Anti-smacking law is working – former opponent

05 Mar 2010 08:20a.m.

Curious wrote:

I'm sorry. Have we missed the point here? When this anti-smacking bill was first introduced, Sue Bradford promised that it would reduce the amount of children killed by their parents. It would reduce the amount of children beaten by their parents, she said, and would save lives. Have we studied the statistics? Is it really working? Have we checked with the people who deal with the broken bones and vicious bruises? ED's and Womens Refuge? Or has it been dumbed down into a pointless debate over whether or not parents are being prosecuted for smacking their children? That's simply a white-wash and a side-issue. Remember the promises. And check the facts. I bet it's not working at all. Most people who beat their children don't care a hoot for laws like this - in that respect I doubt it will ever work to save lives.

09 Dec 2009 05:02p.m.

cynical wrote:

Craig - I fail to see why you bring up Nazi Germany - that came about due to the "have's and have not's, following the first world war. That is why the same mistake was not made - hence the Marshall aid. But you do not have to convince me about the evil - I have known a survivor of the concentration camps well, branded and all, I know the people and babies affected by having to stay quiet in hiding. I know how it affects them today.
However, I do think it is a little removed from ignoring 87% of the polulation, including Professors at Law! Im my view, all people are created equal, and it does not matter if one is a Professor at Law, a Farmer, a doctor, a cleaner, the rubbish collector. We need them all. And yes, we need the likes of Nigel Latta a great deal, to give some perspective, humour and real help for all the people he is involved with. And I appreciate his courage and conviction but he should not stand alone. Someone like Professor Evans should have been on the very same panel. Every society has to have certain rules, usually preceded by a Constitution. It is when we start deviating from that, that problems begin to get worse.

09 Dec 2009 03:52p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Cynical: I'm afraid that my problem is that lawyers are not involved in practical work related to child health, development and welfare as pediatricians and developmental psychologists are. The latter have relevant expertise in the area. The former do not.

Yes, experts do change their opinions over time. However, without expertise, what are we left with? The culture of anti-intellectualism and populism leads one down some worrying paths. When I hear words like 'tradition', 'common sense' and so on, I think back to the dark days of Nazi Germany, where anti-Semitism had many poisoned sources of backward public opinion to feed on. We all know what happened to German Jews during the ensuing barbarity. And yet, many Germans would have said that their views were based on tradition and common sense.

Indeed, many brave and courageous New Zealanders nobly gave their own lives to stop that paradigm of evil. Sometimes, we the people can be grievously wrong.

09 Dec 2009 03:52p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Cynical: I'm afraid that my problem is that lawyers are not involved in practical work related to child health, development and welfare as pediatricians and developmental psychologists are. The latter have relevant expertise in the area. The former do not.

Yes, experts do change their opinions over time. However, without expertise, what are we left with? The culture of anti-intellectualism and populism leads one down some worrying paths. When I hear words like 'tradition', 'common sense' and so on, I think back to the dark days of Nazi Germany, where anti-Semitism had many poisoned sources of backward public opinion to feed on. We all know what happened to German Jews during the ensuing barbarity. And yet, many Germans would have said that their views were based on tradition and common sense.

Indeed, many brave and courageous New Zealanders nobly gave their own lives to stop that paradigm of evil. Sometimes, we the people can be grievously wrong.

09 Dec 2009 02:10p.m.

cynical wrote:

Hi Craig - and would you put your trust in a law professor as well, or just social and medical people? We are all human, Craig, and medical people also make mistakes. 40-50 years ago, it was normal to give electric shock treatment - it was the new technique by the professionals! Kim is so right and I am afraid you are so wrong. I have already stated that for every professional/expert finding a for opinion, there is one finding an against opinion - that is what Kim means with the gravy train. That is how experts charge many thousands per report. To take parenting away from parents and leave it to the State, or the head of Barnardos would be an too simple solution, don't you think?
Whilst I have the utmost confidence in Nigel Latta, and Nigel is a good supporter of parenting, he is not a lawyer and the question is if the law is working well. Whilst it is good that so far apparently no good parents have been charged yet, it is not exactly the end of the matter - why was a Professor at law not asked the same question? I have a fear that Nigel has been used here somewhat, and wonder if he had been advised of the legal position. I can hardly imagine that Nigel is one who would do away with laws, even though it might be tempting at times, when we see how some lawyers argue the untenable. By the same token, I would not like to see just an opinion from a lawyer either - I have advocated the enormous benefits of someone like Nigel in other cases as well, and would like to see this continued.
It is enormously helpful but that is all it is, not a guarantee that all is well and we live happily ever after.

09 Dec 2009 02:08p.m.

kim wrote:

craig
You really should be more careful with these big words you try and use. The definition of ad hominem is "A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute." this is a direct cut and past from another post you have made on this site to do with this subject and i quote "Kim, why can't whingeing wingnuts like you grow up and realise that mainstream New Zealanders are really getting tired of your ilk's whining, manipulation and lies" I can only guess at where you get your ideas from but as my mummy used to say..engage your brain before opening your mouth (or in this case browser)

09 Dec 2009 11:27a.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Kim:
I'd far rather place my trust in properly qualified professionals with proven track records than fringe elements with no such qualifications, professional skills or self-regulating professional organisations.

Incidentally, if you cannot engage in rational debate without engaging in facile ad hominem wisecracks, then why waste space by posting here?

09 Dec 2009 07:54a.m.

kim wrote:

Ha ha craig thats typical of the comments i see you write. Put your trust in the "professionals" when its been proven over the years that they are usually more interested in keeping themselves in work and profit. Ever heard of the leaky buildings? And to attack my gramma just shows that you are cluching at straws to back up your argument. Oh and by the way i teach at level 5 and 6 level in computing so im not a moron.

08 Dec 2009 08:42p.m.

Jan.. wrote:

They must have earned approximately over one thousand from me driving over limit at 50 to 70 kilometer zone,when speed cameras first occured in our country..
I don't mind it' as I felt that they needed to pay for the speedy cameras..

08 Dec 2009 08:40p.m.

cynical wrote:

Thank you for the link to the article by Professor Jim Evans - I have read it with interest. What I did not know is that this smacking law was passed by Parliament abandoning its constitutional duty. The sooner this law becomes clearer, the better, because Professor Evans had already stated that "Mother needs a good lawyer", the very thing I have repeatedly stated will do a lot of harm to the family. I am no expert in law, but the Crimes act provided for a 2 year jail term - would it not have been much easier to remove the vagueness of reasonable force? or what I advocated earlier, disbar lawyers who think that injury or death can be reasonable?