Bradford welcomes Latta's newfound support for law

25 Feb 2010 12:12p.m.

leemichelea wrote:

I agree with Craig. The law had to change. kudos to Sue Bradford - more wisdom and bravery than all the pro-smacking referenda initiating people put together.

28 Jan 2010 11:47p.m.

Jennifer wrote:

I have 5 kids of my own aged from 1 to 15yrs. This law is bullsh** and should have never been passed. Some teenagers I know use this law against there parents to get there own way. Teenagers can take things out of context, twist it to work in there favour. what about the parents...then what happens in 5 to 10 years time when the jails are full and overflowing with yougsters. where will ms Bradford be....HUH ..!!!!! she left parliment....good one sue..be proud of that.. thats all you have created is a bad future for many.

09 Dec 2009 06:23p.m.

cynical wrote:

Craig, you can have the last word if you like, but I trust you will read what a Professor at law had to say about this. If on the back of that, you still want to ignore that opinion, by all means - it is your right but do not include others in that stance. If you are not prepared to read it, then I suggest you become more careful how you put things. You are already putting stuff like "brute force" but you never answered my question if you had read the article. We may end on the basis that we agree to disagree. I trust that does not mean you will place yourself above people again, just because they do not agree with you.

09 Dec 2009 05:04p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

The current reformed legislation does not penalise light taps on the hand to prevent little Johnny, Susie, Hemi or Marama from venturing out onto the road.

It is intended to target abusive and dysfunctional parents. Those people have no sense of greater social responsibility. They create monsters that learn that the use of violence is the best way to solve problems. And we all know where that leads.

Violent crime.

I repeat, battered, abused and neglected children of abusive and dysfunctional parents are usually the ones that turn into criminals and gang members. I'd be far more impressed with some of the social conservative opponents of reform if they stopped raving about parental rights and started talking more about parental responsibilities to raise good, law abiding citizens. Because that doesn't seem to be happening.

That does not mean the absence of discipline and boundaries. It means that those boundaries must rely on other means than brute physical force.

09 Dec 2009 02:20p.m.

cynical wrote:

Craig, if it was obvious that todays battered children turn into criminals, I have already stated that I do not support that notion out of experience. Neglected and abused children I agree more likely to but you should not add battered. That does not mean I condone violence - far from it - I abhor violence. But the point keeps being missed, and that is that a light smack has been made a criminal offence, when it is not intended. And the law has breached a constitutional duty and the moment we start deviating from the constitution is like removing the foundations from a house.

09 Dec 2009 11:36a.m.

Craig Young wrote:

And yet, I note that today's New Zealand Herald states that Nigel Latta's comments should be the end of the matter. I agree. Please, let's move on. Cynical, I do appreciate your support for victim's rights. It is one of the reasons that I supported reform.

Isn't it obvious that today's battered, abused and neglected children turn into tomorrow's brutal, violent and destructive offenders?

Granted, it is only one such cause, but nevertheless, logic suggests that it is a major cause. Let's not have the personal tragedy of hideously abusive and dysfunctional parenting become the equally ghastly multiple tragedies of bereaved and mourning families because someone's blighted offspring has just assaulted or killed their loved one. Look at most of the lowlife that perpetrates these outrages. Isn't that the most obvious background factor?

08 Dec 2009 09:33p.m.

cynical wrote:

How can anybody be proud of a law which has been passed through Parliament abandoning its constitutional duty, as said by Professor at Law Jim Evans? Craig - if you think that a Law Professor should not belong to "mainstream" New Zealand, please say so. I have the article now, and will be more than happy to email it to you, although it is easy to find in the New Zealand herald, as per the link by "A Parent". I cannot agree with you either about parents doing exactly the same to their children through personal experiences - I abhor violence in any form, anywhere, to any human being. I agree that section 59 was a mess but now it is still a mess - the way it is written, we might as well give the child to the state as soon as it is born because they can do it so much better. Perhaps this law is the best birth control ever invented because even good parents are on notice - see the article by Professor Evans.

08 Dec 2009 03:02p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

I agree, the government should be committing far more resources to Child Youth and Family, as well as encouraging donations to child health, welfare and development NGOs in this area.

To some extent, we are dealing with the consequences of social service cutbacks in the eighties and nineties.

Because of short-sighted government inaction and retrenchment then, battered, abused and neglected children were subjected to high levels of family violence then. As a consequence of being left without effective intervention then, they have probably now ended up doing exactly the same thing to their own children.

It is unrealistic to expect that to go away overnight. However, the pre-reform Section 59 was letting irresponsible and violent parents hit their kids with anything. I read some of the Family Court and other court cases from the pre-reform period. It had to go.

Good parents are not being penalised under this legislation. End of story. Isn't it more reasonable to wonder if our overly lax liquor laws are to blame for part of this situation and move to tighten up booze purchases?

08 Dec 2009 11:47a.m.

kim wrote:

Hi craig nice to see you again.
Answer me this. What was the purpose of this law change if it wasn't to curb some of the violence towards children? if this is the reason for it a quick check of the stats tells me that it hasn't made 1 bit of difference to the child abuse/killings that is the shame of this country. And if thats the case the prime minister promised to repeal this law if its not working as intended. I put it to you that its not working so he should honour his promise.

08 Dec 2009 11:09a.m.

Craig Young wrote:

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 about Section 59 repeal? Get a life and move on, please.