FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Smacking Children, for or against?





paul_indo
Quote:
Smacking bill now almost certain to pass
New Zealand 12:55PM Tuesday March 13, 2007

Pita Sharples announced the Maori Party would back the law change.

Pita Sharples announced the Maori Party would back the law change.
The Smacking Debate


The Maori Party's four MPs will support anti-smacking legislation in its current form, meaning it is almost certain to become law.

The party's announcement today virtually kills an amendment proposed by National MP Chester Borrows that would allow parents to lightly smack their children.

The move comes after Prime Minister Helen Clark said today she feels embarrassed at New Zealand's poor international rankings for safety of children.

As lobbying intensified ahead of the third and final reading of Sue Bradford's smacking bill, Miss Clark said the current law is not helpful.

The amendment is expected to be voted on tomorrow night. The numbers have been finely poised and over the weekend Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said she was reconsidering her support of the bill in its current form.

Ms Bradford has said she would withdraw the bill if Mr Borrows' amendment was successful.

The Maori Party's other co-leader Pita Sharples today announced the party's four MPs would unanimously support the bill in its current form, to send a strong message they did not support violence against children.

Earlier, Miss Clark said: "I frankly feel embarrassed as prime minister when I look at the international rankings for New Zealand way down the bottom in terms of the safety of our children and I look at the violence which is happening against children in our homes and I think we have to do something and this change would be a step in the right direction."

She said the bill was about changing many New Zealanders' attitude to children.

"I think it's really a question about how New Zealand looks after and cares for its children and the truth is the law as it is operated has not been helpful."

The way some people had managed to successfully defend child assaults was not acceptable, she said.

"The problem with the law the way it's been is that those people have been getting off and there's been an appalling run of case law where children who have clearly been quite badly abused have seen parents get away with it and I don't think that's right, " she told reporters.

On Wednesday MPs will vote on an amendment to Green MP Sue Bradford member's bill Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. The amendment proposed by National MP Chester Borrows would allow light smacking.

Both Ms Bradford and Mr Borrows will be busy today arguing their cases.

Mr Borrows was to meet Maori MPs to seek their support. The vote is on MPs personal conscience but all Labour members are voting for the bill and most National MPs are against it. United Future and NZ First are divided. Miss Clark said she did not support Mr Borrows' amendment.

She said advice from the Law Commission was that it would create a situation at least as confusing as the status quo, potentially opening up a lot of litigation.

She said it was also unlikely to achieve better results and ran contrary to New Zealand's obligations under the United Nations.

Maori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia today said in a pointed reference to the Maori Party, that wavering MPs should take a clear stance on the issue.

"Maori have a high instance of battering women and kids. Some people are slipping and sliding on it, but I'm very clear about it."

He did not think the law would criminalise Maori parents any more than the current law.

The bill was a good means of bringing family violence, which had not decreased, out into the open, he told reporters.

- NZPA


I'm glad I am not a child in this insane politically correct left wing world.

I was smacked as a child, although probably not often enough, and it certainly did me no harm. In fact I am certain it kept me from worse trouble, like prison.
Caning in school was also a great deterrent to breaking the rules. As long as it is done without malice and evenhandedly then I believe it is a great form of discipline. Much better than the modern mind games, which don't appear to work anyway.

Smacking and caning are NOT the same as beating a child. It is the individual who carries out the discipline who is responsible for doing it correctly. Because some people abuse children all parents must loose the right to discipline their children in the way they choose. Insanity.

I find it amazing that as child discipline becomes more and more limited and liberal ideas take greater precedent that in every country child and particularly teen discipline is becoming more and more of a problem. Violence is on the increase, lack of respect for adults and teachers. And yet if one suggests that the two may be related then ridicule and insults are the usual response. Unenlightened, fascist, religious nut.

What is the situation in your countries on this issue, and what do you think about it?
SonLight
In my view, any physical punishment described as "smacking" is abusive. This use of the term may vary from one dialect of English to another, however. Common use, such as "I'll smack you if you ..." suggests hitting the child in the face or in some other arbitrary way.

I believe some physical punishment needs to be an option. Spanking is usually effective if administered without anger. I am reluctant to use anything but a hand, although a switch or small stick can probably be used appropriately.
iNs@nE
One should not forget basic ethics of life..

Just bcoz a child is small in size and is dependent on you - it doesnt not meant that you go ahead and show your anger on him...

it is not to be forgotten that we ourselves were once kids and just coz we were smacked doesnt mean you do the same to your children...

smacking only makes things worse...kills creativity and independence in the kid and this will lead to all kind of complexes in the future..

this is the one thing i like about the united states of america..they are very strict about the laws on child abuse and such things are taken seriously..

that is the reason that it is a progressing country today and literally the dream of most of the children out there who are being subjected to abuse..
rheanna
Whatever happened to the wooden paddle days.. Least then kids didn't act all bratty. Rolling Eyes
{name here}
I believe that some sort of physical discipline is necessary to make a child grow as an upright citizen, whether it be smacking them in the butt, a chin against the wall, or extra choirs. A time out or grounding simply doesn't cut it because all that I've seen suggests that it just makes the child more defiant toward authority(not something you want in the real world).
iNs@nE
{name here} wrote:
I believe that some sort of physical discipline is necessary to make a child grow as an upright citizen, whether it be smacking them in the butt, a chin against the wall, or extra choirs. A time out or grounding simply doesn't cut it because all that I've seen suggests that it just makes the child more defiant toward authority(not something you want in the real world).


Dont you think that doing this will supress him and for the rest of his life he will be oppressed by the same authority your are toning him to be loyal to..?

When the time comes for him to fight back , he will not be in any condition to .. thnx to the smacking he got when he was a child...

It is a known fact that a man is defined by his/her past ... if the past was bad ..then you can hope the future to be good...
{name here}
iNs@nE wrote:
{name here} wrote:
I believe that some sort of physical discipline is necessary to make a child grow as an upright citizen, whether it be smacking them in the butt, a chin against the wall, or extra choirs. A time out or grounding simply doesn't cut it because all that I've seen suggests that it just makes the child more defiant toward authority(not something you want in the real world).


Dont you think that doing this will supress him and for the rest of his life he will be oppressed by the same authority your are toning him to be loyal to..?

Well, I don't think the government will be that oppressive. Sure, travel restrictions are going to be enforced this year, but I don't think theres going to be anything like the Gestapo. I certainly wouldn't want the future to be in the hands of kids who can't cope with forms of authority and do not understand that there are great punishments for those who break the law of the land(Oh wait...it already is).

Quote:
When the time comes for him to fight back , he will not be in any condition to .. thnx to the smacking he got when he was a child...

You'd probably have to beat somebody with a lead pipe to get them to that point. Humans are still humans. I think that you can get the point across that if you do something wrong there are going to be consequences greater than the loss of a little time and the privelige of using items without going to such an extreme.
Montressor
{name here} wrote:
I believe that some sort of physical discipline is necessary...
In moderation, it's certainly much better (I believe) than psychological discipline.

iNs@nE wrote:
Dont you think that doing this will supress him and for the rest of his life he will be oppressed by the same authority your are toning him to be loyal to..?
To some degree humans have to be suppressed for society to function. If you have a desire for a new laptop, you work hard to earn the money (or answer those spam emails Wink ) to try to get one because you suppressed your desire to get one in conjunction with suppressing your desire to not do any work long enough to earn one rather than just stealing one. Our society (whether or not you like it) does operate on a morals/values system, which is the essentially the suppression of desires...

Hopefully you don't just discipline the child (however you wish to discipline him or her), but actually teach the child to discipline his or herself. If not, the they will indeed become overly dependent on moral supervision. You can make a child apologize to a wronged sibling under threat of emotional/physical/whatever abuse/discipline, but that does society very little good unless that child can learn to apologize under their own will.
bangala
I wouldn't smack my child for any reason, and I wouldn't allow ANY body, whoever, to smack her. It is just not right!
iNs@nE
bangala wrote:
I wouldn't smack my child for any reason, and I wouldn't allow ANY body, whoever, to smack her. It is just not right!


Clearly perfect...

I hear someome say that teh government aint gonna be that oppresive..

But in third grade countries..the conditions are so bad the literally everything is based on power..

you need to survive you need power..and when it comes down to a point like this...you should have the heart to stand up and fight for what is actually yours..

if smacking the kid continues...all that is gonna happen is him obeying all these orders..and literally end up being a political slave..and nothing else..

and please do not say that my child will never go to third grade countries...i am trying to make a universal point here..let us try not to make it specific to a few countries...
Montressor
iNs@nE wrote:
...all that is gonna happen is him obeying all these orders..
Yes, if the "smacking continues" for too long the child will become overly dependent on outside sources of discipline. However, you (as a parent) must instill a respect for society and the morals/values of society in your child. Otherwise we will end up with a society of individuals who don't care about others (past present or future others). Sticking up for your rights and defying authority is all fine and good until you start infringing on the rights of others, when that happens, the child must be taught (preferably not by physical abuse) that they have to respect the rights of others.
otiscom
Smacking a naughty child on the back of the legs (if they haven't listened to reason), does no harm.
All these "do gooders" should shut up and let us bring up kids.

Child abuse is a totaly different problem.
imera
I was smacked when I was a child, because in my home contry there is no rules against that. But when we moved to my current home contry there was not allowed to beat, or ssmack children. My mother still smacked me, only when I did wrong things.
But in my family we all love her, even how she could behave, she has done our lifes so much better and is always helpfull. One of my sisters is such a wild cat, but she has respect for our mom even how bad she can be. But that was not child abuse, I don't think so. Child abuse is if you punish your child without any good reason, even if the things they do isn't big things. But now these days kids is so bad that they could need a spanking now and then. And I understand that after a while with the kids not listening or doing even a small thing would be so frustrating that you would spank him/her just because you have tried other things
missdixy
I think that hitting your children is okay, especially if they cannot reason at all or enough yet. It's really an effective way of letting a child know that they have done something wrong. While I do not believe we need to encourage violence, I do believe we need to encourage discipline in children and that's a good way to do it -- as long as it's not overdone.
lyddi8
missdixy wrote:
I think that hitting your children is okay, especially if they cannot reason at all or enough yet. It's really an effective way of letting a child know that they have done something wrong. While I do not believe we need to encourage violence, I do believe we need to encourage discipline in children and that's a good way to do it -- as long as it's not overdone.


I totally agree with missdixy. That is a reasonable and fair view of the whole situation. I think between the age of say, 4 and 8, when children are learning what is/isn't acceptable behaviour, and don't yet have the capability of reasoning, a swift smack on the backside is fine. I probably got a smack on the bottom a couple of times a year during these ages when i was really naughty, and i'm certainly not wringing my hands with anxiety over it.

I mean, come on!! What's next, you can't yell at your children? I am SO over all of this PC crap. Rather than being "PC", what's wrong with being sensible and reasonable?
Related topics
Don Brown - The Da Vinci Code FOR and AGAINST
Does Money makes man happy?
Puppies scaled by owners
What's bad in your country. Which should be improved
Children and same sex couples (marriages)
Macbeth Ebook
The Children's Crusades (1212)
Outrageous: Denmark re-publish Mohammud cartoons
Specific questions about the Bible
Antivax; the legacy of Andrew Wakefield
Anti-cocaine immunity
What do you think about Same Sex Marriage?
Should there be a license to have children?
Do you think mythology is needed?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.