A dog bites you you put it down.
If a child bites you or hits you what happens?
You are looking at only one side of the issue.
How do you deal with children that are pushing the envelope of acceptable behaviour by biting or hitting their parents?
I suppose the child could be pushed off onto the Police or DOCS but I fail to see how this would be of benefit to the child.

It's always fascinating to watch a "progressive" reinterpret words for their agenda. They take a common every day used term and re-write it to suit their political ideology. The term "abuse" here is the classic example. Under Mr Gelfer's new definition, drunken, violent fighting can now be conflated with a light smack on a child's bottom. Anyone that engaged in about 5 seconds of critical thinking can see the intentions and the actual act itself are not the same. It's always prudent to keep in mind when reading or conversing with a "progressive" that they are always striving toward a utopia where people will no longer be "offended" or "hurt". Such a fantasy always sees them contorting language and desiring to instil the most impractical of policies.

I don't think this article is particularly helpful.

Let's first get the simple, objective, isolationist analysis of smacking out of the way: of course it's wrong, and of course it's abusive. This is not a difficult concept for an individual to swallow, and the objection to banning it has nothing to do with people's lack of "stomach" for accepting that it is an abusive act.

I would suggest rather (from a sociological perspective at least), the objection to banning smacking emanates from a general distrust of parents to have the skills to employ alternative discipline techniques - such as explaining to the child that something they have done is wrong, and getting them to acknowledge/take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, through methods such as talking them through it, having them apologise, make amends, accept the withdrawal of privileges etc.

Alternatives to smacking are difficult to achieve, they require sustained, consistent effort, a high level of communication skills, intelligence, self-control, and self-education... coupled with a "default" conducting of their relationship with their child in a respectful and inclusive way - and my sense is that we all realise that not all parents are capable (or have the time) of doing these things effectively and comprehensively. Or indeed you could say, that the "worst" parents are the least likely to fail in this regard, and to lose their temper and lash out.

A smack, on the other hand, acts as a sort of circuit-breaker, which I would think is likely to prevent an escalation of the conflict to the point where the parent loses control and does something really damaging.

So I would like to argue - difficult as it is to countenance - that while continuing to emphasise that non-violent methods are preferable, we also need to have a debate on what constitutes reasonable, acceptable use of smacking. Otherwise we are simply trying to achieve the impossible.

'If you were smacked by your parents, you have been abused.

If you have ever smacked your child, you have been an abuser. '

Obviously Joseph is totally blind to his corrupt nature.

It is not a good idea to legislate about smacking children.

Teaching parents how to keep children happy, well cared for and safe requires skills that not everyone has. It would be best to target better ways of disciplining and raising children than legislating.

In the UK when my son was small I recall the debates about smacking and how they made me think carefully that a smack should be a last resort. However, the burden of criminal prosectuion or any other legislated sanction is not right for parents.

runner,

We mustn't accuse people of having a "corrupt nature" just because we disagree with them.