Mikk

You confirm that the non smacking brigade are often the most violent. Why am I surprised. Maybe you needed the cane as you were growing up to deal with your little ugly tantrums. Maybe then you would think a little more rationally and less like an emotional cripple.

MaryE,

You're kidding me right?. Please keep trying...?. Not here to please you sweetheart.

Have a look under 'Parental Control' in the New Zealand Crimes Act.

http://www.google.com.au/

Oh good grief...

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328291.html#DLM328291

Exactly what I told you it was.

Hello belly, you say that "we know the law". Well I don't belly, and I can't find it on the net. I can find dozens and dozens of blogs and newspaper articles, but that's all. Belly, if the people here "know the Law" how come they can't reproduce it's wording? I'm talking about it's actual wording, the text of this NZ Law. I think it's obvious nobody here knows what that NZ Law actually says, including me and you. So, how can an informed discussion take place about a Law, when nobody knows what that Law actually says? Answer, it can't. And I've noticed people are even hurling personal insults. Is that what normally happens on this website? Thank you belly.

Hello STG, thank you for that link. However doing it in a gracious way and with good manners will cost you nothing.

That link shows pretty much what I thought it would show. The text of Section 59 says, " Every parent of a child and every person in the place of the of a parent of a child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour or (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting".

In other words THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A BAN ON SMACKING YOUR CHILDREN IN NEW ZEALAND. Just as I suspected. Thank you STG.

I am firmly in favour of smacking as a disciplinary tool being legally available and agree that anyone knows the difference between that and abuse.

Smacking has worked fine for thousands of years and there is no reason to change it. A gentleman on the radio recently pointed out that just because some people drink drive doesn't mean we should ban driving. Deal with abusive parents rather than socially experiment.

Robert,

"Research which I've posted links to previously and which you have ignored shows a clear correlation between high use of smacking to discipline children and later violence in life."

You chose the words carefully. Yes it was a correlation. No causal link was established and I think we discussed at the time the possibility that confounding factors could have been present for the children or the parents to create the extreme situation.

It found some problems at the extreme end of the scale. There is no reason to extrapolate it to normal families. The researcher did so unashamedly in his conclusion but he clearly has a barrow to push. Indeed the tired chant that smacking makes children violent is something that I find extremely tedious. Have you ever smacked your child and are they violent?

I believe that one of the most common reasons triggering smacking in the first place (others being danger and insolence) is violence. The toddler who strangles their baby sibling and refuses to stop or remain stopped learns it is unacceptable by means of a smack. Dogs have been trained not to do things with smacks. They can work out that the punishment is meant to deter specific behaviour not teach them to be violent and don't turn savage. Why do we assume that toddlers are less capable? Are toddlers who bite taught to bite by their parents? In reality it is the unfortunate reality that we don't need to learn violence.