Quote:
Originally Posted by ckwilliams
I think alot of NZ'ers were disgusted, not due to the fact that they weren't allowed to hit their children, but that they had their freedom taken from them.
I am a parent also and I believe in being able to do whatever I want, when I want. However, hitting your child is wrong. Looking at the parents/caregivers that have beaten their defenseless children, killed them even. I understand the why, but punishing parents for giving their child a smack on the bottom for being out of order i.e. the kid almost runs onto the road is not cool. Words hurt also and can have just as much of an impact as a smack on the hand.
She will be one of those politicians that will go down in NZ history, however not for the good she has done but she will always be remembered as the lady that took people's freedom away from them.
|
When ever I see someone talk about "hitting" children (as opposed to "smacking" them) it virtually negates what they have said. Of course we should not "hit" children. Using this word conveys the wrong impression.
It is just like, when this issue was first raised (IN ABOUT 2000) when the - then - minister of youth affairs, Lailla Harre, first announced that she would have a campaign to "rid the country of this dreadful S59 of the crimes act" which stated that the "use of reasonable force" was a defence. I sent a fax to her office and when I got not reply I telephoned her parliamentary office. Only to get hold of a secretary who insisted "
no it's not about "smacking" or "disciplining" children at all, it's all about hitting them over the head with lumps of concrete and iron bars" - seriously these were her words.
She sounded oh so concerned and oh so patronising.
I was just about too speechless to say anything further.