sponsor: sevitzdotcom uses vzaar for all his video needs

I can’t say I disagree with you there.

Right there with you on this one!

Agreed.

What is farcical is that most of the people proposing this action have admitted that they smacked their kids when they were younger.

So how exactly does this work ? They can discipline their kids, but other parents cannot ?

:rollseyes:

My mum forbade violence of any kind in our house (although my dad did once get so angry with me and my brother Ben that he forgot that rule and banged our heads together), although often spoke of ‘the wooden spoon’ with much reverence.

I turned out pretty much alright (er, I think). When I used to teach my kids would often ask me: “Do you wish they’d bring back Capital Punishment, sir?” and I’d always respond: “I couldn’t bring myself to hurt any of you guys, even if it was demanded of me.” (I didn’t secretly tell them there was one particular student who really needed the living crap beaten out of him)

I don’t think physical punishment is required, or even useful, in any family environment. However, it is not my right, or the governments, to tell parents how to raise their kids.

d

I agree with that. Although I’m wondering if my Mom chasing me down the street with a spatula is now concidered “Capital Punishment”. Or getting hit with my Dad’s belt.

I’m with you on that one. Even down to the smacking as a child. Although my mother could have done with being locked up and the key being thrown away (even now). I think I tended to look to my dad if I had done something seriously wrong. I got smacked twice and like you the threat from him was more than enough to keep me in line.

I don’t agree with a complete ban on smacking a child. How will it be policed? think of the cost involved in the man (and woman) hours taken to investigate a claim of this nature. Also does a 3 year old know the implications of saying “mummy smacks me” when she doesn’t really? nope I don’t think so.

A revision of the current laws to look in depth at that “grey area” of the law dating back to 1860 would be a more suitable way to spend our tax paying money, rather than writing a whole new law.

smacking beats yelling at a child which definitely beats hitting a child.

if you disagree (‘you’ as in whoever made up these crappy laws) with the way i raise my children, then you go ahead and raise them for me - without laying a finger on them.

Well said.

The only thing I disagree with in this post is the second clause in the final sentence, which is patently a fabrication.

If you can’t tell the difference, you shouldn’t be allowed to have kids.

Therein lies the rub. Most people shouldn’t be allowed to have kids, but do it anyway. In fact the majority of parents are those least qualified to look after children.

After reading about this further I have concluded it’s a molehill being made a mountain by a frenzied press. Children should not be smacked to a degree where they they are cut or seriously hurt. Any parent who has hurt thier child to this degree needs to ask serious questions about what sort of person they want thier child to be. The government has a responsibility to protect children from parents who want to hurt thier children to this degree. A law with a definite guideline about what consititutes discipline and what consititutes downright cruelty is a step towards this end, and that is all that this is.

d

Hitting a child to punish them or make a point is teaching them that violence is an acceptable response to not getting one’s own way. Sophisticated adults should be able to come up with something a little more reasonable.

Incidentally, capital punishment = the death penalty. You’re talking about corporal punishment.

Karen - picky, picky, picky!

In my day, if you got out of line and did do much as even think about speaking in front of your elders and betters then death was considered too good for you.

What I would like to know is how many of the morons punting these laws have children, and of those who do, how many of them have kids who are potheads.

I may sound like an ogre [not just because I look like one] but I believe children [upto a certain age] and pets fall into the same category - most of the time they can be told [read threatened] and they will obey, but occasionally they need to see some follow-through to realise their boundaries. It worked for my parents, it works for me and it has worked for a lot of people I know.

There is a difference between smacking and abusive violence, ethically and morally sound parents know this difference.

No government has the right to tell me how to raise my child unless they wish to raise them for me.

I think we can safely say that most of us got a smack from our parents. It didn’t kill us.

A smack is a smack - abuse is very different. As a child, I clearly survived. As a parent, know that it is very, very difficult not to react at some point by threatening a smack and then ultimately following through as a last resort.

The average parent doesn’t want to smack their child - it’s traumatising for both parties. Try loving someone incomprehensibly and then resorting to smacking. It is NOT nice, it is the last resort.

The inability to differentiate (whether for moral, social, economic or political reasons) between abuse and a smack is an issue.

Cynicism prevailing, it’s far better for politicians to lament children’s behaviour than suggest that most people are not good parents. OOPs, wouldn’t want to lose those votes…!

I think we are discussing something the Daily Mail has manufactured for the sake of being outraged about the nanny state. A motion to ban smacking completely was never even tabled- despite the wishes of a variety of protest groups who wanted it.

The motion was that discipline that results in serious harm to the child (causing bruising or bleeding) should be made illegal. This is a perfectly rational law that should have been carried, and the DM wanted to whip the country into a frenzy about it by overstating its case, and it seems to have worked.

We can’t fall back on “Well my parents didn’t…” and “Normal parents know…”, that is not how laws work. Are there unacceptable things to do to children? Yes. Should children have the protection of the law? Yes. That is what was being discussed, not an outright banning of smacking.

d

I just read that article twice, and it really doesn’t mention a motion to ban smacking, it just mentioned a lot of people WANT one, and thier wants were sensibly rejected- so why the fuss?

The compromise motion that was tabled was entirely appropriate: Children should not be beaten to the point they become damaged. Now if we can just outlaw the barbaric practice of infant circumcision, we’ll be all set. Boo-ya!

d

Ahh..the voice of reason. I can think of maybe three times in my life where I was actually smacked/spanked. Both the threat and the follow through worked on me in short order. I’ll admit to not having kids, but I think I have a pretty good grip on discipline. I have 6 nieces and nephews who all behave better for me than their parents. Why? Because I always follow through and I don’t threaten. I don’t yell and scream. I’ve never had to do more than ‘thunk’ them with a finger to the ear and that is a last resort. My niece is hell on wheels though. I can see the wooden spoon in her future. ;)

adrian @ 14 : i wrote a terrible post (which you may have seen) chez-moi as i was literally seething about the topic. i should re-write it, but it’s a bit too late now.

ANYway, when you say “So I got a smack. The ego bruised more than the buttock”, you are spot-on. the ‘pain’ lasts … several seconds, but it’s the ego that gets bruised - but even that is forgotten quickly and they are out playing in the road again.

However, I got smacked all the time because my parents were not imaginative enough to be able to come up with something that would really have stung. It never stopped me doing anything. And I’d be disappointed in myself if I ever had kids and the only way I could think of to get them to do what I want would be to hit them.

And I agree with Dan re: circumcision.

Non-consent is exactly what’s wrong with infant circumcision. Just like piercing the ears of a baby.

You cannot be arguing that anything is correct merely because it is tradition, surely? And while of course any generation may see fit to discontinue that which they may consider harmless, they do not have the ability to undo the damage caused to them by the generation that did not.

I am not saying that is always causes actual harm - of course there are many like yourself for whom circumcision as a child is not an issue, just as any number of six month old babies with pierced ears will be fine with it and I have no qualm with adults getting circumcised. It is absolutely an issue of rights and whether parents (or whoever) should be able to permanently alter their child’s body to fit with their own beliefs. A young child cannot give consent to a proceedure that will mark them for the rest of their lives. A parent could not tattoo their child for good reason, one you would probably agree with yourself, yet they are allowed to do this.

Anything can be justified in a religious context, this is a purely secular argument.

I’m sure there are. But my absolute is consent. If the child can’t give their permission, nobody has any right to do anything to that child under any banner of religion, culture, tradition, personal beliefs or anything else as far as I’m concerned. Reprehensible actions (whatever we may consider these to be) of any kind cannot be justified no matter how intrinsic they may be to our - or anyone else’s - culture.

Your parents made literally hundreds of decisions for as a child for cultural reasons or because they think these things are best for you. Your parents made decisions about your diet, where you live, what school you attend, your initial religious experiences, your exposure to cultural activity etc., which have probably had a profound affect on the way that you are today.

If you are talking about ear piercing and circumcision then permanently altering your child’s appearance in such a manner is likely to be an extremely minor influence on their lives compared to the other “non consensual” decisions that your parents make for you before you are capable (or legally allowed) to make them yourselves.

Why offend someone’s cultural preferences or even religious beliefs (even if you personally think they are stupid or simply don’t understand them) to ban something that has such a minor influence on a child’s life, especially compared to the other permanent “life decisions� that you make for your child as a parent?

Somewhat off the original topic. For me this is touchy subject, it is not about circumcision or ear-piercing, it is about imposing your views on someone else, because you feel you are obviously right - this way of thinking gave us the holocaust and apartheid - demeaning someones cultural or religious beliefs and practices because you don’t understand them only leads to trouble.

Sometimes traditions have more value than one can break them down to.

Tradition is the oldest, most useless defence of any argument I’ve ever heard- it’s not even a defence, it’s an admission that there is no rational defence.

When I was a teacher, it was part of my job to get students to stand up and speak in front of other students. I was told by several Maori parents that girls were not to speak in front of boys, and I was not to encourage it. It was part of their culture.

You know what? Too Damned Bad. Sometimes cultures need to wake up and smell the freakin’ coffee, if part of their tradition is harmful to children. The only circumstances a baby should be circumsized is if it lives in a desert with limited access to water for hygeine purposes. There, it has a valid and useful purpose. Anywhere else, it’s a pointless, invasive and traumatic peice of radical surgery- and saying “Well, it’s tradition!” is like trying to justify terrorist bombings by saying it is old Islamic custom to go on jihads and we really shouldn’t interfere with their culture.

d