lost.
Members of the whanau argued with me, even as the earth on James’ grave was still fresh and the little windmills fluttered in the Hawke’s Bay breeze, this was acceptable if their children were naughty. Misbehaviour was defined as not eating their food, answering back or not answering back depending on the mood of the parent, making a mess – in fact any behaviour seemed to depend on what side of bed the parents got out of.
With some people you can educate and persuade as much as you like but you’re never going to make a difference. I believe you have to accept that laws must be changed if children’s lives are to made better. I accept that children will still die – sadly – and children will still be bashed, but there will be parents whose behaviour will be moderated because it is against the law to smack, belt, slap or whatever you like to call it.
You only have to look at smoking laws, or seatbelt laws, to see how they have changed people’s habits.
Secondly, the philosophical reason. I believe in the non-initiation of force, so why shouldn’t that apply to children as well as adults? Why should children have a lesser defence in court when they have suffered violence?
If I give my husband a shove, or a flick over the ear, or even a smack on the bottom, that is assault. There is no defence. If he lays a complaint and it goes to court, I cannot use “reasonable force” as defence because my husband might have come home late from the pub for the fifth time that week and needed some discipline.
So why should a child, who may have suffered similar initiation of force against their person, not be similarly protected? A child is a human being, with the same powers of reason as an adult – a mind, a heart, a brain. A child is not an “almost human being”.
Thirdly, getting rid of Nanny State. Eh?
Yes, you read that correctly, I want Nanny State out of our lives. Therefore the same law should apply to adults and children (though I am happy with the John Key amendment as it stands).
The pro-smackers who claim Nanny State is telling parents how to raise their children by banning smacking are actually doing more of the same by telling parents what kind of smack they can give their children. Act MP John Boscawen wants a new Bill which would allow a light smack. This is just another politician butting in with another law. Sue Bradford’s Bill actually got Nanny State out of people’s lives, but there was so much hysteria, nobody seemed to realise that.
I don’t expect miracles from Sue Bradford’s law change but hopefully, in the next few decades, we might see a shift in attitudes toward children in this country. It doesn’t help when issues are poisoned, and people like Christine Rankin are applauded for polarising the debate. It’s not simply a case of leftie versus rightie; Commie versus Christian. Jesus said suffer the little children to come to me, but Family First backs a father who allegedly repeatedly pushed over his little boy on the rugby field.
Loving smack? No such thing. How about hateful hug? And finally, consider this. Within marriage, rape was once legal between man and wife because marriage was taken as consent. Imagine we were campaigning to change the law, and those who opposed the amendment had written a referendum question which asked: “Should forced sex as part of a good marriage be a criminal act?”
June 25, 2009
Media Statement June 25, 2009
If the instigators of the citizens initiated referendum are serious about making life better for children in New Zealand, they should exercise their ability to stop the referendum and save some of the $9 million committed to this futile PR stunt. This is money that could be applied to making a real difference for New Zealand’s children and their families.
“The promoters of the petition forcing the referendum, Sheryl Saville, Larry Baldock and Bob McCoskrie, have a short window of time in which they could demonstrate some common sense and commitment to New Zealand families in these hard economic times, by withdrawing their petition,” said Yes Vote spokesperson Deborah Morris-Travers.
Legally, the petition can be withdrawn by its promoters before the Governor-General issues the writ for the referendum, which must be done by Friday 3 July 2009.
The Yes Vote coalition is calling upon them to act responsibly in this matter. It is clear from the referendum debate over the last two weeks that the question is misleading, many people remain confused about the application of the law, and there is no political will to change the law when it is working effectively. The outcome from the referendum therefore will be of little value.
The Yes Vote Coalition represents the major agencies working with communities to support parents and families. We support the child discipline law and we support parents. We see and understand the challenges faced by families throughout New Zealand and we know those families don’t want precious government resources being wasted on a referendum that will add little to the future well-being of their children.
“We call on the petition promoters to withdraw their petition while it is still possible to do so,” concluded Ms Morris-Travers.
- Contact: Deborah Morris-Travers. Tel 0274 544 299
June 24, 2009
KERRY WILLIAMSON on his Dominion Post blog, says he would like to think that he will never smack his new-born baby boy – ever.
“No matter how mad I get when he acts up, I just don’t want to be that kind of parent. No matter how loud he screams, no matter how big a tantrum he throws, and no matter how much he ignores me, I don’t want to smack him,” he writes.
He’s also annoyed that the government has legislated to this effect saying: “I’d like to think that parents should be able to parent however they want. I’d like to think that parents are responsible, caring and considerate towards their children. I can’t imagine that not being the case. “
However, he says, the reality is not so nice nor easy and goes on to cite numerous and terrible cases of child cruelty in New Zealand meted out by parents who believe in physical punishment.
June 23, 2009
Media Statement 23 June 2009
Promoters of the referendum on child discipline must be truly desperate if they are willing to make a father who repeatedly pushes over his seven year-old their new poster-boy for “a smack as a part of good parental correction”, says The Yes Vote.
“The no vote campaign would have used the so-called ‘ear-flick’ Dad as their example of supposed injustice against parents until he was convicted of punching his child in the face.
“Now they are pointing to an angry father, who pleaded guilty to assault, as a ‘great Dad’.
“We all get tired and frustrated as parents, but actions such as those described are anything ‘good parental correction’. They are a loss of adult self-control, pure and simple.
“If ever there was an example of why the new child discipline law is a step in the right direction to creating a society in which violence towards children is no longer tolerated, this has to be it.
“A Yes Vote in the referendum is a vote to ensure children and adults are protected equally.”
- Contact: Deborah Morris-Travers Tel 0274 544 299
June 23, 2009
Media release: Barnardos New Zealand 23 June 2009
“It’s bad that they are smacking them. It’s good that they are disciplining them but they shouldn’t be hitting them really hard. Maybe they could send them to the corner”
11-year old girl who participated in the What’s Up survey.
The debate around the Referendum ’09 on physical punishment has been widely debated by adults but who is listening to the voice of those who are at the centre of this debate – the children?
As New Zealand’s largest telephone helpline for children and young people, 0800WHATSUP provided an opportunity for children and young people to express their views about physical punishment and whether or not adults should be able to claim a legal defence if charged with assaulting a child.
“The initial results from the survey show that the majority of callers (more than 55 percent) do not think parents taken to court for hitting a child should be let off if they say they were disciplining the child”, says Murray Edridge, Chief Executive of Barnardos New Zealand.
“Despite this, comments from the children and young people who participated in the survey suggest many children are conditioned to expect and accept physical discipline from parents. Importantly, many of the callers suggested that parents should be let off with a warning or community service if they perpetrated low levels of violence against children”.
“This is how the child discipline law is working in practice. Parents are not being prosecuted for lightly or occasionally smacking a child, only serious levels of violence are being prosecuted”.
“Barnardos welcomes the sample of results in the survey that provide valuable insights into the views of children and young people about physical punishment. We are pleased that What’s Up has done this survey, giving children and young people the opportunity to express their point of view about a subject matter that affects them most in Referendum ’09”, concluded Mr Edridge.
Download the full report.
The telephone survey was conducted from 27 April to 10 May and was successful in eliciting a large proportion of meaningful votes and comments, with a response rate of around 10%. What’s Up continues to invite children and young people to express their point of view on the matter of “smacking” until the referendum closes on 21 August.
Contact:
Uschi Klein, Communications Advisor
DDI (04) 382 6717
Mobile 027 228 3088
PO Box 6434, Wellington
June 23, 2009
Media release, Tu Wahine Trust. 22 June 2009
‘Tick Yes for Tikanga Maori’ is the message being promoted by Tu Wahine Trust in West Auckland in response to the upcoming referendum. Maori must reject the law that sanctions the abuse of our tamariki and vote YES to help restore our cultural well-being practices says Sue Ngawati Osborne, child advocate (Maori) who is hosted by Tu Wahine Trust in Waitakere City.
“Hitting children is not part of traditional Maori child-raising practice – this would be like striking a tupuna (ancestor/grandparent) in the old days.” says Sue Ngawati Osborne. “Maori children are seen as carriers of whakapapa and mana which must be protected and honoured.
“Observations from prominent European settlers of the 1800s confirm that Maori treated their children with great respect, love and devotion – and not only to their immediate offspring. In fact the settlers were surprised to see just how indulgent Maori men were to their children and of never seeing a child being struck are a couple of examples that reveal a history of non-violence towards children uncommon to the Europeans who observed it.
“The law on child discipline was imposed on Maori by the early settlers and has had disastrous effects. Now, more than 160 years later, child maltreatment and abuse is a huge issue for Maori to overcome.
“What is helpful is that Maori have the knowledge, traditions and expertise within their own communities to counter this law, apply cultural healing and eliminate violence against tamariki.”
There are Maori service providers in the community such as Tu Wahine Trust who are there to help rangatahi (young people) and whanau with parenting programmes and violence prevention programmes to keep our tamariki safe, she said.
Tu Wahine Trust supports the approach of Te Kahui Mana Ririki who state: “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.”
By voting YES to the referendum question, we can all play a part in restoring the status of our tamariki as taonga (treasures) who live free from violence and abuse.” says Ms Osborne.
June 22, 2009
Press Release: Green Party 21 June 2009
Today New Zealand celebrates two years of positive change for children since the law changed to give children the same legal protection from assault as adults.
New Zealanders should be proud of the progress made in positive child rearing practices with a clear message getting through that the use of force for correction is never justified, said Green Party MPs Sue Bradford and Metiria Turei.
The pair are heartened to celebrate two years of a safer world for our children and young people.
The 2007 amendment removed a legal defence that saw parents who had beaten their children claim a defence of ‘reasonable force’ and escape criminal convictions.
Ms Bradford said the law change is her most significant achievement as an MP, but she cannot take all the credit.
“I’m conscious that it’s a major social reform only brought about through the dedicated work of many individuals, community and church organisations – and MPs.
“But none of us can rest on our laurels.
“It is important now to continue to progress from this positive move and to ensure that the law continues to afford children the greatest possible protection.”
All the evidence so far – including three police reviews – shows the new law is working well. An array of Non-Governmental Organisations – such as Plunket, Barnados, Save the Children, Unicef, Jigsaw, Women’s Refuge and Parents Centre – have joined forces to promote the YesVote campaign, said Green Party Co-Leader Metiria Turei.
“Our MPs will vote ‘Yes’ in the coming referendum despite the confused and ambiguous question. We recognise that the referendum is a misguided attempt to return our law to the 19th century. On this two year anniversary, we celebrate how far our country has moved to create a safer world for children and young people.”
The young people of New Zealand will look back on the law change as a pivotal seachange in our country’s culture, Mrs Turei said.
“I’m proud of the work our party has done, and the achievements we’ve made with that law change. I’m proud of the work of Sue Bradford, in leading that change for the Green Party and for the community. Our kids will, in time, recognise the importance of this law change too.”
June 21, 2009
Deborah Coddington (New Zealand Herald, June 21, 09) decries the “dastardly” referendum in her regular column saying it was organised “by grown men who should know better”.
She says there is no such thing as a “loving smack, just as there is no such thing as a hateful hug” adding that it was no wonder children were “not valued as individuals in this country, but instead as some sort of chattel belonging to adults”
“We do not own our children,” she says, “a fact that has yet to be driven home to those selfish individuals who fight their way through the Family Court over who has the offspring, ensuring any remaining family happiness is destroyed forever.”
She goes on to argue that she doesn’t see a future in NZ for treasured children nor respect for their presence.
She admits she gave little thought to the issue until 10 years ago when she wrote about the death of James Whakaruru and realised how “normal it was for discipline to include beating children”
She concludes asking how we would react if the question was: “Should forced sex, as part of a good marriage, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
June 21, 2009
In his column in the Sunday Star Times (21/6/09) Finlay Macdonald takes apart the referendum question calling it “ambiguous” and “an indictment of the intelligence of those behind it”. Instead he suggests his own question: “During a recession, should the linguistically challenged be allowed to waste taxpayers’ money on pushing their reactionary agenda?”
No thinking person, he writes, “regardless of their personal parenting philosophy” could answer the referendum’s question in good faith.
He concludes by saying: “All the law now states is that nothing in all that “justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction”. In other words, if you belt your kids just to teach them a lesson, rather than to prevent some clear and present danger or disruption, the law is not necessarily on your side.
In their continuing resistance to such healthy reform and their lamentable inability to even mount a coherent argument against it, the backers of this referendum disqualify themselves from any claim to have the best interests of children at heart.”
June 21, 2009
Media Statement: The Yes Vote Coalition 21 June 2009
Debate ahead of the August referendum on the child discipline law risks being the same polarising, wasted opportunity as it was in 2007, says the Yes Vote coalition.
“The Yes Vote welcomes the fact that all political parties, except Act, have pledged their support for the child discipline law, which came into effect two years ago today.
“While the last week has been an important demonstration that our political leaders understand the importance of retaining the law as it is, the debate has reignited some of the angry and abusive tone that characterised debate in 2007…
“The reality is that when it comes to stopping New Zealand’s appallingly high rates of child deaths and abuse by international standards, we are all on the same side,” said Yes Vote spokesperson Deborah Morris-Travers.
“Yet some of the mud slung at supporters of the current legislation obscures this important fact of national unity.
“We have never promoted the view that simply passing a law would either instantly change attitudes or national child abuse statistics. To expect that would be naïve. However, opponents of the law continually cite individual abuse cases as “evidence” the law isn’t working,” said Ms Morris-Travers.
“There is a slow shift occurring in New Zealand, which has already occurred in many countries, away from physical discipline as an acceptable element of parenting. The child discipline law has an important contribution, over time, to reducing the attitudes and behaviours that put children at risk of abuse.
“I suspect that in 10, 20, 30 years time, we will look back with the same surprise as we now look back on racial segregation, opposition to the women’s’ movement, or native forest clear-felling and we’ll wonder what this debate was all about.
“Change takes time and leadership. The Yes Vote welcomes the political leadership shown over the past week.
“We have noted the many public statements from journalists and MPs expressing disapproval of the referendum question and of the cost, however, we see this as an opportunity to better inform people about the child discipline law, how it is working two years on, and the importance of ensuring a focus on the interests of children.”
Ms Morris-Travers concluded by saying, “We look forward to constructive participation in a national debate as the referendum unfolds and we remind people there are some good reasons to vote in the referendum, to support a Yes Vote:
- To demonstrate that people are not fooled by the referendum’s tricky question.
- To continue to demonstrate to politicians that there is support for the law.
- To address attempts to undermining public confidence in the law.
- To achieve some quiet time for the law to bed down peacefully and have a positive effect on the way children are disciplined in New Zealand.
- To observe over time, and in an unbiased way, how it is working in practice.”
- Contact: Deborah Morris-Travers. Tel 0274 544 299
