Entry 525, on 2007-05-02 at 14:28:39 (Rating 3, News)
The big topic of debate in New Zealand over the last few months has been a proposed amendment to a law which makes reasonable force a defence in child abuse law cases. The so-called anti-smacking bill has resulted in a huge amount of heated debate - including threats of violence against the bill's originator Sue Bradford - ironically from people who claim that they were subject to physical force as children and it did them no harm!
Now the churches have got in on the debate. Self-proclaimed Bishop Brian Tamaki, founder of the Destiny Church (some sort of loopy modern fundamentalist institution) is firmly against it. I always though the Christian message was one of love and non-violence, but obviously I got it wrong. On the other side is the Anglican Church, and several others including the Catholics are neutral on the issue.
The fact is that many other "civilised" countries have had similar laws for many years with no major detrimental effects. The fear that parents could be imprisoned for minor acts of forceful discipline on their kids hasn't happened elsewhere.
In fact the current law is probably perfectly OK if it was used correctly. It states "Every parent of a child and every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances." Of course, the interpretation of that word "reasonable" has been totally inconsistent, with incidents of quite violent behaviour being accepted by the courts, often leading to worse violence at a later date.
All the major child-care organisations, most churches, and other informed groups support the bill. The general public don't, but many of them are totally ignorant of what they are actually rejecting. A sad fact is that, according to a recent poll, 80% of Maori reject the bill, but violence by Maori against their children is a recognised problem.
Like most political debate, this has degenerated into an argument based on political views: the loony left against the redneck right, or an emotional response instead of a considered intellectual one. Emotion has its place, but its not a good basis for formulating laws.
The supporters of the bill have probably not informed the public about its real effects, and many people are sick of the state interfering with their basic rights, but that is what the state is there for. The right to give your kid a good thrashing is not a natural right, even for crazies like Bishop Brian Tamaki.
There are no comments for this entry.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE