Point scoring at the expense of children

Also see MP's children threatened - 01 Apr 2007 - The smacking debate - news and coverage

The leader of the opposition, John Key stoops into the "smacking debate" and shows his colours as he cyncially tries to enshrine smacking into the law books. The current law leaves it to the courts to consider. Over the course of time, that has proven to allow some parents to slip through the "reasonable force" loop hole, including the use of weapons against children. No matter the long term consequences.

Parents want cover of the defence of reasonable force so their freedom to ue smacking as a method of control is not criminalised. What other behaviours do they protect alongside their prediliction to adminstering corporal punishment?

MPs in New Zealand are being asked to consider the elimination of the "reasonable use of force" clause as a defense in cases of parental abuse from the crimes act.

This was a conscience issue but now seems a party line divide issue. The Right seek to make it into a parental freedom issue. The Left as a removal of a licence to abuse issue.

It is being attacked as an attack on parents who sense that police will be knocking on their front door to arrest them. As if they would be first on the list.

The debate has missed the point as has John Key who tried to get the right for parents to administer light punishment enshrined in law as a compromise, and thus cheaply ally himself with the 90% of parents that want legal protection to smack, but not hit. But there is no measure of the severity of what constitues "reasonable" and that is left to the court to consider. So why do people who use horse whips famously get away with it? The degree of elasticity in the law allows for it.

Extenuating circumstances and a lawyer will build a case for reasonable force, as "reasonable" implies that the agency of the child is in play against the parent, therefore what is to stop a parent from claiming that her three year old declared war on her so use of a civilian Taser was entirely reasonable?

The current law seems to be too elastic. Social conditions reflect upon what is considered reasonable, and for example, the police use of the Taser weapon (it kills a percentage of people) affects the interpretation of what society deems reasonable under the current law.

The bill change is minimal. Sue Bradford could have proposed a more far reaching legislation, but frankly New Zealand is not ready to stop hitting the kids, not just yet.

Police Taser Student at Southeast High School

MyFox Kansas City | Police Taser Student at Southeast High School Tasers have now been used on a student in a school. When the student resisted arrest after the principal found marijuana on him and called the police. The student was being questioned by the principal about an alleged break-in at the school.

To avoid shock, EPD asks for Taser input

To avoid shock, EPD asks for Taser input - News "There is still some debate over whether police officers can voluntarily be shot with a Taser during the training, as some instances have resulted in officers sustaining serious injuries, including heart attacks."

Taser use in Syracuse

News from The Post-Standard on Syracuse.com: Golf club used in fight A fight between two men on a golf course was broken up by a cop with a taser. Sounds great - the man had a baseball bat raised and that was sufficient reason to blast 50,000 volts though his nervous system. He was seen hitting another man with a golf club and had made eye contact and issued a warning. All this probably occurred in a few seconds. Therefore, basic training for a cop to talk down someone acting out of anger is not required. One warning and then the man is down. Instant punishment is not justice. It is born of a lynch mob mentality that demands instant retribution. The dynamics of policing are damaged by the use of weapons. It is great that in the USA where a cop may shoot first and ask questions later that the taser replaces a bullet. But in New Zealand where the cops have not been armed (except with batons) the taser is a step toward chaos. Instead of replacing weapons, it replacess respect, authority and the need to find ways to deal with danger. The taser is a blunt instrument of "justice". Not as final as a bullet but it puts punishment into the hands of front line police and that is a danger.

Massacre

More death in American Colleges

Blood spilled from early this morning in what authorities thought wa an isolated domestic incident. It was not. The assassin returned with an automatic weapon and intentionally slaughtered as many innocents as possible. Descriptions of the student as "Asian" could mean it was an issue of Homeland Security.

But, it is the over protective Homeland Security laws that could be seem as a factor in the response by authorities who would have categorised it as a "domestic" on some idiot scale, and not placed the Univesity on immediate emergency lockdown while the mass murderer was preparing for his major assault.

Heck, if I spent 300 billion on security I would expect to be able to stop a man carrying an automatic weapon on campus. The reactions of the students may seem a little surreal, unless you have been subjected to the sheer unreality and terror of being held at gunpoint, it may not seem logical that time kind of stops and one's actions may be based on panic instict rather than reason.

The very idea that the Government classifies threat without due process is why the investment in Homeland Security by constant paranoia is simply bad law.

The solution is to train people how to deal with the unexpected, not just provide a huge swallowing bureacracy. It is not identification of terrorists, it is civilizing the rest of us that is the real secret weapon in this "war on terror".

I've moved on from smacking

I've moved on from smacking - Opinion: views on the news on Stuff.co.nz There is a bill before parliament to remove section 59 exclusions to the crimes act that parents who inflict violence upon their children have escaped conviction. The use of "reasonable force" should no longer be available as a defence. Many parents have united in asserting their right to "lightly smack" children and protested the "right to smack" with a march on Parliament with kids brandishing banners saying they wanted to retain the "right to be smacked". Since the bill does not address smacking, the media calling it the "anti smacking bill" are misrepresenting the facts. The linked article by a parent explains, clearly.

The "Smacking Bill"

It is not a "Smacking Bill". It is removal of a provision that means that parents who are violent to their children are simply not brought before the courts. Maybe it should go further, but it does not. Why all this debate about "Smacking" being some kind of holy ritual is beyond me, but each time you strike your kid you are basically teaching your kid to use tactics and naughty behaviour in opposition to your will. Yes I am a parent. I speak from experience. Kids who are never ever smacked usually end up being very civil and kind individuals who excel at school. Hitting your kids makes them more stupid as it teaches them they are inferior. It teaches them to lash out at problems. The protest to "retain the right to smack children" is absurd. No law banning smacking has been proposed. The state has a duty to provide protection to children from cruelty and in-bred habitual punishment.