John Key lied today, as reported in this mornings DomPost. He said words to the effect that "smacking is legal". [Update: I've finally got to have a proper look at the article. I got it wrong, and owe Key an apology - he didn't quite lie, he just misdirected by avoiding the substance of the issue. I cover off here why his weasel words actually create a different problem with the smacking legislation.] Meanwhile, I reaffirm what Key is avoiding saying - that the law bans smacking for the purposes of correction or discipline.
This is what the act says:
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
How clearer could this possibly be? All forms of discipline (such as a smack) are technically illegal. Whether or not the police choose to prosecute is another matter. Actually, I would prefer the police prosecute all infringements of the law. We need to respect the laws, not be told to ignore them. If this results in injustice, the law must be changed to be just.
It is hard to debate when even the Prime Minister willfully misrepresents the facts.
Lindsay Mitchell: Go ahead - Break the Law
What Section 59 really says: Why parents are criminals
This is what the act says:
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
How clearer could this possibly be? All forms of discipline (such as a smack) are technically illegal. Whether or not the police choose to prosecute is another matter. Actually, I would prefer the police prosecute all infringements of the law. We need to respect the laws, not be told to ignore them. If this results in injustice, the law must be changed to be just.
It is hard to debate when even the Prime Minister willfully misrepresents the facts.
Lindsay Mitchell: Go ahead - Break the Law
What Section 59 really says: Why parents are criminals