This morning on NewsTalkZB, John Key again repeated his confusion mantra on the upcoming referendum against smacking. Specifically, he said:
"The question is so confusing that if you want to vote yes, you have to vote no."
The question being: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
My advice to John Key is to take English comprehension lessons aimed at 12 year olds. The man needs help. Doesn't he have advisors that could explain the question to him?
"The question is so confusing that if you want to vote yes, you have to vote no."
The question being: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
My advice to John Key is to take English comprehension lessons aimed at 12 year olds. The man needs help. Doesn't he have advisors that could explain the question to him?
I agree that anyone who mis-interprets the question either has very poor English skills or is deliberately doing so (perhaps in order to discredit the referendum).
ReplyDeleteHowever, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that traditionally in referenda a "Yes" is a vote for the proposed change and a "No" is a vote for the status quo? If so, I'll agree that at least the question could have been better worded.
x,
ReplyDeleteyes, I believe that it is far more likely that JK is being deceitful. But, if he wants to push the "I'm so confused" line, I'm happy to go with that.
Mr Gronk,
I really don't know if Yes is typically the answer for change. Even if it is, it just takes a person of at least below average intelligence a moment to read the question before it's meaning is made clear. It's only those that don't like the simplicity of it that get "confused".
If yes is the traditional answer, then it makes it harder to win with a "no" vote. The anti-discipline people should be very happy with the wording.
ReplyDeleteAnd I use "anti-discipline" very deliberately as I am thinking about the current exact wording of the new s59 which prohibits applying any form of correction (discipline) including time-out, rather than the narrower form of smacking.
"The anti-discipline people should be very happy with the wording."
ReplyDeleteI don't think spending a few million on a badly worded referendum is something to be happy about. I'm pretty sure Mr Gronk's comment is on the money and Mr Key is using the term "confusing" to refer to that particular problem with the question, not that it's the only issue with it's wording (It's a fairly minor one in my opinion).
When the original bill was being debated I was concerned at the wide spread opposition to it. I supported the bill, but I would never support the passing of any law that didn't reach a proper democratic concensus. In the end though, only one party voted against it.
John Key voted for it. He's always said that his decision to alter it would be based around the actual effect of the law. It's what he said prior to the election, it's what he's saying now. He was voted in partially based on that stance, and I think it's a bit rich to expect him to change it based on a poorly worded referendum question.
If you voted for him expecting him to change it, don't you think that maybe it was a bit of wishful thinking on your part? Considering he supported it?
You neatly sidestep the crux of the matter David--the fact that the bill was passed against overwhelming opposition, and the fact that Key has said that HIS mind is made up regardless of the outcome of the referendum. Again, ignoring the wishes of the majority of Kiwis.
ReplyDeleteVery many of those who voted National likely did so as a protest against the totalitarian nature of Helengrad.
Key is no better if he ignores the result.
I guess you're right to a degree, but the main point of my post was to remind people that he voted for it. He's been consistant, he was voted in dispite of that stance, and this referendum is not a good indication of the will of the people. The "overwhelming opposition" shouldn't be terribly surprised with his actions.
ReplyDeleteI stated in another thread that I support binding petitions, but they should be more specific and reach a much higher standard of impartiality than the question this referendum asks.
I think if the "no" votes win the day it would justify further investigation as to what could replace the old law, but like I said in the other thread, I'm not sure what I'd like put in it's place. I think defining an objective limit of force would be difficult.
David,
ReplyDeleteif you remember the whole voting it in fiasco, National opposed that legislation right up until the last moment. And then it appeared that John Key (not National) made a deal with Helen Clark, to soften the law, adding police discretion. Now John Key, not National, is saying the referendum is confusing.
I did not vote for John Key. My opinion of him at the time was that he was most likely not what he appeared to be, BUT, that I would reserve judgement and see what he did, rather than go by what he said.
Whatever happened, Labour was far worse than National, as National at least (supposedly) is more likely to listen to the populace, thought that is appearing increasingly doubtful, and doesn't seem to follow an agenda right out of the Marxist playbook (though, that too is looking increasingly doubtful).
It comes down to pragmatism - I am putting more faith in the referendum putting pressure on the politicians to do what they should, than in what they've said. Because, politicians generally lie. It's just a question of what type of lie each one subscribes to.
David, the current law states that ANY corrective action is illegal. The current law suggests that parents are made default criminals and then the police decide who they are going to prosecute.
ReplyDeleteThe current law is confusing, far more confusing than this referendum question, on a number of levels.
As for "why vote for Key when he was clear on this matter" - that is exactly the problem with voting for one party on a huge range of issues, isn't it? Do YOU vote on a single issue? Should everyone else vote on a single issue? If only there was some kind of option to vote on specific issues. Oh, wait - that's what a referendum offers. How typical the left are busy trying to shut the referendum down and control the wording on any future referendums.
I don't buy the "referendum question is confusing" line. The same people are happy with a crappy piece of legislation. Then again, they probably haven't read it, don't care and are content to imagine it's a well crafted piece of legislation.
It is, if banning parental discipline of any sort was the intent.
"And then it appeared that John Key (not National) made a deal with Helen Clark, to soften the law, adding police discretion."
ReplyDeleteFirstly, JK didn't "add" police discretion, he just made the legislation point out what already existed. Secondly, it's extremely odd that you would say it was JK and not National, considering he is the leader of that party.
It sounds to me like you guys need a new party to vote for, if you're voting for a party when you don't even agree with it's leader.
"How typical the left are busy trying to shut the referendum down and control the wording on any future referendums."
This is actually quite ironic, since binding petitions and direct democracy has far more support on the left than it does on the right. As does proportional representation, something our current system could use more of, something that would help when contentious singular issues like this one crop up.
I said before that, "The uncertainty certain parents feel because of this law change is probably the biggest reason to vote no in this referendum, but I think that won't make much of a difference in the long term. I suspect that aspect will blow over eventually."
I doubt most people even knew s59 existed before 2007. I doubt the protection it offered offset the damage that it caused. No, it's not a perfect solution, I accept that. If you can come up with something viable to replace it then great, but if this question you've offered is representitive of the kind of solution you would offer then I think you have a long way to go.
"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
Is it good parental correction to smack a child in the face? no? bum then.. Can I use a stick? Can I leave a mark? Can I do it repeatedly? Can I make it a regular event?
...And before you decide to accuse me of calling you all child abusers, that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that your question isn't specific, it doesn't define a limit of force. If they have medical issues, some children might even be at risk from the kind of punishment that you would find reasonble to use on your own children.
This is the main reason why removing s59 completely was initially proposed, because defining an objective limit of force was so difficult. The outcome of each case should be determined on their own merits, that's what the police and the judges are now capable of doing, without potential abusers having a loophole that gets them out of trouble.
So you haven't read the new legislation then?
ReplyDeleteThis is the main reason why removing s59 completely was initially proposed, because defining an objective limit of force was so difficult.
Then it is strange that they still allow "reasonable force" in certain circumstances. Why did they do this, if it is too hard to work out what reasonable force was?
It sounds to me like you guys need a new party to vote for, if you're voting for a party when you don't even agree with it's leader.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't answer my question. In any event, there isn't a single party that does a good job of representing my views. No need to rub it in :-)
Section 59 states:
ReplyDelete"(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of -
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(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).
So you can use reasonable force as long as it is not for the purposes of correction. But no attempt to define reasonable force in this new act.
Correction is basically "disciplinary action", therefore no force allowed to discipline, technically, according to the law.
If we look at the law for assault, this can include even the threat of force, or restraint. Thus, threatening disciplinary action is also illegal.
So the default is that technically, under law discipline is illegal, but the police may not prosecute. And we are supposed to respect the law, except here we are told we can break the law because maybe it was just worded badly so as to catch bad people.
And to make it worse:
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the 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."
So perhaps they have defined reasonable force, or perhaps if Sue Bradford was in power then all uses of any type of force for the purposes of correction are illegal and in the public interest to prosecute, to "send a message".
Anyone claiming the question is ambiguous, (having two meanings) please help me out and advise first-
ReplyDeleteMeaning 1)
and then
Meaning 2)
Thanks in advance.
Guys, we need to wake up. We have been deserted by National.
ReplyDeleteAlmost all politicians, the cowardly media, the bureaucracy and the education system are our enemies.
John Key is just another socialist. We need to withdraw support for all parties and get a lot more angry.
Its them against us.
Its John Key and Phil Goff and their cronies and their elitist media and academic and bureaucrat friends against us citizens.
Rise up.
I doubt most people even knew s59 existed before 2007. I doubt the protection it offered offset the damage that it caused.
ReplyDeleteWhy should they have had to?
And what is this "offset damage? You think that all of the child abusers knew section 59 and exploited it, knowing "reasonable force" is too complicated thing for a judge to work out when presented with a dead child and a block of wood? You are not making sense.
"You didn't answer my question."
ReplyDeleteWhat question was that? It sounded like you answered your own question?
"In any event, there isn't a single party that does a good job of representing my views. No need to rub it in :-)"
We're in the same boat in that case.
I have read the new legislation, it seemed to me that the changes were quite pragmatic. Actually at least some of the kind of smacking that I've heard described here would probably fall under:
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
- The purpose of subsection(2)
(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).
Was to prevent force being used that go beyond meerly preventing the kinds of behaviour layed out in subsection(1).
After re-reading it, I think the biggest problem with the new law is the use of the word "correction". It's been used as a word that's contrary, or at least separate from "prevention".
Surely if you use force to "Prevent" a child from crossing a busy road, or to buckle them in the back seat of a car, or to stop them running amuck in a supermarket, that is a form of "Correction"?
But I guess that's the point you guys have been trying to make. It seems to me that the difference is timing, prevention of future or ongoing actions vs correction of acts that have already occurred.
As with all laws there's room for interpretation. The addition of these amendments was to give assurances to parents that they could use force to prevent their children from harming themselves or others.
I'll still be voting yes, but if you can come up with a way to word the separation of what the current legislation views as "correction" and "prevention" it would probably improve it.
PS: I hit preview and got your response so,
"You think that all of the child abusers knew section 59 and exploited it, knowing "reasonable force" is too complicated thing for a judge to work out when presented with a dead child and a block of wood? You are not making sense."
I was referring to the damage caused by allowing potential abusers to escape punishment.
The reason I said that was to back up my view that the changes were more about preventing genuine abuse as opposed to punishing normal parents.
David
ReplyDelete"Is it good parental correction to smack a child in the face? no? bum then.. Can I use a stick? Can I leave a mark? Can I do it repeatedly? Can I make it a regular event? "
I believe the inclusion of the word "Good" addresses your concerns
In an attempt to undermine the validity of this question
the observation has been made, that not every one thinks a smack is part of “good” parental correction.
If the question was simplified to ‘Should a smack be a criminal offence” It would have the effect of having no constraints around its application.
Including the word “good” in the referendum question serves to:
Ring fence when and how a smack may be used i.e. As part of good parental correction.
Reminds us that it is not so much the method of discipline but the manner that determines its appropriateness
“Good” Puts the use of a smack into context. i.e. In order for it to be “good” it must be reasonable and for the purposes of correction Sound familiar? That’s the wording from how the legislation was.
The use of the word “good” serves to high light that “intention and motive” play a role in the administering of corporal punishment As do other concepts associated with the word “good” eg suitability, validity etc
“Good” serves to remind us that, Administers of discipline must be self disciplined Otherwise they breach the criteria of “ good parental discipline”
The reality is that those who oppose the question, do so ,because they do not like the “no” answer .
B J
David
ReplyDelete"Is it good parental correction to smack a child in the face? no? bum then.. Can I use a stick? Can I leave a mark? Can I do it repeatedly? Can I make it a regular event? "
I believe the inclusion of the word "Good" addresses your concerns
In an attempt to undermine the validity of this question
the observation has been made, that not every one thinks a smack is part of “good” parental correction.
If the question was simplified to ‘Should a smack be a criminal offence” It would have the effect of having no constraints around its application.
Including the word “good” in the referendum question serves to:
Ring fence when and how a smack may be used i.e. As part of good parental correction.
Reminds us that it is not so much the method of discipline but the manner that determines its appropriateness
“Good” Puts the use of a smack into context. i.e. In order for it to be “good” it must be reasonable and for the purposes of correction Sound familiar? That’s the wording from how the legislation was.
The use of the word “good” serves to high light that “intention and motive” play a role in the administering of corporal punishment As do other concepts associated with the word “good” eg suitability, validity etc
“Good” serves to remind us that, Administers of discipline must be self disciplined Otherwise they breach the criteria of “ good parental discipline”
The reality is that those who oppose the question, do so ,because they do not like the “no” answer .
B J
Sweet, why don't we just make everything that's "good" legal, and everything that's "bad" illegal then? Moses had ten commandments, we can narrow it down to one!
ReplyDeleteIf it's bad, don't do it.
Awesome. Sorted.
"Guys, we need to wake up. We have been deserted by National.
ReplyDeleteAlmost all politicians, the cowardly media, the bureaucracy and the education system are our enemies.
John Key is just another socialist. We need to withdraw support for all parties and get a lot more angry.
Its them against us.
Its John Key and Phil Goff and their cronies and their elitist media and academic and bureaucrat friends against us citizens.
Rise up."
This post is the best of the lot, Redbaiter, well done!!!
-Do you by any chance watch Fox news, and if you do, do you believe it?
David, you are back pedaling.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, your argument that determining reasonable force was too complicated, so the law was changed has been totally refuted. Because they left the term reasonable force in it. THEY LEFT IT IN.
Second, I trust your comment that we who voted National have only ourselves to blame has been answered, and indeed the benefits of a referendum even clearer.
It doesn't matter at this point that it is non-binding. The fact that over 300,000 signatures were gathered should be indication enough Key needs to listen to the people. He's not, and making that clearer day by day.
Third, now you are excusing a bad piece of legislation with "As with all laws there's room for interpretation.
I find that staggering as the hysteria over a supposedly badly worded referendum question is high, with acceptance of confusing or contradictory legislation. Which requires more clarity?
The addition of these amendments was to give assurances to parents that they could use force to prevent their children from harming themselves or others.
That's not the important part. Subsection 2 is the important part.
The new provisions over the old, clear provision is that smacking (and technically ALL forms of discipline/correction) are now illegal. ILLEGAL.
So the referendum question that should a smack be illegal is a good question, because it plainly is illegal and good parents are told it's OK to break the law.
Finally, your flippant comment about making everything "good" legal carries both ways. Look at the new law: Here, we have made every form of discipline illegal.
That's the law as stated.
Then the police or courts decide how much they feel like punishing the parents.
It creates a climate of uncertainty.
It does not address the issue of abuse and the fact that people were getting off abuse by misusing the previous law is close to rubbish (I'll explain later when I get a chance).
Drat. Got bitten by timezones again. I'm not trying to be rude.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't saying the question is actually hard to understand. I was just saying that it's not ideal in the particular circumstances of a referendum.
In saying that, I'm not trying to give aid and comfort to the referendum's opponents. I happen - like most of the rest of you, I suppose - to believe that anyone who claims the question as written is "ambiguous" or "confusing" is really saying "I don't like the probable answer", and trying to discredit the referendum in the eyes of the public. If they think that, a more honest approach would be to tell the public why, in their opinion, the preferred answer is "Yes". Better to have an honest debate about the pros and cons of using physical pain as a discipline tool - and of having a law in place that specifically prohibits the same.
A topic on which I have my own views, but I'll address those on my own blog in due course. As regards the referendum itself, since I'm overseas, I've heard that my opinion is officially irrelevant.
Addendum: Despite my use of the rather blunt phrase "physical pain", I'll say this much about my views here: I'm not actually opposed to smacking as correction. And while my gut reaction is to call some cases "unreasonable force" that are reported as having gotten away with it under the old s59, I think a better solution would have been to improve the definition of "reasonable force" (cf. the ill-fated Borrows amendment).
ReplyDeleteI haven't back peddled. You've inferred too much from what I said, but then, you've done on more than one occasion. I said that the original plan to remove s59 completely was justified. The compromise that was reached was to help alleviate concerns in particularly stressful conditions, IE if a child was at risk, or was putting others at risk. The current legislation removes force as a means of correction but retains "reasonable" force as a means of prevention.
ReplyDeleteIt's not ideal, what is "reasonable" is subjective, it is up for interpretation, as was the old legislation, but I think it is an improvement. As I said earlier I would attempt to improve it by defining "prevention" vs "correction" better.
Sorry David, I thought you said reasonable force was too hard to define as your justification for wiping Section 59. Given reasonable force stays in, obviously not a good argument.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, all of your explanations are beside the point. The effect of the new law is to make any form of discipline illegal. Making it illegal because it is supposedly too hard for a judge to decide if unreasonable force is used is not good enough. That too ends up being beside the point, as Bradford wants all forms of discipline to be illegal. That's not a compromise, that is an affront to parenting and to the message that we are supposed to respect the law. The law is not respecting parents in this situation.
How is making all discipline illegal an improvement?
Also, this argument that some-one uses s59 to get off scott free from child abuse is overstated.
It is more accurate to say the judge decided jail would be counter-productive based on a range of issues and the family situation. I doubt very much that on a clear case of severe assault the judge is throwing up his hands and saying "you got me - I got to let you go".
There have only been a few cases over that have mounted this defence over many years, and it would be in the public interest to disclose the full details of the court case and the judges deliberations.
Unless you are a person wishing to make disciplining ones child illegal, reinstating s59 would be a fair and reasonable thing to do.
It would in NO WAY prevent police from investigating a case of alleged assault or abuse. It's just that parents would have less to fear if the issue is trivial.
For the paranoid, and to help any senile judges a clarification on what might constitute reasonable force could be accomodated.
It isn't really that hard, it's just that some people wish to ban smacking. Let that be the topic of the referendum, which it clearly is and send a message to the politicians that parents have a right to discipline their children.
Let them acknowledge that making discipline illegal is lazy and improper law making, and rectify their error.
If think the question may seem as confusing if you are the sort of idiot who doesn't think that smacking is a crime, but are happy for it to be made so under law in the false hope that an unrelated offence -child abuse - can be stopped.
ReplyDelete