For starters I don't agree that phil is a "sick puppy". Secondly, I'm embarrassed to be in a country with parties like families first and Mr McKoskin or whatever his name is saying "oh, but smacking is beneficial. Look, this christian university says so, so it must be true." I'm sick of all these creeps that start referendums, and march up queen street to be allowed to continue the right to assault their children. Embarrassing, but I'm not leaving NZ in case any smart alec suggests it. This is my country, and I'm P----d off at how many people with twisted reasoning say "But emotional violence is way worse." I agree that emotional and verbal abuse is really bad, but people convenientlyforget that physical violence causes physical AND psychological harm. Think about it.
I thought I was over the whole anti smacking thing, but a couple of posts here have got me seething again. I remember when Sue Bradford and her cronies were ramming this law change through, and it struck me how they always used emotive terms like "hit, whack & slap", but never "smack". When they were asked what was wrong with a light smack on the bottom, they would always say "Violence in any form is unacceptable". I found this tactic to be highly insulting, because they were insinuating that a parent who chooses to employ physical discipline is no better that a parent who puts their kid in a tumble dryer. I don't think any sane parent enjoys smacking their child - I personally hate it, and only do so as a last resort - but for a small clique of wet liberals to have the power to make it illegal, just because THEY choose not to do it, is utterly perverse. Imagine if their right to NOT smack their children was taken away!
I was brought up from the enviroment of disaplines where today is hell for the young people..Best to disapline the children today from baby to adulthood with a minimum help from the goverment to protect the health and the safety of the childrens..