Yes, according to the Herald, John Key and Helen Clark met this morning and reached a compromise of sorts on the smacking bill with an amendment that reads -
So, don't be fooled. This isn't any kind of victory for parents or for families in this country.
Smacking your child will still be illegal.
UPDATE by Lucyna: See Not PC for a more detailed post on the smacking ban
To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child, or person in the place of a parent of a child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.Now, to me, that isn't much of a compromise. Smacking your child will still be against the law but police will have the powers to decide whether to prosecute or not (which they already do). They will probably also have to refer the matter to CYFS, who are a law unto themselves.
So, don't be fooled. This isn't any kind of victory for parents or for families in this country.
Smacking your child will still be illegal.
UPDATE by Lucyna: See Not PC for a more detailed post on the smacking ban
No it will not be, what is under debate is the motivation... correction or prevention... to simply say it outlaws smacking it to misinform.
ReplyDeleteIn it's original form it outlawed smacking, now it allows for the use of reasonable force for measures of prevention.
I'm discussing it at my own blog.
really Servant??, then could you explain this section of the bill and what that means?
ReplyDelete(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
Don't know about you mate, but this looks like smacking, grabbing an arm to remove child from shopping mall etc. or whatever is illegal if it is done in line with to disciplining your child.
Thanks John Key, nice one.
"In it's original form it outlawed smacking, now it allows for the use of reasonable force for measures of prevention."
ReplyDeleteAnd who decides the boundary between correction and prevention?
The police.
So we're still in exactly the same position as before.
Somebody in this blog was arguing a while ago that Key was playing some kind of subtle waiting game.
They were right.He's waiting for the public's memory of a principled man--Don Brash--to fade so his own particularly slimy brand of politics will look like an alternative to Labour.
It ain't. He's Labour Lite without the entertainment value.
This bill is being rammed through against the will of over 80% of Kiwis.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy? what democracy? Is anyone able to explain to me the difference between this and a ruling from the Supreme Soviet?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSeanj, it means that physical force for the purpose of correction, smacking or anything else that constitutes force, is not permissable under the law... but force as a measure of prevention is acceptable. It does not define force, so one must assume that 'force' would still be defined as it is now.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying I like them banning 'correction', what I am saying is that they are not banning smacking, they are banning smacking when it is used for correction.... they are banning force used for correction.
That distinction needs to be made.
Kg, yes it seems it is up to the police.... and lawyers in court. It's not a great situation, but it is going to become the situation. The sooner people grapple with what it actually means and get away from the political spin on both sides, the better.